Safety of Linagliptin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Linagliptin is an oral dipeptidyl peptidase DPP-4 inhibitor, which is indicated for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) as monotherapy or add-on to therapy with other hypoglycemic drugs. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to summarize the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the safety of linagliptin focusing on cardiovascular risks among subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search across the following databases: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to November 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of linagliptin compared to placebo in patients with Type 2 diabetes were included. The primary safety points were cardiovascular (CV) adverse events including non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), CV death, MI, stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina. While, secondary safety points included 17 reported adverse events such as infections, hypoglycemia and abdominal pain. Three reviewers independently screened and reviewed each study to extract relevant information. Any discrepancies were resolved by consensus. We conducted a meta-analysis using the random effects model. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) of targeted adverse events with linagliptin compared to placebo were estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel test. RESULTS: A total of 24 studies with 19,981 adult patients were included. There was no difference in the incidence of all CV adverse events or individual CV adverse events between linagliptin and the placebo arms. The pooled estimate of the risk of upper respiratory tract infection was reported in twelve trials with a 38% risk reduction among patients treated with the linagliptin group compared to the placebo group (RR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.45-0.85, and I2 = 0%), while no difference was found in other infections. For gastrointestinal disorders, the risk of abdominal pain showed a 65% risk reduction among patients treated with the linagliptin group compared to the placebo group (RR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.16-0.77, and I2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: Our study showed an overall acceptable safety profile of linagliptin in patients with T2DM. Moreover, our study showed a risk reduction of upper respiratory tract infection and abdominal pain when using linagliptin compared to placebo.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors and potential risk of thromboembolic events: Analysis of the WHO global database of individual case safety reports.

Introduction: Thromboembolic events with the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with cancer have been reported in few studies. However, the detailed profile of these cases remains mostly uncertain. Method: A descriptive analysis of Thromboembolic events associated with ICIs retrieved from the VigiBase, between 1967 to November 2020. We extracted the data using the terms of 'pulmonary embolism' OR 'deep vein thrombosis' OR 'acute coronary syndrome' OR 'myocardial infarction' OR 'ischemic stroke' (preferred term (PT) (MedDRA). Results: We included 161 cases from 26 countries in our descriptive analysis. Patients' ages were reported in 141 (87.6%) cases, with a median of 68 years (interquartile range 61-74), and 63.4% of the patients were male. Indications for ICIs were reported in 151 (93.8%) cases, as follows: lung cancer (n = 85, 52.8%), renal cell carcinoma (n = 24, 14.9%), melanoma (n = 20, 12.4%), urethral carcinoma (n = 12, 7.45%), breast cancer (n = 4, 2.48%), adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction (n = 3, 1.9%), gastric cancer (n = 2, 1.24%), and skin cancer (n = 1, 0.62%). Nivolumab was reported as a suspected drug in 76 cases (47%), pembrolizumab in 46 cases (28.5%), atezolizumab in 21 cases (13%), durvalumab in 14 cases (8.6%), and avelumab in four cases (2.4%).The time to onset of thromboembolic events was reported in 127 (78.8%) cases. Most of these patients (n = 109, 85.8%) reported thromboembolic events within the first six months. The causality assessment of included cases showed that 50.3% of reported thromboembolic events were possibly related to the suspected reported medication, 13.7% were probably related, 13% were unlikely to be related, and 23% were not assessable due to insufficient information. Conclusion: This study demonstrates a possible association between the use of ICIs and thromboembolic events. Further epidemiological studies are needed to assess this association and to elucidate the underlying mechanism.

17-Alpha-Hydroxyprogesterone vs. Placebo for Preventing of Recurrent Preterm Birth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Background: Preterm birth (PTB) is a leading cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality. Objective: To estimate the effect of 17-alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC) compared to placebo in singleton gestations for reducing the risk of recurrent PTB and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Work Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Search Strategy: Searching MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and clinical trial registries. Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials of singleton gestations with a history of PTB and treated with a weekly intramuscular injection of 17-OHPC or placebo. Data Collection and Analysis: A random meta-analysis model was performed for the PTB outcomes (<32, <35, and <37 weeks) and neonatal outcomes (neonatal death, grade 3 or 4 intraventricular hemorrhage, respiratory distress syndrome, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, necrotizing enterocolitis, and sepsis). Effect estimates were measured by relative risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Main Results: Six works were included. There were no statistically significant reductions in the PTB risk following the use of 17-OHPC at <32 weeks (RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.13-2.77, and I 2 = 39%), <35weeks (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.10-3.67, and I 2 = 51%), and <37 weeks (RR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.46-1, and I 2 = 75%). Furthermore, all the neonatal outcomes were statistically similar between the two groups. Conclusion: Treatment with 17-OHPC is not associated with reducing the risk of PTB or neonatal outcomes compared to placebo.