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
The efficacy of anteriolateral versus anterior-posterior electrode positions in the success of atrial fibrillation's (AF) electrical cardioversion is unclear. Our aim is to perform a meta-analysis to compare the success rate of both electrode positions. PUBMED, WOS, OVID, and SCOPUS were searched. Inclusion criteria were clinical trials that compared anterior-lateral with anterior-posterior electrodes in external cardioversion of AF. After the full-text screening, 11 trials were included in the analysis. The total number of patients included in the study is 1845. The pooled analysis showed a statistically significant association between anterior-lateral electrode and increased cardioversion rate of AF (odds ratio [OR] = 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02-1.92, p = .04). Subgroup analysis revealed a statistically significant association between the anterior-lateral electrode and increased cardioversion rate of AF in subgroups of less than five shocks, patients with 60 years old or more and patients with left atrial (LA) diameter >45 mm (OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.17-2.54, p = .006), (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.18-2.54, p = .005), and (OR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.04-3.34, p = .04), respectively. Anteriolateral electrode is more effective than anterior-posterior electrode in external cardioversion of AF, particularly in patients who have received less than 5 shocks, are 60 years old or older and have a LA diameter greater than 45 mm.