Palbociclib in Older Patients with Advanced/Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy is approved for treatment of hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer. In addition to clinical trials, several real-world studies have evaluated the effectiveness of palbociclib. With increased life expectancy in the general population, breast cancer in older women is also expected to increase. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to systematically review evidence from both clinical trials and real-world studies for palbociclib treatment outcomes in older patients with HR+/HER2- advanced/metastatic breast cancer (a/mBC). Older patients are often underrepresented in clinical trials, and real-world evidence (RWE) will enrich the analysis of palbociclib outcomes in this subgroup of patients. DESIGN: A systematic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library through May 4, 2023, yielded 2355 unique articles. A total of 52 articles (13 and 39 articles reporting results from seven randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 37 RWE studies, respectively) were included based on study eligibility criteria. RESULTS: All RCTs used age cutoffs of ≥ 65 years to define older population (n = 722; 437 received palbociclib); all RWE studies, except one with an age cutoff of > 60 years, had age cutoffs of ≥ 65 years or higher to define older population (n = 9840; 7408 received palbociclib). Overall, in studies that compared efficacy (progression-free survival [seven RCTs, 20 RWE studies], overall survival [four RCTs, 11 RWE studies], tumor response [three RWE studies], and clinical benefit rate [one RCT, two RWE studies]) and safety outcomes (three RCTs, three RWE studies) between older and younger patients, palbociclib showed similar benefits, regardless of age. Results from two RCTs and two RWE studies showed that global quality of life (QoL) was maintained in older patients receiving palbociclib. Overall, palbociclib dose modifications (two RWE studies), dose reductions (one RCT, seven RWE studies), and treatment discontinuation rates (three RCTs, three RWE studies) were higher in older patients compared with younger patients; however, these differences did not appear to adversely impact efficacy outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review, data from RCTs showed that palbociclib was effective, well tolerated, and maintained QoL in older patients with HR+/HER2- a/mBC. Palbociclib treatment in older patients in real-world settings was associated with similar clinical benefit as in RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42023444195.

Impact of Berberine or Berberine Combination Products on Lipoprotein, Triglyceride and Biological Safety Marker Concentrations in Patients with Hyperlipidemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Monoclonal antibody Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin/Kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors reduce total cholesterol (TC), low density lipoproteins (LDL), high density lipoproteins (HDL), and triglycerides (TG). We assessed the ability of berberine, a natural PCSK9 inhibitor, to reduce lipid concentrations either alone or combined with other nutraceuticals. We searched PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE from inception to September 30th, 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing 8-18 wk of berberine therapy on. A total of 41 RCTs with 4,838 patients met our inclusion criteria. Berberine containing products significantly reduced TC (MD -17.42 mg/dL [95%CI: -22.91 to -11.93]), LDL (MD -14.98 mg/dL [95%CI: -20.67 to -9.28]), and TG (MD -18.67 mg/dL [95%CI: -25.82 to -11.51]) while raising HDL (MD 1.97 mg/dL [95%CI: 1.16 to 2.78]) versus control (I2 > 72% for all analyses). Products with berberine alone had less robust effects on TC (MD -12.08 mg/dL [95%CI: -21.79 to -2.37]), LDL (MD -9.26 mg/dL [95%CI: -20.31 to 1.78]), and HDL (MD 1.38 mg/dL [95%CI: -1.27 to 4.03]) but TG effects were similar (MD -17.40 mg/dL [95%CI: -32.57 to -2.23]). Berberine along with red yeast rice reduced TC (MD -19.62 mg/dL [95%CI: -28.56 to -10.68]) and LDL (MD -18.79 mg/dL [95%CI: -28.03 to -9.54]) as did combination therapy with Silybum maranium for TC (MD -31.81 mg/dL [95%CI: -59.88 to -3.73]) and LDL (MD -30.82 mg/dL [95%CI: -56.48 to -5.16]). Berberine, alone or with other nutraceuticals, can provide a modest positive impact on lipid concentrations.

