Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Intern Med J ; 50(2): 192-199, 2020 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31276276

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The benefit of extended-duration thromboprophylaxis in patients hospitalised for acute medical illness beyond hospital stay remains controversial. AIMS: To perform a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCT) in order to examine the efficacy and safety of extended-duration anticoagulation for venous-thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in this high-risk population. METHODS: An electronic database search was conducted to include all RCT comparing between extended-duration versus short-duration prophylactic anticoagulation in medically ill patients. The primary efficacy outcome was the composite events of asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT), symptomatic VTE and death from VTE-related causes. RESULTS: Five RCT were included totalling 40 124 patients, with a mean age of 71 years and 51% were male. In comparison to standard-duration therapy, extended-duration thromboprophylaxis was associated with a significant reduction in the primary efficacy outcome (risk ratio (RR) 0.75; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-0.85; P < 0.01), symptomatic VTE (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.33-0.84; P < 0.01) and asymptomatic DVT (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.71-0.94; P < 0.01). However, there were no significant differences between both groups with regard to VTE-related death (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.60-1.10; P = 0.18) or all-cause death (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.88-1.08; P = 0.64). In contrast, extended-duration thromboprophylaxis was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (RR 2.04; 95% CI 1.42-2.91; P < 0.01) and non-major clinically relevant bleeding (RR 1.81; 95% CI 1.29-2.53; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Among hospitalised medically ill patients, prolonging venous thromboprophylaxis was associated with a decreased risk of composite events of the primary efficacy outcome and increased risk of bleeding with no significant difference in VTE-related death.


Subject(s)
Premedication/methods , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Acute Disease , Fibrinolytic Agents/adverse effects , Fibrinolytic Agents/therapeutic use , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Hospitalization , Humans , Risk Factors , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , Venous Thromboembolism/complications
2.
JAMA Cardiol ; 4(8): 765-776, 2019 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31215980

ABSTRACT

Importance: Observational studies have reported an association between low serum vitamin D levels and elevated risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, but such studies cannot prove causation because of possible unmeasured confounding. Objective: We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that tested the association of vitamin D supplementation with reduced CVD events and all-cause mortality. Data Sources: Literature search through PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase was completed by 2 reviewers from each database's inception to December 15, 2018. Study Selection: Inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials that reported the effect of long-term (≥1 year) vitamin D supplementation on CVD events and all-cause mortality. Studies that did not include cardiovascular outcomes were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were abstracted independently by 2 authors. Random-effects models were used to report the risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs. Main Outcomes and Measures: Major adverse cardiovascular events was the primary outcome, and rates of myocardial infarction, stroke or cerebrovascular accident, CVD mortality, and all-cause mortality were the secondary end points. Results: Twenty-one randomized clinical trials were included (including 83 291 patients, of whom 41 669 received vitamin D and 41 622 received placebos). The mean (SD) age of trial participants was 65.8 (8.4) years; 61 943 (74.4%) were female. Only 4 trials had prespecified CVD as a primary end point. Vitamin D supplementation compared with placebo was not associated with reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (RR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.95-1.06]; P = .85) nor the secondary end points of myocardial infarction (RR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.93-1.08]; P = .92), stroke (RR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.98-1.15]; P = .16), CVD mortality (RR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.90-1.07]; P = .68), or all-cause mortality (RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.93-1.02]; P = .23). Results were generally consistent by sex, baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level, vitamin D dosage, formulation (daily vs bolus dosing), and presence or absence of concurrent calcium administration. Conclusions and Relevance: In this updated meta-analysis, vitamin D supplementation was not associated with reduced major adverse cardiovascular events, individual CVD end points (myocardial infarction, stroke, CVD mortality), or all-cause mortality. The findings suggest that vitamin D supplementation does not confer cardiovascular protection and is not indicated for this purpose.


Subject(s)
Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Cardiovascular Diseases/prevention & control , Dietary Supplements , Vitamin D/therapeutic use , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Risk Assessment
3.
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol ; 145(7): 1795-1809, 2019 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31098750

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In the United States, cancer is the second leading cause of mortality, and millions more battle cancer worldwide. As such, primary prevention of cancer is a major interest globally. Aspirin has been studied as a primary prevention method for multiple diseases, mainly cardiovascular disease and various forms of cancer. The role of aspirin as a primary prevention of cancer is still controversial and may be more beneficial in certain cancers over others. With rapidly surfacing large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying this subject, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aspirin as a primary prophylaxis for cancer. METHODS: A comprehensive electronic database search was conducted for all RCTs that compared aspirin versus placebo for the prevention of any type of disease, and where cancer incidence or mortality was reported. The primary outcome was cancerrelated mortality. Secondary outcomes were cancer incidence, all-cause mortality, major bleeding, any bleeding and gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model at the longest follow-up period. RESULTS: We included 16 RCTs with 104,018 total patients, mean age of 60.51 years, mean follow-up of 5.48 years, and a male percentage of 38.72%. We found that aspirin was not associated with a significant reduction of cancer-related mortality compared with placebo (RR 0.99; 95% CI: 0.87-1.12; P = 0.85: I2 = 41%). Compared with placebo, aspirin was not associated with significant reduction of all-cause mortality (RR 0.97; 95% CI: 0.92-1.02; P = 0.19; I2 = 13%) or cancer incidence (RR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.92-1.04; P = 0.43; I2 = 16%). However, aspirin treatment was associated with significantly increased risks of any bleeding (RR 1.63; 95% CI: 1.31-2.03; P < 0.01), major bleeding (RR 1.41; 95% CI: 1.26-1.57; P < 0.01), and GI bleeding (RR 1.85; 95% CI: 1.38-2.48; P < 0.01) compared with placebo. CONCLUSION: Our study did not find any significant reductions in cancer-related mortality or cancer incidence when compared aspirin use with placebo or no aspirin. Our study also highlights that the use of aspirin for primary prevention of cancer was found to cause higher rates of bleeding (any bleeding, major bleeding, and GI bleeding) compared to placebo or no aspirin at the longest follow-up period with no significant benefit in cancer primary prevention.


Subject(s)
Aspirin/administration & dosage , Aspirin/adverse effects , Neoplasms/prevention & control , Humans , Neoplasms/mortality , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
4.
Oxf Med Case Reports ; 2019(12): 524-526, 2019 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31908828

ABSTRACT

This is a case of a 62-year-old female, known to have multiple medical problems, who presented to her primary care physician with an intermittent abdominal pain and discomfort for a few months. The initial work-up showed mild leucocytosis and a small mass in the omentum. Given that the most concerning differential diagnosis was malignancy, the patient was referred to oncology, where biopsy of the mass showed omentum extramedullary hematopoiesis. The differential diagnosis was wide; however, a repeat computed tomography (CT) scan of the abdomen and pelvis did show persistence of the omental mass. After ruling out any possible causes, including myelofibrosis, with a normal bone marrow, her extramedullary hematopoiesis was deemed of unknown origin and with no clear explanation. Therefore, the patient was diagnosed with a rare adult idiopathic omental extramedullary hematopoiesis that was stable over time.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...