First Iranian guidelines for the diagnosis, management, and treatment of hyperlipidemia in adults.

This guideline is the first Iranian guideline developed for the diagnosis, management, and treatment of hyperlipidemia in adults. The members of the guideline developing group (GDG) selected 9 relevant clinical questions and provided recommendations or suggestions to answer them based on the latest scientific evidence. Recommendations include the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) threshold for starting drug treatment in adults lacking comorbidities was determined to be over 190 mg/dL and the triglyceride (TG) threshold had to be >500 mg/dl. In addition to perform fasting lipid profile tests at the beginning and continuation of treatment, while it was suggested to perform cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) risk assessment using valid Iranian models. Some recommendations were also provided on lifestyle modification as the first therapeutic intervention. Statins were recommended as the first line of drug treatment to reduce LDL-C, and if its level was high despite the maximum allowed or maximum tolerated drug treatment, combined treatment with ezetimibe, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, or bile acid sequestrants was suggested. In adults with hypertriglyceridemia, pharmacotherapy with statin or fibrate was recommended. The target of drug therapy in adults with increased LDL-C without comorbidities and risk factors was considered an LDL-C level of <130 mg/dl, and in adults with increased TG without comorbidities and risk factors, TG levels of <200 mg/dl. In this guideline, specific recommendations and suggestions were provided for the subgroups of the general population, such as those with CVD, stroke, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, elderly, and women.

Reasons for poor blood pressure control in Eastern Sub-Saharan Africa: looking into 4P's (primary care, professional, patient, and public health policy) for improving blood pressure control: a scoping review.

AIM: Hypertension control in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is the worst (less than one out of ten) when compared to the rest of the world. Therefore, this scoping review was conducted to identify and describe the possible reasons for poor blood pressure (BP) control based on 4Ps' (patient, professional, primary healthcare system, and public health policy) factors. METHODS: PRISMA extension for scoping review protocol was used. We systematically searched articles written in the English language from January 2000 to May 2020 from the following databases: PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google scholar. RESULTS: Sixty-eight articles were included in this scoping review. The mean prevalence of hypertension, BP control, and patient adherence to prescribed medicines were 20.95%, 11.5%, and 60%, respectively. Only Kenya, Malawi, and Zambia out of ten countries started annual screening of the high-risk population for hypertension. Reasons for nonadherence to prescribed medicines were lack of awareness, lack of access to medicines and health services, professional inertia to intensify drugs, lack of knowledge on evidence-based guidelines, insufficient government commitment, and specific health behaviors related laws. Lack of screening for high-risk patients, non-treatment adherence, weak political commitment, poverty, maternal and child malnutrition were reasons for the worst BP control. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the rate of BP treatment, control, and medication adherence was low in Eastern SSA. Screening for high-risk populations was inadequate. Therefore, it is crucial to improve government commitment, patient awareness, and access to medicines, design country-specific annual screening programs, and empower clinicians to follow individualized treatment and conduct medication adherence research using more robust tools.

Efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and purpose: Though controversial, many clinical trials have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) in COVID-19 cases. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis have been performed to evaluate the efficacy of IVIG in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Experimental approach: A systematic search was performed in electronic databases and preprint servers up to November 20, 2021. Since substantial heterogeneity was expected, a random-effects model was applied to pool effect size from included studies to calculate the standardized mean differences (SMDs) for the continuous variables and relative risks (RRs) for the dichotomous variable with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Findings/Results: Five randomized clinical trials and seven cohort studies were analyzed among the 12 eligible studies with a total of 2,156 patients. The pooled RR of mortality was 0.77 (CI 0.59-1.01, P-value = 0.06), and of mechanical ventilation was 1.50 (CI 0.29-7.83; P-value = 0.63) in the IVIG group compared with the standard care group. The pooled SMD of hospital length of stay was 0.84 (CI -0.43-2.11; P-value = 0.20) and of ICU length of stay was -0.07 (CI -0.92-0.78; P-value = 0.86) in the IVIG group compared with the standard care group. Conclusion and implications: This meta-analysis found that the IVIG therapy was not statistically different from the standard care group. Mortality, ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, length of hospital stay, and length of ICU stay were not significantly improved among IVIG recipients. However, statistical indifference is not equal to clinical indifference.

How do patients value features of biological medicine in rheumatoid arthritis? A discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to quantify the preference of the patients regarding biological DMARDs. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients' preferences were assessed using a discrete choice experiment. Eighteen different surveys describing eight attributes were designed using experimental design methods. Each survey presented eight choice tasks with two options for patients to choose one. A conditional logit model was used to calculate relative importance and willingness to pay. Subgroup analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of the patients' characteristic on their preferences. RESULTS: A total of 306 patients were included in the study. All attributes had significant effects on the patients' choices. The most important feature was the ability to preserve physical function. The least important feature was the route of administration. Surprisingly, the out-of-pocket cost was one of the last priorities for respondents. According to the relative importance calculations, 80% of the patients' preferences can be obtained by clinical attributes. Based on subgroup analysis, the most important patient characteristic that affected their choices was the monthly out-of-pocket history. CONCLUSIONS: Different features of treatment had different effects on the patients' preferences. Quantification of the impact of each attribute not only revealed their relative importance but also determined the trade-off rate among them.