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure compared to renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Introduction: Heart failure (HF) is still a major cause of morbidity and mortality all over the world. Aim of the study was to assess the benefits and harms of sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) in patients with HF. Material and methods: We systematically searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating S/V vs. ACEI or ARB in acute or chronic HF in August 2021. Primary outcomes were HF hospitalisations and cardiovascular (CV) mortality; secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, biomarkers, and renal function. Results: We selected 11 RCTs (n = 18766) with 2-48 months follow-up. Five RCTs had ACEIs as control, 5 RCTs had ARBs as control, and one RCT had both ACEI and ARB as control. Compared to ACEI or ARB, S/V reduced HF hospitalisations by 20% (HR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.68-0.94; 3 RCTs; I2 = 65%; high CoE), CV mortality by 14% (HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.73-1.01; 2 RCTs; I2 = 57%; high CoE), and all-cause mortality by 11% (HR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.78-1.00; 3 RCTs; I2 = 36%; high CoE). S/V reduced NTproBNP (SMD = -0.34, 95% CI: -0.52 to -0.16; 3 RCTs; I2 = 62%) and hs-TNT (ratio of differences = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.79-0.88; 2 RCTs; I2 = 0%), and caused a decline in renal function by 33% (HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.39-1.14; 2 RCTs; I2 = 78%; high CoE). S/V increased hypotension (RR = 1.69, 95% CI: 1.33-2.15; 9 RCTs; I2 = 65%; high CoE). Hyperkalaemia and angioedema events were similar. Effects were in the same direction when stratified by type of control (ACEI vs. ARB). Conclusions: Sacubitril/valsartan had better clinical, intermediate, and renal outcomes in HF in comparison to ACEI or ARB. There was no difference in angioedema and hyperkalaemia events, but there were more hypotension events.

Efficacy of Tunnel Technique (TUN) versus Coronally Advanced Flap (CAF) in the Management of Multiple Gingival Recession Defects: A Meta-Analysis.

Objective: We systematically assessed the efficacy of tunnel technique (TUN) vs. coronally advanced flap (CAF) in the management of multiple gingival recession defects in adults. Methods: Five databases were searched until September 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing TUN vs. CAF; grafts of interest were acellular dermal matrix (ADM) and connective tissue graft (CTG). Primary outcomes were root coverage (RC) and complete root coverage (CRC). Secondary outcomes were clinical attachment level (CAL), keratinized tissue width (KTW), probing depth (PD), and recession coverage (REC). Effect measures were risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with their confidence intervals (95% CI). Inverse variance methods and random-effects model meta-analyses were used. Subgroup analyses by the type of graft were performed. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE methodology. Results: Five RCTs (n = 173) were included, with a follow-up of 6 months for all outcomes. In comparison to CAF, TUN did not significantly reduce CRC (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.002-176.7; p = 0.51) and did not increase RC (MD 0.99%; 95% CI -6.7 to 8.6; p = 0.80). In comparison to CAF, TUN showed no significant reduction of secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses by type of graft showed no differences in comparison to primary analyses for primary and secondary outcomes. Three RCTs had a high risk of bias, and five RCTs had very low quality of evidence for all outcomes. Conclusions: In adults with gingival recessions, TUN had similar primary and secondary outcomes in comparison with CAF. Subgroup analyses by the type of graft did not affect main conclusions. More RCTs with better design are needed to further characterize the effects of TUN vs. CAF in the treatment of multiple gingival recession defects.

Efficacy of early treatment with hydroxychloroquine in people with mild to moderate COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: No early treatment intervention for COVID-19 has proven effective to date. We systematically reviewed the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as early treatment for COVID-19. Material and methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating hydroxychloroquine for early treatment of COVID-19 were searched in five engines and preprint websites until September 14, 2021. Primary outcomes were hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included COVID-19 symptom resolution, viral clearance, and adverse events. Inverse variance random-effects meta-analyses were performed and quality of evidence (QoE) per outcome was assessed with GRADE methods. Results: Five RCTs (n = 1848) were included. The comparator was placebo in four RCTs and usual care in one RCT. The RCTs used hydroxychloroquine total doses between 1,600 and 4,400 mg and had follow-up times between 14 and 90 days. Compared to the controls, early treatment with hydroxychloroquine did not reduce hospitalizations (RR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.47-1.36, I 2 = 2%, 5 RCTs, low QoE), all-cause mortality (RR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.16-3.68, I 2 = 0%, 5 RCTs, very low QoE), symptom resolution (RR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.77-1.16, I 2 = 71%, 3 RCTs, low QoE) or viral clearance at 14 days (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.82-1.27, I 2 = 65%, 2 RCTs, low QoE). There was a larger non-significant increase of adverse events with hydroxychloroquine vs. controls (RR = 2.17, 95% CI: 0.86-5.45, I 2 = 92%, 5 RCTs, very low QoE). Conclusions: Hydroxychloroquine was not efficacious as early treatment for COVID-19 infections in RCTs with low to very low quality of evidence for all outcomes. More RCTs are needed to elucidate the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as early treatment intervention.

