RESUMEN
Background: Etrolizumab is a promising drug for treating moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of etrolizumab for induction and maintenance of remission in moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. Methods: We searched the following databases: PUBMED, Web of Science, OVID, and SCOPUS from inception to January 15. Inclusion criteria were any phase 2 and 3 clinical trials that compared etrolizumab with a placebo in treating moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, excluding case reports, animal studies, phase 1 trials, and conference abstracts due to duplication. We used RevMan software (5.4) for the meta-analysis. Results: Five clinical trials were included in our meta-analysis. The total number of patients included in the study is 1248 patients, 860 patients in the etrolizumab group and 388 patients in the placebo group. In the induction phase, the pooled analyses showed a statistically significant association between etrolizumab and increased clinical remission, and endoscopic remission compared with placebo (risk ratio [RR] = 2.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.69-4.19, p < 0.0001), and (RR = 2.35, 95% CI = 1.52-3.65, p = 0.0001), respectively. In the maintenance phase, the pooled analyses showed a statistically significant association between etrolizumab and increased histologic remission and endoscopic remission (RR = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.40-2.98, p = 0.0002) and (RR = 1.92, 95% CI = 1.29-2.85, p = 0.001), respectively. No statistically significant difference was observed in adverse events between etrolizumab and placebo in the induction and maintenance phases. Conclusion: Our results show that etrolizumab is an effective and safe drug for the induction and maintenance of clinical remission in moderate to severe ulcerative colitis patients, as proved by histologic and endoscopic findings. Future randomized trials are still needed to compare etrolizumab to the other agents and further establish its value for the practice.
RESUMEN
Background and Aim: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in full-coded patients requires effective chest compressions with minimal interruptions to maintain adequate perfusion to the brain and other vital organs. Many novel approaches have been proposed to attain better organ perfusion compared to traditional CPR techniques. The purpose of this review is to investigate the safety and efficacy of heads-up CPR versus supine CPR. Methods: We searched PubMed Central, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases from 1990 to February 2021. After the full-text screening of 40 eligible studies, only seven studies were eligible for our meta-analysis. We used the RevMan software (5.4) to perform the meta-analysis. Results: In survival outcome, the pooled analysis between heads-up and supine CPR was (risk ratio = 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.17-5.68, p = 0.98). The pooled analyses between heads-up CPR and supine CPR in cerebral flow, cerebral perfusion pressure and coronary perfusion pressure outcomes, were (mean difference [MD] = 0.10, 95% CI = 0.03-0.17, p = 0.003), (MD = 12.28, 95% CI = 5.92-18.64], p = 0.0002), and (MD = 8.43, 95% CI = 2.71-14.14, p = 0.004), respectively. After doing a subgroup analysis, cerebral perfusion was found to increase during heads-up CPR compared with supine CPR at 6 min CPR duration and 18 to 20 min CPR duration as well. Conclusion: Our study suggests that heads-up CPR is associated with better cerebral and coronary perfusion compared to the conventional supine technique in pigs' models. However, more research is warranted to investigate the safety and efficacy of the heads-up technique on human beings and to determine the best angle for optimization of the technique results.