Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of atosiban versus nifedipine for inhibition of preterm labor.

BACKGROUND: Two tocolytic drugs-atosiban and nifedipine-are currently used for first-line treatment of preterm labor (PTL). OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of atosiban with nifedipine for PTL treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: In May 2017, we searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials with search terms including "nifedipine", "atosiban", and "preterm labor". SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of women with PTL. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted for study design, patient characteristics, risk of bias domains, and study outcomes. A random-effects model was used to generate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We included seven studies that enrolled 992 patients. There was no significant difference between atosiban and nifedipine for pregnancy prolongation of 48 hours or more regarding efficacy (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.92-1.22; P=0.440) or effectiveness (0.93, 0.84-1.03; P=0.177). Pregnancy prolongation for 7 days or more also did not differ between groups for efficacy (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.89-1.21; P=0.656) or effectiveness (0.91, 0.79-1.05; P=0.177). Atosiban-however-was associated with fewer maternal side-effects than nifedipine. CONCLUSION: Atosiban resulted in fewer maternal side-effects than nifedipine, with no difference in pregnancy prolongation. PROSPERO registration: CRD42018090223.

Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors as therapeutic targets for heart failure.

Heart failure (HF) is a common clinical syndrome that affects more than 23 million individuals worldwide. Despite the marked advances in its management, the mortality rates in HF patients have remained unacceptably high. Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) are nuclear transcription regulators, involved in the regulation of fatty acid and glucose metabolism. PPAR agonists are currently used for the treatment of type II diabetes mellitus and hyperlipidemia; however, their role as therapeutic agents for HF remains under investigation. Preclinical studies have shown that pharmacological modulation of PPARs can upregulate the expression of fatty acid oxidation genes in cardiomyocytes. Moreover, PPAR agonists were proven able to improve ventricular contractility and reduce cardiac remodelling in animal models through their anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidant, anti-fibrotic, and anti-apoptotic activities. Whether these effects can be replicated in humans is yet to be proven. This article reviews the interactions of PPARs with the pathophysiological mechanisms of HF and how the pharmacological modulation of these receptors can be of benefit for HF patients.

Optimal percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: An updated, large-scale systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Our study aimed to compare three different percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) approaches: culprit-only (COR) and complete (CR) revascularization - categorizing into immediate (ICR) or staged (SCR). METHODS: We searched 13 databases for randomized controlled trials. Articles were included if they compared at least two strategies. To have more studies in each analysis, an adjusted analysis was performed using person-years to incorporate follow-up durations and obtain pooled rate ratios (RR), with their corresponding 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Thirteen trials were included with a population of 2830 patients. COR significantly increased major adverse cardiac event (MACE) (adjusted RR 1.67, 95% CI: 1.27-2.19) and repeat revascularization (2.12, 1.67-2.69), which was driven by repeat PCI, without any difference in all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) compared to CR. When categorizing CR into SCR and ICR, the trend repeated with COR increased MACE (1.99, 1.53-2.6 for ICR), cardiovascular mortality (2.06, 1.07-3.96 for ICR), MI for ICR (1.72, 1.04-2.86), repeat revascularization and repeat PCI for both ICR and SCR. Non-cardiovascular mortality, stroke, nephropathy, re-hospitalization, stent thrombosis and bleeding were similar among all approaches. CONCLUSIONS: In MVD-STEMI patients, CR is better than COR in terms of MACE, cardiovascular mortality, repeat revascularization with no difference in safety outcomes. There was a trend towards to a reduction of cardiovascular mortality and MI in ICR compared to SCR when each matched with COR; even though there is no statistically significant difference between ICR and SCR when compared together.