Beneficial and Harmful Effects of Monoclonal Antibodies for the Treatment and Prophylaxis of COVID-19: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: We systematically assessed beneficial and harmful effects of monoclonal antibodies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment, and prophylaxis in individuals exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. METHODS: We searched 5 engines and 3 registries until November 3, 2021 for randomized controlled trials evaluating monoclonal antibodies vs control in hospitalized or non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19, or as prophylaxis. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, COVID-19-related death, and serious adverse events; hospitalization for non-hospitalized; and development of symptomatic COVID-19 for prophylaxis. Inverse variance random effects models were used for meta-analyses. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology was used to assess certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials were included: 20 in hospitalized patients (n = 8253), 5 in non-hospitalized patients (n = 2922), and 2 in prophylaxis (n = 2680). In hospitalized patients, monoclonal antibodies slightly reduced mechanical ventilation (relative risk [RR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.9; I2 = 20%, low certainty of evidence) and bacteremia (RR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64-0.92; I2 = 7%, low certainty of evidence); evidence was very uncertain about the effect on adverse events (RR 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02-1.67; I2 = 77%, very low certainty of evidence). In non-hospitalized patients, monoclonal antibodies reduced hospitalizations (RR 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.53; I2 = 0%, high certainty of evidence) and may slightly reduce serious adverse events (RR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22-1.01; I2 = 33%, low certainty of evidence). In prophylaxis studies, monoclonal antibodies probably reduced viral load slightly (mean difference -0.8 log10; 95% CI, -1.21 to -0.39, moderate certainty of evidence). There were no effects on other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Monoclonal antibodies had limited effects on most of the outcomes in COVID-19 patients, and when used as prophylaxis. Additional data are needed to determine their efficacy and safety.

Efficacy and harms of tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: We systematically assessed benefits and harms of tocilizumab (TCZ), which is an antibody blocking IL-6 receptors, in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Five electronic databases and two preprint webpages were searched until March 4, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) cohorts assessing TCZ effects in hospitalized, COVID-19 adult patients were included. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinical worsening, clinical improvement, need for mechanical ventilation, and adverse events (AE). Inverse variance random-effects meta-analyses were performed with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methodology. RESULTS: Nine RCTs (n = 7,021) and nine IPTW cohorts (n = 7,796) were included. TCZ significantly reduced all-cause mortality in RCTs (RR 0.89, 95%CI 0.81-0.98, p = 0.03; moderate QoE) and non-significantly in cohorts (RR 0.67, 95%CI 0.44-1.02, p = 0.08; very low QoE) vs. control (standard of care [SOC] or placebo). TCZ significantly reduced the need for mechanical ventilation (RR 0.80, 95%CI 0.71-0.90, p = 0.001; moderate QoE) and length of stay (MD -1.92 days, 95%CI -3.46 to -0.38, p = 0.01; low QoE) vs. control in RCTs. There was no significant difference in clinical improvement or worsening between treatments. AEs, severe AEs, bleeding and thrombotic events were similar between arms in RCTs, but there was higher neutropenia risk with TCZ (very low QoE). Subgroup analyses by disease severity or risk of bias (RoB) were consistent with main analyses. Quality of evidence was moderate to very low in both RCTs and cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to SOC or placebo, TCZ reduced all-cause mortality in all studies and reduced mechanical ventilation and length of stay in RCTs in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Other clinical outcomes were not significantly impacted. TCZ did not have effect on AEs, except a significant increased neutropenia risk in RCTs. TCZ has a potential role in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Ivermectin for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the use of ivermectin (IVM) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Published and preprint randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of IVM on adult patients with COVID-19 were searched until 22 March 2021 in 5 engines. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality rate, length of hospital stay (LOS), and adverse events (AEs). Secondary outcomes included viral clearance and severe AEs (SAEs). The risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Inverse variance random effect meta-analyses were performed, with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methods. RESULTS: Ten RCTs (n = 1173) were included. The controls were the standard of care in 5 RCTs and placebo in 5. COVID-19 disease severity was mild in 8 RCTs, moderate in 1, and mild and moderate in 1. IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality rates compared with controls (relative risk [RR], 0.37 [95% confidence interval, .12-1.13]; very low QoE) or LOS compared with controls (mean difference, 0.72 days [95% confidence interval, -.86 to 2.29 days]; very low QoE). AEs, SAEs, and viral clearance were similar between IVM and control groups (low QoE for all outcomes). Subgroups by severity of COVID-19 or RoB were mostly consistent with main analyses; all-cause mortality rates in 3 RCTs at high RoB were reduced with IVM. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the standard of care or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, LOS, or viral clearance in RCTs in patients with mostly mild COVID-19. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or SAEs and is not a viable option to treat patients with COVID-19.

