Effect of ondansetron compared to lidocaine and placebo for reducing propofol injection pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: Propofol is the most commonly used intravenous anesthetic medication and is most commonly associated with post-operative pain. Several drugs are investigated to reduce post-operative pain caused by propofol injection. Ondansetron is a potent anti-emetic drug showing promising results as an analgesic. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of ondansetron to placebo and lidocaine in reducing post-operative pain caused by propofol injection. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) till May 2022. We conducted a meta-analysis using RevMan software version 5.4, and we assessed the quality of included RCTs using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: In our study, we included 23 RCTs with 2957 participants. Compared to placebo, ondansetron significantly increased the rate of no pain [risk ratio (RR) = 2.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.39-4.01)], and reduced moderate [RR = 0.39, 95% CI (0.30-0.52)] and severe pain [RR = 0.34, 95% CI (0.24-0.50)]. Furthermore, ondansetron significantly reduced PONV [RR = 0.73, 95% CI (0.58, 0.91)]. On the other hand, ondansetron showed an inferior efficacy to lidocaine regarding the incidence of no, moderate, and severe pain. CONCLUSION: Ondansetron is effective in reducing post-operative propofol-induced pain. However, lidocaine is more effective than it.

Dupilumab efficacy and safety in patients with moderate to severe asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Dupilumab is a human monoclonal antibody directed against the alpha subunit of the interleukin-4 receptor and inhibits the signaling of IL-4 and IL-13. It is approved for treating asthma and other type-2 inflammatory diseases. There is a conflict in the literature regarding the safety and efficacy of dupilumab. Thus, we aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of dupilumab in patients with moderate to severe asthma. Methods: Six databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and clinicaltrials.gov registry) were searched until January 2022. We included randomized controlled trials that compared dupilumab with the placebo in moderate to severe asthma patients. We extracted the data at 12 and 24 weeks and analyzed them using review manager 5.4. Findings: Thirteen trials were included. Dupilumab significantly improved the forced expiratory volume in 1 s, asthma control questionnaire score, the fraction of exhaled nitric oxide level, and immunoglobulin E level at 12 and 24 weeks (p < 0.05). However, it was associated with increased blood eosinophils at 12 and 24 weeks. Dupilumab was generally a safe agent for asthmatic patients. It showed no significant difference compared with the placebo regarding most adverse events. Conclusion: Dupilumab improves pulmonary function and reduces local and systemic inflammatory markers with minimal adverse events in patients with moderate to severe asthma.

Efficacy of Single-Pill, Triple Antihypertensive Therapy in Patients with Uncontrolled Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Systemic arterial hypertension is the most common preventable risk factor for all causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide with a prevalence of 35-40% of the adults. Despite the wide variety of effective antihypertensive medications, most hypertensive patients remain uncontrolled. However, the combination of ACE inhibitor, diuretics, and calcium antagonist for the triple therapy in a single Pill Combination (SPC) is an efficient regimen in hypertension management. It is recommended by the ESH 2018 guideline, which offers better efficacy and compliance to treatment. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of perindopril/indapamide/amlodipine single-pill combination in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL for relevant clinical trials. We conducted the risk of bias assessment using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. We performed the analysis of continuous data using mean difference (MD) and relative 95% confidence interval (CI), while dichotomous data were analyzed using risk ratio (RR) and relative 95% CI. We included the analysis of the following outcomes: systolic blood pressure (SBP), Diastolic blood pressure (DBP), Heart rate (HR), 24 h Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) for SBP, and 24 h ABPM for DBP. RESULTS: We included six clinical trials. We found that the triple therapy significantly reduces SBP by 24 mmHg (MD = - 24.65 [22.41, 26.89], (P < 0.01)), DBP by 12 mmHg (MD = 12.41 [11.53, 13.29], (P < 0.01)), 24-h ABPM for SBP by 14 mmHg (MD = 14.08 [9.10, 19.05], (P < 0.01)), and ABPM 24 h DBP by 7 mmHg (MD = 7.01 [5.37, 8.65], (P < 0.01)). We noted no significant difference of the single pill on heart rate (MD = 0.81 [- 0.04, 1.67], (P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: perindopril/indapamide/amlodipine is effective in reducing systolic and diastolic blood pressures by 24 and 12 mmHg respectively. Over 24 h, the combination reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressures by 14 and 7 mmHg respectively.

Effect of metformin on proliferative markers in women with endometrial carcinoma: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: Endometrial carcinoma (EC) is the most common gynecologic malignancy in the USA and Western Europe. Surgery is the mainstay of both staging and treatment of EC. Fertility sparing medical therapies are often offered to young women who desire fertility. Metformin has been suggested to be an anti-cancer agent as evidenced by previous studies. It decreases Antigen Ki-67 (Ki-67) proliferation and expression which is associated with proliferative activity of malignant tumors. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the efficacy of metformin on patients with EC. Materials and Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and SCOPUS for relevant clinical trials and excluded observational studies. The quality appraisal was evaluated according to GRADE, and we assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. We conducted the analysis of continuous data using mean difference (MD). We included the following outcomes: Ki-67 index, glucose, insulin, P-S6, body mass index (BMI), C-peptide, Insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1), leptin, and hemoglobin. Results: Nine studies were eligible for our meta-analysis. We found that compared to the control group, metformin is highly effective in reducing Ki-67 proliferation and expression [MD=-10.14 (-19.10, -1.17)], (p=0.03), P-S6 [MD=-1.82 (-3.17, -0.46)], (p=0.009), plasma glucose level [MD=-1.76 (-4.88, 1.37), p=0.27], and BMI [MD=-1.07 (-1.49, -0.65)], (p<0.001). Conclusion: We conclude that metformin administration is effective in patients with EC. It decreases Ki-67 proliferation and expression, serum glucose, and p-S6 significantly.