Efficacy and safety of corticosteroids for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The role of corticosteroids in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remains uncertain. We conducted an updated meta-analysis to investigate the effectiveness and potential effect modifiers of adjunctive corticosteroids in patients with CAP. METHODS: The protocol of this meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022354920). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and trial registers from inception till March 2023 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating corticosteroids in adult patients with CAP. Our primary outcome was the risk of all-cause mortality within 30 days after randomization (if not reported at day 30, we extracted the outcome closest to 30 days). Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MDs) were pooled under a random-effects model. RESULTS: Fifteen RCTs (n = 3252 patients) were included in this review. Corticosteroids reduced the risk of all-cause mortality in CAP patients (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.53-0.89; high certainty). This significant result was restricted to hydrocortisone therapy and patients with severe CAP. Additionally, younger patients demonstrated a greater reduction in mortality. Corticosteroids reduced the incidence of shock and the need for mechanical ventilation (MV), and decreased the length of hospital and ICU stay (moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Corticosteroids reduce the risk of all-cause mortality, especially in younger patients receiving hydrocortisone, and probably decrease the need for MV, the incidence of shock, and the length of hospital and ICU stay in patients with CAP. Our findings indicate that patients with CAP, especially severe CAP, will benefit from adjunctive corticosteroid therapy.

The association of antibiotic exposure with new-onset inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The role of antibiotics in the development of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains controversial, primarily due to conflicting data from individual studies. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to study the effect of antibiotic exposure on IBD development. METHODOLOGY: The MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were queried from their inception to April 2021 for published articles studying the association between antibiotic exposure and new-onset IBD. Our analysis was stratified by timing of antibiotic exposure - exposure in childhood and any lifetime exposure. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from each study were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: 10 case-control studies and 2 cohort studies (N = 29,880 IBD patients and N = 715,548 controls) were included. Patients with Crohn's Disease (CD), compared with controls, were associated significantly with antibiotic exposure in childhood and any lifetime exposure to antibiotics (OR 1.52 [1.23-1.87]; p<0.00001). Patients with Ulcerative Colitis (UC), compared with controls, reported non-significant association with antibiotic exposure in childhood and any lifetime exposure. (OR 1.11 [0.93-1.33]; p = 0.25) CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that exposure to antibiotics significantly increases the odds of developing CD and IBD. These findings re-emphasize the importance of cautious and judicious use of antibiotics.

Does individualized guided selection of antiplatelet therapy improve outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: The potential benefits of individualized guided selection of antiplatelet therapy over standard antiplatelet therapy in improving outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have not been established. Therefore, we pooled evidence from available clinical trials to assess the effectiveness by comparing the two regimens in patients undergoing PCI. Methods: We queried two electronic databases, MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL, from their inception to April 20, 2021 for published randomized controlled trials in any language that compared guided antiplatelet therapy, using either genetic testing or platelet function testing, versus standard antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing PCI. The results from trials were presented as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and were pooled using a random-effects model. Results: Eleven eligible studies consisting of 18,465 patients undergoing PCI were included. Pooled results indicated that guided antiplatelet therapy, compared to standard therapy, was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of MACE [RR 0·78, 95% CI (0·62-0·99), P = 0·04], MI [RR 0·73, 95% CI (0·56-0.96), P = 0·03], ST [RR 0·66, 95% CI (0·47-0.94), P = 0·02], stroke [RR 0·71, 95% CI (0·50-1.00), P = 0·05], and minor bleeding [RR 0·78, 95% CI (0·66-0.91), P = 0·003]. Conclusions: Individualized guided selection of antiplatelet therapy significantly reduced the incidence of MACE, MI, ST, stroke, and minor bleeding in adult patients when compared with standard antiplatelet therapy. Our findings support the implementation of genetic and platelet function testing to select the most beneficial antiplatelet agent.

DOACs or VKAs or LMWH - What is the optimal regimen for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Clinical guidelines have supported the use of direct anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (Ca-VTE). However, recent trials have reported increased bleeding risks associated with DOACs usage, raising concerns regarding its efficacy. Objectives: The authors conducted a meta-analysis to study the efficacy and safety of DOACs for the treatment of VTE in cancer patients, compared with Low-weight molecular heparin (LMWH) and Vitamin-K antagonists (VKAs). Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines from inception to June 17th, 2021.The primary outcomes studied were VTE recurrence and major bleeding. Results: A total of 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling almost 7000 patients were included. Direct oral anticoagulants significantly reduced VTE Recurrence in cancer patients when compared to patients treated with LMWH or VKAs (Hazard ratio [HR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.83; P = 0.002; I2 = 26%). There were no statistically significant differences for major bleeding (HR 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-1.33; P = 0.50; I2 = 34%), clinically relevant non-major bleeding (HR 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-1.91; P = 0.35; I2 = 66%), pulmonary embolism (HR 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-1.06; P = 0.10; I2 = 7%), and all-cause mortality (HR 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-1.12; P = 0.78; I2 = 1%), between DOACs and LMWH. Conclusion: This analysis shows that DOACs are the optimal regimen to treat Ca-VTE. They have a similar to slightly increased bleeding risk compared with LMWH and are a safer alternative to VKAs.

Safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants in comparison with warfarin across different BMI ranges: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Many publications have compared various outcomes defining safety and efficacy of DOACs across different BMI ranges. Our meta-analysis compares warfarin and DOACs for its treatment effects over different BMI ranges. Methods: A systematic search was conducted from inception to May 2021 on PubMed, Scopus and Embase databases. The data was extracted and pooled using a random effects model. Our study consisted of patients being treated for VTE and AF, across different BMI categories. For the comparison of DOAC, risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used, whilst for the second comparison between warfarin and DOACs odds ratios (OR) were used. Results: In our first comparison, 12 studies (n = 254,908 patients) were included. For our second comparison, six studies (n = 109,609 patients) were included. Major bleeding events in the underweight group were higher than normal weight [RR: 1.89 (1.10, 3.23); P = 0.02; I 2  = 0%]. Overweight patients were related with reduced rates of VTE than in patients with normal BMI [RR: 0.86 (0.76, 0.97); P = 0.02; I 2  = 0%]. In comparison with patients receiving warfarin, DOACs had significantly reduced risk of major bleeding in normal weight, overweight and obese [OR: 0.64 (0.49, 0.83); P = 0.0007 I 2  = 90%]. Conclusion: The risk of VTE reduces with an increasing BMI, hence there could be a possible obesity paradox in patients with anticoagulation therapy. In comparison to warfarin, DOACs proved to be the safer option by having a reduced risk of bleeding across all BMI categories.

The Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

COVID-19 has proved to be a serious, and consequential disease that has affected millions of people globally. Previously, the adverse effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) have been observed with increasing the risk of pneumonia and COVID-19. This meta-analysis aims to address the relationship between the use of PPI and the severity of COVID-19 infection. We conducted a systemic literature search from PUBMED, Science Direct, and Cinahl from December 2019 to January 2022. Published and unpublished randomized control trials and cohort studies were included. Review Manager was used for all statistical analyses. In total, 14 studies were included in this systemic review and meta-analysis. Outcomes of interest include: (1) susceptibility of COVID-19 infection and (2) severity of COVID-19 (defined as the composite of poor outcomes: ICU admission, need for oxygen therapy, need for a ventilator, or death), and (3) mortality due to COVID-19. PPI use was marginally associated with a nominal but statistically significant increase in the risk of COVID-19 infection (OR 1.05 [1.01, 1.09]; I2 97%, p = 0.007). PPI use also increased the risk of the composite poor outcome (OR 1.84 [1.71, 1.99]; I2 98%, p < 0.00001) and mortality (OR 1.12 [1.00, 1.25]; I2 84%, p = 0.05) in patients with COVID-19.

Efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants with and without Aspirin: A systematic review and Meta-analysis.

Background: Various anticoagulant therapies are prescribed to patients under physicians' discretion and recently Direct Oral Anticoagulants(DOAC) have been under trials to evaluate their safety and efficacy. In addition to this, the regimen of DOACs and Aspirin is of keen interest as researchers continue to find an optimal regimen to treat blood clots in patients. This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies that asses the safety and efficacy of DOAC with and without Aspirin. Methods: We queried MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL from their inception to April 2021, for published and randomized controlled trials and observational studies in any language that compared dual (DOAC + ASA) therapy or mono (DOAC alone) therapy in patients with AF. The results from the studies were presented as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and were pooled using a random-effects model. Endpoints of interest included major bleeding, myocardial infarction (MI), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), hospitalizations, all-cause mortality, and stroke. Results: The risk of major bleeding was significantly lower in the DOAC alone group compared with DOAC plus aspirin group. Non-significant results were obtained (P value greater than 0.05) for other outcomes establishing that DOAC monotherapy was not superior to the combined regimen in reducing the risk of MACE, Stroke, Hospitalization, Death. Conclusion: Among patients with NVAF (Non valvular Atrial Fibrillation) and VTE (Venous thromboembolism) receiving anticoagulation prophylaxis, in terms of safety profile our comparisons showed a statistically significant reduction in Major Bleeding in DOAC Alone group compared with DOAC Plus Aspirin.

Meta-analysis evaluating the impact of chili-pepper intake on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Dietetics today occupy a significant place in the field of research, helping to discover cardiovascular benefits of healthy diets and consumption of organic foods such as fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, and whole grains. One of the components of vegetable-based diet is chili pepper (CP) which has been found to affect all-cause mortality. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, EBSCO, and Cochrane (Wiley) Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception till January 9, 2020, identifying all relevant studies using keywords and truncations. Studies were included if (1) they were observational or randomized in nature (2) included patients consuming CP and (3) evaluated direct comparison between regular and rarely/never CP consumption. RESULTS: Our preliminary search yielded 6976 articles. Post exclusion and after full-text screening, four potential observational studies with a population of 570,762. Pooled analysis found reduced all-cause mortality in CP consumers compared to nonconsumers with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.75 [95% CI: 0.64-0.88; p = 0.0004; I 2 = 97%]. The RR for CVD, cancer related and CVA deaths were 0.74 [95% CI: 0.62-0.88; p = 0.0006, I 2 = 66%], 0.77 [95% CI: 0.71-0.84; p = 0.0001; I 2 = 49%] and 0.76 [95% CI: 0.36-1.60; p = 0.47; I2 = 93%], respectively. CONCLUSION: Statistically significant results of our analysis put forward a rationale indicating an association between lower risk of all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer related deaths and CP consumption.