Efficacy and harms of convalescent plasma for treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: We systematically reviewed benefits and harms of convalescent plasma (CP) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing CP effects on hospitalized, adult COVID-19 patients were searched until November 24, 2020. We assessed risk of bias (RoB) using Cochrane RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools. Inverse variance random effect meta-analyses were performed. Quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE methodology. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinical improvement, and adverse events. RESULTS: Five RCTs (n = 1067) and 6 cohorts (n = 881) were included. Three and 1 RCTs had some concerns and high RoB, respectively; and there was serious RoB in all cohorts. Convalescent plasma did not reduce all-cause mortality in RCTs of severe (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.33-1.10) or moderate (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.09-3.86) COVID-19 vs. standard of care (SOC); CP reduced all-cause mortality vs. SOC in cohorts (RR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.49-0.91). Convalescent plasma did not reduce invasive ventilation vs. SOC in moderate disease (RR = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.47-1.55). In comparison to placebo + SOC, CP did not affect all-cause mortality (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.48-1.16) or clinical improvement (HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.82-1.40) in severe patients. Adverse and serious adverse events were scarce, similar between CP and controls. Quality of evidence was low or very low for most outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to SOC or placebo + SOC, CP did not reduce all-cause mortality in RCTs of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Convalescent plasma did not have an effect on other clinical or safety outcomes. Until now there is no good quality evidence to recommend CP for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Receptor and Molecular Mechanism of AGGF1 Signaling in Endothelial Cell Functions and Angiogenesis.

Objective: Angiogenic factor AGGF1 (angiogenic factor with G-patch and FHA [Forkhead-associated] domain 1) promotes angiogenesis as potently as VEGFA (vascular endothelial growth factor A) and regulates endothelial cell (EC) proliferation, migration, specification of multipotent hemangioblasts and venous ECs, hematopoiesis, and vascular development and causes vascular disease Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome when mutated. However, the receptor for AGGF1 and the underlying molecular mechanisms remain to be defined. Approach and Results: Using functional blocking studies with neutralizing antibodies, we identified [alpha]5[beta]1 as the receptor for AGGF1 on ECs. AGGF1 interacts with [alpha]5[beta]1 and activates FAK (focal adhesion kinase), Src (proto-oncogene tyrosine-protein kinase), and AKT (protein kinase B). Functional analysis of 12 serial N-terminal deletions and 13 C-terminal deletions by every 50 amino acids mapped the angiogenic domain of AGGF1 to a domain between amino acids 604-613 (FQRDDAPAS). The angiogenic domain is required for EC adhesion and migration, capillary tube formation, and AKT activation. The deletion of the angiogenic domain eliminated the effects of AGGF1 on therapeutic angiogenesis and increased blood flow in a mouse model for peripheral artery disease. A 40-mer or 15-mer peptide containing the angiogenic domain blocks AGGF1 function, however, a 15-mer peptide containing a single amino acid mutation from -RDD- to -RGD- (a classical RGD integrin-binding motif) failed to block AGGF1 function. Conclusions: We have identified integrin [alpha]5[beta]1 as an EC receptor for AGGF1 and a novel AGGF1-mediated signaling pathway of [alpha]5[beta]1-FAK-Src-AKT for angiogenesis. Our results identify an FQRDDAPAS angiogenic domain of AGGF1 crucial for its interaction with [alpha]5[beta]1 and signaling.

