Effects of myo-inositol vs. metformin on hormonal and metabolic parameters in women with PCOS: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Polycystic Ovary Syndrome is the most prevalent hormonal disorder in females. Over the years, metformin (MET) has become the first-line choice of treatment; however, due to its gastrointestinal side effects, a more recent drug, myo-inositol (MI), has been introduced. We aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effects of MET and MI on hormonal and metabolic parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Authors extensively searched PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and Web of Science for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) until August 2021. Eight (n = 8) articles were included, with a total sample size of 1088, of which 460 patients received MET, 436 received MI, and 192 received a combination of both. Standard mean differences (SMDs) and Confidence Intervals (CIs) were used for data synthesis, and forest plots were made using Review Manager 5.4 for Statistical Analysis using the random-effect model. RESULTS: The meta-analysis indicates that there is no significant difference between MET and MI in terms of their effects on BMI (SMD = 0.16, 95% CI: - 0.11 to 0.43, p = 0.24), fasting insulin (SMD = 0.00, 95% CI: - 0.26 to 0.27, p = 0.97), fasting blood sugar (SMD = 0.11, 95% CI: - 0.31to 0.53, p = 0.60), HOMA index (SMD = 0.09, 95% CI: - 0.20 to 0.39, p = 0.50), and LH/FSH (SMD = 0.20, 95% CI: - 0.24 to 0.64, p = 0.37). BMI, fasting blood sugar, and LH/FSH ratio reported moderate heterogeneity because of the varying number of study participants. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis comparing hormonal and metabolic parameters between MET and MI did not show much significant difference, indicating both drugs are equally beneficial in improving metabolic and hormonal parameters in patients with PCOS.

Remote Monitoring in Heart Failure patients: A Systemic Review and Meta-analysis.

Heart failure (HF) approximately affects about 1%-2% of the adult population in developed countries and is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Inadequate HF management occurs because of poor adherence to prescribed medications. This meta-analysis compares and contrasts standard care with remote medication monitoring in HF patients. Six randomized control trials were selected using the PubMed database from inception until October 25, 2022, incorporating a total of 2390 patients with HF, out of which 1260 were subjected to remote monitoring while the remaining were in the control group. An odds ratio (OR) with a confidence interval (CI) of 95% was calculated. Remote monitoring in HF patients did not significantly reduce the risks of Cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization <6 months (RR = 0.32, P = 0.27), emergency department (ED) visits (RR = 0.95, P = 0.56) and all-cause mortality (RR = 1.08, P = 0.36). However, a significant reduction in CV hospitalization >6 months was associated with remote monitoring (RR = 0.83, P = 0.002). The meta-analysis revealed that remote monitoring does not significantly reduce the risks of CV hospitalizations, ED visits, or mortality in patients with HF. Therefore, standard care methods must continue to be utilized in HF management.