Medical therapy versus percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft in stable coronary artery disease; a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Ischemic heart disease (IHD) is the first cause of mortality in the world. Stable coronary artery disease (CAD) is the most common IHD. Medical therapy (MT), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are three strategies for the management of this disease. The main aim of this study was the comparison of MT with PCI or CABG in terms of cardiovascular (CV) mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), unplanned revascularization (UR), stroke, and freedom from angina in managing stable CAD. METHODS: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, PubMed, and Scopus were searched. Two reviewers independently appraised the titles and abstracted data of the identified studies. After the Full-text reviewing phase, eligible studies were analyzed through the random-effect meta-analysis method. Finally, a sensitivity analysis was conducted for the robustness of findings. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The pooled RR of CV mortality associated with MT compared with PCI and CABG was 1.22 and 1.385, respectively. Overall, The RR of MT associated with MI, UR, stroke, and freedom from angina compared with PCI was 1.001, 1.151, 0.799, and 0.801, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results revealed no statistically significant difference between MT and PCI in terms of studied primary outcomes. The findings also highlighted that there is no statistically significant difference between MT and CABG in terms of CV mortality.

Efficacy and safety of insulin detemir versus glargine in patients with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Performing an updated meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of insulin glargine and insulin detemir in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched up to 18 August 2021. A random-effects model was applied to pool data from included studies to calculate the standardized mean differences (SMDs) for the continuous variables and relative risks (RRs) for the dichotomous variable. RESULTS: Nine studies compared insulin detemir and insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes and three studies in patients with type 1 diabetes. The pooled SMD of weight gain was -0.59 (95% CI -1.05 to -0.14; P=0.01; I2=98%) in patients with type 2 diabetes. The pooled RR of severe hypoglycemia was 0.28 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.63; P=0.002; I2=0%) in patients with type 1 diabetes. The effects of detemir and glargine on HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, nocturnal hypoglycemia, and overall hypoglycemia were not statistically different (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: It was found that there is no clinically considerable difference between the impacts of insulin detemir and insulin glargine in diabetic patients. The only statistically significant differences were less weight gain in type 2 diabetes and fewer episodes of severe hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes with insulin detemir.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tofacitinib compared with adalimumab and etanercept in the treatment of severe active rheumatoid arthritis; Iranian experience.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of Tofacitinib (TFC) in patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had not responded well to methotrexate from the Iranian payer's perspective. METHODS: An individual microsimulation Markov model was developed to compare TFC with etanercept (ETN) and Adalimumab (ADA) over a life-time horizon. Treatment efficacy was estimated based on the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response improvement criteria in 6 months. Changes in the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores were mapped onto utility values to calculate outcomes in terms of QALYs. Direct medical costs were taken from national databases. Uncertainty in model parameters was evaluated by sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: This study demonstrated that TFC was cost-effective in both scenarios. Although TFC was associated with lower QALYs than ETN (6.664 versus 6.876), it was also associated with lower costs over a life-time horizon ($42,565.04 versus $58,696.29). Additionally, TFC was found to be the dominant strategy with a lower cost ($50,299.91 versus $51,550.29) and higher QALYs gained (6.900 versus 6.687) compared to ADA. CONCLUSION: TFC was found to be cost-effective in patients with severe RA who do not respond well to methotrexate compared to ADA, ETN in Iran.

Efficacy and safety of Tocilizumab in severe and critical COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Currently published papers and clinical guidelines regarding the effects of tocilizumab in severe and critical COVID-19 are contradictory. The aim of this meta-analysis was to combine the results of clinical studies of different designs to investigate the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in severely-to-critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus, and preprint servers up to 26 December 2020. Since a substantial heterogeneity was expected, a random-effects model was applied to calculate the pooled effect size (ES) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study outcome. RESULTS: Forty-five comparative studies involving 13,189 patients and 28 single-arm studies involving 1,770 patients were analyzed. The risk of mortality (RR of 0.76 [95%CI 0.65 to 0.89], P < 0.01) and intubation (RR of 0.48 [95%CI 0.24 to 0.97], P = 0.04) were lower in tocilizumab patients compared with controls. We did not find any significant difference in secondary infections, length of hospital stay, hospital discharge before day 14, and ICU admission between groups. CONCLUSION: Tocilizumab can improve clinical outcomes and reduce mortality rates in severe to critical COVID-19 patients. Large-scale randomized controlled trials are still required to improve the statistical power of meta-analysis.