Efficacy and Safety of Hydroxychloroquine for Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as treatment for hospitalized COVID-19. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating hydroxychloroquine as treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients were searched until 2nd of December 2020. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, need of mechanical ventilation, need of non-invasive ventilation, ICU admission and oxygen support at 14 and 30 days. Secondary outcomes were clinical recovery and worsening, discharge, radiological progression of pneumonia, virologic clearance, serious adverse events (SAE) and adverse events. Inverse variance random effects meta-analyses were performed. Thirteen RCTs (n=18,540) were included. Hydroxychloroquine total doses ranged between 2000 and 12,400 mg; treatment durations were from 5 to 16 days and follow up times between 5 and 30 days. Compared to controls, hydroxychloroquine non-significantly increased mortality at 14 days (RR 1.07, 95%CI 0.92-1.25) or 30 days (RR 1.08, 95%CI 1.00-1.16). Hydroxychloroquine did not affect other primary or secondary outcomes, except SAEs that were significantly higher than the control (RR 1.24, 95%CI 1.05-1.46). Eleven RCTs had high or some concerns of bias. Subgroup analyses were consistent with main analyses. Hydroxychloroquine was not efficacious for treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients and caused more severe adverse events. Hydroxychloroquine should not be recommended as treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Impact of Prophylactic Hydroxychloroquine on People at High Risk of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

There are no proven prophylactic interventions for COVID-19. We systematically reviewed the efficacy of prophylactic hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. Studies evaluating hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis of COVID-19 were searched in several engines until 8 December 2020. Primary outcomes included RT-PCR positivity, COVID-19 infections (positive RT-PCR or compatible COVID-19 symptoms), and all-cause mortality. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for all outcomes. Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 5579) and one cohort (n = 106) were included. Placebo was the comparator in four RCTs, and usual care in one RCT. Compared to the controls, five RCTs showed that hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis did not reduce RT-PCR positivity (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.88-1.16), COVID-19 infection (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78-1.22), or all-cause mortality (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.27-1.99). There were no differences of effects by pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis. Prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine increased the risk of diarrhea, abdominal pain, or vomiting (RR 4.56, 95% CI 1.58-13.19). There were no effects of hydroxychloroquine on other secondary outcomes. Quality of evidence was low to very low for all outcomes. Hydroxychloroquine was not efficacious as a prophylaxis for COVID-19 infections, defined either as RT-PCR positivity or as a composite of RT-PCR positivity or compatible symptoms. Hydroxychloroquine did not reduce all-cause mortality, clinical worsening, or adverse events.

Efficacy and Safety of Colchicine in Post-acute Myocardial Infarction Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background: Inflammation plays a key role in atherosclerotic plaque destabilization and adverse cardiac remodeling. Recent evidence has shown a promising role of colchicine in patients with coronary artery disease. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of colchicine in post-acute myocardial infarction (MI) patients. Methods: We searched five electronic databases from inception to January 18, 2021, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating colchicine in post-acute MI patients. Primary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality and recurrent MI. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, stroke, urgent coronary revascularization, levels of follow-up high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), and drug-related adverse events. All meta-analyses used inverse-variance random-effects models. Results: Six RCTs involving 6,005 patients were included. Colchicine did not significantly reduce cardiovascular mortality [risk ratio (RR), 0.91; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.52-1.61; p = 0.64], recurrent MI (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.62-1.22; p = 0.28), all-cause mortality (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.61-1.85; p = 0.78), stroke (RR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.07-1.09; p = 0.05), urgent coronary revascularization (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.02-8.89; p = 0.19), or decreased levels of follow-up hs-CRP (mean difference, -1.95 mg/L; 95% CI, -12.88 to 8.98; p = 0.61) compared to the control group. There was no increase in any adverse events (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.07; p = 0.34) or gastrointestinal adverse events (RR, 2.49; 95% CI, 0.48-12.99; p = 0.20). Subgroup analyses by colchicine dose (0.5 vs. 1 mg/day), time of follow-up (<1 vs. ≥1 year), and treatment duration (≤30 vs. >30 days) showed no changes in the overall findings. Conclusion: In post-acute MI patients, colchicine does not reduce cardiovascular or all-cause mortality, recurrent MI, or other cardiovascular outcomes. Also, colchicine did not increase drug-related adverse events.

