ABSTRACT
Our study assessed the efficacy and safety of the three primary tirzepatide (TZP) doses, 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg using network meta-analysis to assess their relative impact on type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treatment. This study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Two authors independently screened online databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. We employed the keywords "Type 2 diabetes OR T2DM or diabetes" AND "Tirzepatide OR LY3298176 OR twincretin OR dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist" AND "randomized controlled trial". The outcomes evaluated in this study comprised changes in hemoglobin (Hb)A1c levels from baseline (%), changes in weight from baseline (Kg), changes in fasting serum glucose from baseline (mg/dL), and occurrences of serious adverse events (SAE), adverse events (AE) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). A total of eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Our findings suggest that among the evaluated doses, TZP at 15 mg demonstrated superior effectiveness in reducing HbA1c, weight, and fasting serum glucose compared to doses of 10 mg and 5 mg. Notably, the reduction in HbA1c and weight showed a dose-dependent trend, with the 15 mg dose achieving the most substantial benefits. The safety analysis indicated that while serious adverse events and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) did not significantly differ among the three doses, the risk of overall adverse events was notably higher in the 10 mg and 15 mg TZP groups compared to the 5 mg group.
ABSTRACT
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a prevalent gastrointestinal disorder that impacts the lives of many individuals worldwide. We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess both the effectiveness of rifaximin in alleviating IBS symptoms and its potential adverse effects. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched from inception until August 20, 2023, for studies comparing rifaximin with placebo in the resolution of symptoms among IBS patients. Risk ratios (RRs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived for all the outcomes of interest. Six RCTs were pooled in this analysis. The results showed improved abdominal distension with rifaximin over the control group. Overall symptom relief at the end of the treatment period and follow-up period was also observed in the patients receiving rifaximin. However, no significant differences were found between the rifaximin group and the control group for the outcomes of abdominal pain, nausea, headache, vomiting, diarrhea, sinusitis, bronchitis, and upper respiratory tract infection. The results of our meta-analysis support the use of rifaximin in the treatment of IBS, owing to its safety and effectiveness. Future RCTs should be conducted to assess this topic of interest more extensively.
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to compare long-term outcomes in patients with myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) and patients with myocardial infarction with obstructive coronary arteries (MIOCA). This meta-analysis was conducted according to the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The literature search was conducted in online databases including PubMed and Web of Science from 2010 onwards. Primary outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality and myocardial infarction. A total of 16 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed that the risk of MACE was higher in MIOCA patients (risk ratio (RR): 1.47, 95%CI: 1.43-1.52, p-value: 0.001) compared to MINOCA patients. Additionally, the risk of all-cause mortality was also significantly higher in MIOCA patients compared to MINOCA (RR: 1.33, 95%CI: 1.14-1.56, p-value: 0.001). Our findings also indicate that patients with MIOCA are at a significantly higher risk of recurrent myocardial infarction and cardiovascular-related mortality compared to patients with MINOCA. Overall, the insights gained from this meta-analysis have significant clinical implications, guiding decision-making in the management of patients with MINOCA.