RESUMO
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of bempedoic acid in preventing cardiovascular events among high-risk patients. We conducted a meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Two independent researchers carried out online database searches on Medline, the Cochrane Library of Clinical Trials, and EMBASE until April 15, 2023, using search terms such as "bempedoic acid," "cardiovascular outcomes," and "randomized controlled trial." We also utilized medical subject heading (MeSH) terms and Boolean algebra operators to refine our search. We included articles that compared cardiovascular outcomes between patients receiving bempedoic acid and those receiving a placebo. The primary outcome assessed was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, and coronary revascularization. The meta-analysis included three randomized controlled trials with a total of 16,978 patients. The use of bempedoic acid was associated with a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events. Individual analyses reported a low risk of myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, and hospitalization due to unstable angina in patients receiving bempedoic acid. Furthermore, our meta-analysis found that bempedoic acid is a safe treatment option, as there was no significant difference between the bempedoic acid and placebo groups in terms of adverse events and serious adverse events. Our findings support the use of bempedoic acid as a promising treatment option for high-risk cardiovascular patients. However, since our meta-analysis included a limited number of studies with short follow-up periods, larger studies are necessary to provide more definitive evidence.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Recently, there has been an increased focus on the role nutrition and diet play in maintaining health in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We aimed to assess the overall quality, strength, and transparency of conflicts among guidelines on nutrition/diet in IBD. METHODS: A systematic search was performed on multiple databases from inception until January 1, 2021, to identify guidelines pertaining to nutrition or diet in IBD. All guidelines were reviewed for disclosure of conflicts of interest (COI) and funding, recommendation quality and strength, external document review, patient representation, and plans for update-as per Institute of Medicine (IOM) standards. In addition, recommendations and their quality were compared between guidelines/societies.â RESULTS: Seventeen distinct societies and a total of 228 recommendations were included. Not all guidelines provided recommendations on key aspects of diet-such as the role of supplements or the appropriate micro/macro nutrition in IBD. Fifty-nine percent of guidelines reported on COI, 24% underwent external review, and 41% included patient representation. 18.4%, 25.9%, and 55.7% of recommendations were based on high-, moderate-, and low-quality evidence, respectively. 10.5%, 24.6%, and 64.9% of recommendations were strong, weak/conditional, and did not provide a strength, respectively. The proportion of high-quality evidence (p = 0.12) and strong recommendations (p = 0.83) did not significantly differ across societies. CONCLUSIONS: Many guidelines do not provide recommendations on key aspects of diet/nutrition in IBD. As over 50% of recommendations are based on low-quality evidence, further studies on nutrition/diet in IBD are warranted to improve the overall quality of evidence.