Renal Denervation for Uncontrolled and Resistant Hypertension: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Comparative efficacy and safety of renal denervation (RDN) interventions for uncontrolled (UH) and resistant hypertension (RH) is unknown. We assessed the comparative efficacy and safety of existing RDN interventions for UH and RH. Six search engines were searched up to 1 May 2020. Primary outcomes were mean 24-h ambulatory and office systolic blood pressure (SBP). Secondary outcomes were mean 24-h ambulatory and office diastolic blood pressure (DBP), clinical outcomes, and serious adverse events. Frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses were used to evaluate effects of RDN interventions. Twenty randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 2152) were included, 15 in RH (n = 1544) and five in UH (n = 608). Intervention arms included radiofrequency (RF) in main renal artery (MRA) (n = 10), RF in MRA and branches (n = 4), RF in MRA+ antihypertensive therapy (AHT) (n = 5), ultrasound (US) in MRA (n = 3), sham (n = 8), and AHT (n = 9). RF in MRA and branches ranked as the best treatment to reduce 24-h ambulatory, daytime, and nighttime SBP and DBP versus other interventions (p-scores: 0.83 to 0.97); significant blood pressure effects were found versus sham or AHT. RF in MRA+AHT was the best treatment to reduce office SBP and DBP (p-scores: 0.84 and 0.90, respectively). RF in MRA and branches was the most efficacious versus other interventions to reduce 24-h ambulatory SBP and DBP in UH or RH.

Short-term efficacy of umbilical cord milking in preterm infants: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To systematically evaluate short-term efficacy of UCM versus other interventions in preterm infants. METHODS: Six engines were searched until February 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing UCM versus immediate cord clamping (ICC), delayed cord clamping (DCC), or no intervention. Primary outcomes were overall mortality, intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), and patent ductus arteriosus (PDA); secondary outcomes were need for blood transfusion, mean blood pressure (MBP), serum hemoglobin (Hb), and ferritin levels. Random-effects meta-analyses were used. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs (n = 1708) were included. In comparison to ICC, UCM did not decrease mortality (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.2-1.1), IVH (RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-1.0), or PDA (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7-1.5). However, UCM reduced need of blood transfusion (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.9) and increased MBP (MD 2.5 mm Hg, 95% CI 0.5-4.5), Hb (MD 1.2 g/dL, 95% CI 0.8-1.6), and ferritin (MD 151.4 ng/dL, 95% CI 59.5-243.3). In comparison to DCC, UCM did not reduce mortality, IVH, PDA, or need of blood transfusion but increased MBP (MD 3.7, 95% CI 0.6-6.9) and Hb (MD 0.3, 95% CI -0.2-0.8). Only two RCTs had high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: UCM did not decrease short-term clinical outcomes in comparison to ICC or DCC in preterm infants. Intermediate outcomes improved significantly with UCM. IMPACT: In 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), umbilical cord milking (UCM) did not reduce mortality, intraventricular hemorrhage, or patent ductus arteriosus compared to immediate (ICC) or delayed cord clamping (DCC). UCM improved mean blood pressure and hemoglobin levels compared to ICC or DCC. In comparison to ICC, UCM reduced the need for blood transfusion. We updated searches until February 2020, stratified by type of control, and performed subgroup analyses. There was low quality of evidence about clinical efficacy of UCM. Most of RCTs had low risk of bias. UCM cannot be recommended as standard of care for preterm infants.

