The association of lipoprotein(a) and coronary artery calcium in asymptomatic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is an atherogenic lipid particle associated with increased risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) events. Coronary artery calcium (CAC) score is a tool to diagnose subclinical atherosclerosis and guide clinical decision-making for primary prevention of CHD. Studies show conflicting results concerning the relationship between Lp(a) and CAC in asymptomatic populations. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the association of Lp(a) and CAC in asymptomatic patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane until April 2023 for studies evaluating the association between Lp(a) and CAC in asymptomatic patients. We evaluated CAC > 0 Agatston units, and CAC ≥ 100. Lp(a) was analysed as a continuous or dichotomous variable. We assessed the association between Lp(a) and CAC with pooled odds ratios (OR) adopting a random-effects model. A total of 23 105 patients from 18 studies were included in the meta-analysis with a mean age of 55.9 years, 46.4% female. Elevated Lp(a) increased the odds of CAC > 0 [OR 1.31; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.05-1.64; P = 0.02], CAC ≥100 (OR 1.29; 95% CI 1.01-1.65; P = 0.04; ), and CAC progression (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.20-1.70; P < 0.01; ). For each increment of 1 mg/dL in Lp(a) there was a 1% in the odds of CAC > 0 (OR 1.01; 95% CI 1.01-1.01; P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Our findings of this meta-analysis suggest that Lp(a) is positively associated with a higher likelihood of CAC. Higher Lp(a) levels increased the odds of CAC >0. These data support the concept that Lp(a) is atherogenic, although with high heterogeneity and a low level of certainty. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: CRD42023422034. KEY FINDINGS: Asymptomatic patients with elevated Lp(a) had 31% higher chances of having any coronary calcification (CAC > 0) and 29% higher chances of having more advanced calcification (CAC > 100). It increased the chances of having progression of coronary calcification over time by 43%. For each 1 mg/dL of Lp(a) there was an increment of 1% chance of having coronary calcification.

We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the association between Lp(a) and coronary calcification in asymptomatic patients without a known history of coronary artery disease.

Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists in patients with atrial fibrillation and stage 5 chronic kidney disease under dialysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and normal or slightly impaired renal function, the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is preferable to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). However, in patients undergoing hemodialysis, the efficacy, and safety of DOACs compared with VKAs are still unknown. PURPOSE: To review current evidence about the safety and efficacy of DOACs compared to VKAs, in patients with AF and chronic kidney disease under hemodialysis. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for RCTs comparing DOACs with VKAs for anticoagulation in patients with AF on dialysis therapy. Outcomes of interest were: (1) stroke; (2) major bleeding; (3) cardiovascular mortality; and (4) all-cause mortality. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1.7 and heterogeneity was assessed by I2 statistics. RESULTS: Three randomized controlled trials were included, comprising a total of 383 patients. Of these, 218 received DOACs (130 received apixaban; 88 received rivaroxaban), and 165 were treated with VKAs (116 received warfarin; 49 received phenprocoumon). The incidence of stroke was significantly lower in patients treated with DOACs (4.7%) compared with those using VKAs (9.5%) (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.18-0.97; p = 0.04; I2 = 0%). However, the difference was not statistically significant in the case of ischemic stroke specifically (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.17-1.04; p = 0.06; I2 = 0%). As for the major bleeding outcome, the DOAC group (11%) had fewer events than the VKA group (13.9%) but without statistical significance (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.45-1.28; p = 0.29; I2 = 0%). There was no significant difference between groups regarding cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.23; 95% CI 0.66-2.29; p = 0.52; I2 = 13%) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.77-1.24; p = 0.84; I2 = 16%). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that in patients with AF on dialysis, the use of DOACs was associated with a significant reduction in stroke, and a numerical trend of less incidence of major bleeding compared with VKAs, but in this case with no statistical significance. Results may be limited by a small sample size or insufficient statistical power.

Glucose control and psychosocial outcomes with use of automated insulin delivery for 12 to 96 weeks in type 1 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Glycaemic control of Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) remains a challenge due to hypoglycaemic episodes and the burden of insulin self-management. Advancements have been made with the development of automated insulin delivery (AID) devices, yet, previous reviews have only assessed the use of AID over days or weeks, and potential benefits with longer time of AID use in this population remain unclear. METHODS:  We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing AID (hybrid and fully closed-loop systems) to usual care (sensor augmented pumps, multiple daily insulin injections, continuous glucose monitoring and predictive low-glucose suspend) for adults and children with T1DM with a minimum duration of 3 months. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Clinicaltrials.gov for studies published up until April 4, 2023. Main outcomes included time in range 70-180 mg/dL as the primary outcome, and change in HbA1c (%, mmol/mol), glucose variability, and psychosocial impact (diabetes distress, treatment satisfaction and fear of hypoglycaemia) as secondary outcomes. Adverse events included diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and severe hypoglycaemia. Statistical analyses were conducted using mean differences and odds ratios. Sensitivity analyses were performed according to age, study duration and type of AID device. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO, CRD42022366710. RESULTS: We identified 25 comparisons from 22 studies (six crossover and 16 parallel designs) including a total of 2376 participants (721 in adult studies, 621 in paediatric studies, and 1034 in combined studies) which were eligible for analysis. Use of AID devices ranged from 12 to 96 weeks. Patients using AID had 10.87% higher time in range [95% CI 9.38 to 12.37; p < 0.0001, I2 = 87%) and 0.37% (4.77 mmol/mol) lower HbA1c (95% CI - 0.49% (- 6.39 mmol/mol) to - 0.26 (- 3.14 mmol/mol); p < 0·0001, I2 = 77%]. AID systems decreased night hypoglycaemia, time in hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia and improved patient distress, with no increase in the risk of DKA or severe hypoglycaemia. No difference was found regarding treatment satisfaction or fear of hypoglycaemia. Among children, there was no difference in glucose variability or time spent in hypoglycaemia between the use of AID systems or usual care. In sensitivity analyses, results remained consistent with the overall analysis favouring AID. CONCLUSION: The use of AID systems over 12 weeks, regardless of technical or clinical differences, improved glycaemic outcomes and diabetes distress without increasing the risk of adverse events in adults and children with T1DM.