Efficacy and harms of remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Efficacy and safety of treatments for hospitalized COVID-19 are uncertain. We systematically reviewed efficacy and safety of remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: Studies evaluating remdesivir in adults with hospitalized COVID-19 were searched in several engines until August 21, 2020. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, clinical improvement or recovery, need for invasive ventilation, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Inverse variance random effects meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: We included four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 2296) [two vs. placebo (n = 1299) and two comparing 5-day vs. 10-day regimens (n = 997)], and two case series (n = 88). Studies used intravenous remdesivir 200mg the first day and 100mg for four or nine more days. One RCT (n = 236) was stopped early due to AEs; the other three RCTs reported outcomes between 11 and 15 days. Time to recovery was decreased by 4 days with remdesivir vs. placebo in one RCT (n = 1063), and by 0.8 days with 5-days vs. 10-days of therapy in another RCT (n = 397). Clinical improvement was better for 5-days regimen vs. standard of care in one RCT (n = 600). Remdesivir did not decrease all-cause mortality (RR 0.71, 95%CI 0.39 to 1.28, I2 = 43%) and need for invasive ventilation (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.23 to 1.42, I2 = 60%) vs. placebo at 14 days but had fewer SAEs; 5-day decreased need for invasive ventilation and SAEs vs. 10-day in one RCT (n = 397). No differences in all-cause mortality or SAEs were seen among 5-day, 10-day and standard of care. There were some concerns of bias to high risk of bias in RCTs. Heterogeneity between studies could be due to different severities of disease, days of therapy before outcome determination, and how ordinal data was analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: There is paucity of adequately powered and fully reported RCTs evaluating effects of remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Until stronger evidence emerges, we cannot conclude that remdesivir is efficacious for treating COVID-19.

Desarrollo de un modelo de predicción de infección mayor posterior a cirugía cardiaca pediátrica / Development of a model for predicting major infection following pediatric heart surgery

RESUMEN Objetivo: Desarrollar un modelo de predicción de riesgo para infección posoperatoria mayor (IPM) a cirugía cardiaca pediátrica y validar el de la Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS). Materiales y métodos: Se analizó una cohorte retrospectiva de 1025 niños sometidos a cirugía cardiaca con circulación extracorpórea (CEC) del 2000 al 2010. Se empleó un modelo de regresión logística y se validó el modelo. Resultados: De los 1025 pacientes, 59 (5,8%) tuvieron al menos un episodio de IPM (4,8% sepsis, 1% mediastinitis, 0% endocarditis). La mortalidad hospitalaria (63% vs. 13%; p<0,001), al igual que la duración de la ventilación posoperatoria (301,6 vs. 34,3 horas; p<0,001) y la estancia en la unidad de cuidados intensivos (20,9 vs. 5,1 días; p <0,001) fueron mayores en los pacientes con IPM. Los factores predictores fueron: edad, sexo, peso, cardiopatía cianótica, RACHS-1 3-4, clase funcional IV modificada por Ross, estancia hospitalaria previa y antecedente de ventilación mecánica. El modelo tuvo un c-estadístico de 0,80 (intervalo de confianza [IC] al 95%: 0,74-0,86) y es clínicamente útil. El modelo de la STS mostró un c-estadístico de 0,78 (IC 95%: 0,71-0,84) y Hosmer-Lemeshow de 18,2 (p = 0,020). Se realizó una comparación entre ambos modelos empleando una prueba exacta de Fisher. Conclusión: Se desarrolló un modelo para identificar preoperatoriamente a niños con alto riesgo de infección grave después de una cirugía cardiaca con CEC con buen desempeño y calibración. Asimismo, se validó el modelo de la STS con moderada discriminación.

ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of this study was to develop a risk prediction model for major postoperative infection (MPI) after pediatric heart surgery and to validate the model of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS). Materials and methods: We analyzed a retrospective cohort of 1,025 children who underwent heart surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) from 2000 to 2010. We used a logistic regression model, which was validated. Results: Of the 1,025 patients, 59 (5.8%) had at least one episode of MPI (4.8% had sepsis, 1% had mediastinitis, 0% had endocarditis). Hospital mortality (63% vs. 13%; p < 0.001), as well as duration of postoperative ventilation (301.6 vs. 34.3 hours; p < 0.001) and intensive care unit stay (20.9 vs. 5.1 days; p < 0.001) were higher in patients with MPI. The predictive factors found were age, sex, weight, cyanotic heart disease, RACHS-1 3-4, Ross-modified functional class IV, previous hospital stay, and previous history of mechanical ventilation. The proposed model had a c-statistic of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.74-0.86) and was considered as clinically useful. The STS model showed a c-statistic of 0.78 (95% CI: 0.71-0.84) and a Hosmer-Lemeshow of 18.2 (P = 0.020). A comparison between the two models was made using an accurate Fisher test. Conclusion: A model with good performance and calibration was developed to preoperatively identify children at high risk for severe infection after cardiac surgery with CPB. The STS model was also validated and was found to have a moderate discrimination performance.