CVOT Summit Report 2023: new cardiovascular, kidney, and metabolic outcomes.

The 9th Cardiovascular Outcome Trial (CVOT) Summit: Congress on Cardiovascular, Kidney, and Metabolic Outcomes was held virtually on November 30-December 1, 2023. This reference congress served as a platform for in-depth discussions and exchange on recently completed outcomes trials including dapagliflozin (DAPA-MI), semaglutide (SELECT and STEP-HFpEF) and bempedoic acid (CLEAR Outcomes), and the advances they represent in reducing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), improving metabolic outcomes, and treating obesity-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). A broad audience of endocrinologists, diabetologists, cardiologists, nephrologists and primary care physicians participated in online discussions on guideline updates for the management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in diabetes, heart failure (HF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD); advances in the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) and its comorbidities; advances in the management of CKD with SGLT2 inhibitors and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (nsMRAs); and advances in the treatment of obesity with GLP-1 and dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonists. The association of diabetes and obesity with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH; metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis, MASH) and cancer and possible treatments for these complications were also explored. It is generally assumed that treatment of chronic diseases is equally effective for all patients. However, as discussed at the Summit, this assumption may not be true. Therefore, it is important to enroll patients from diverse racial and ethnic groups in clinical trials and to analyze patient-reported outcomes to assess treatment efficacy, and to develop innovative approaches to tailor medications to those who benefit most with minimal side effects. Other keys to a successful management of diabetes and comorbidities, including dementia, entail the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology and the implementation of appropriate patient-physician communication strategies. The 10th Cardiovascular Outcome Trial Summit will be held virtually on December 5-6, 2024 ( http://www.cvot.org ).

Critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines.

Ten questions to assess to what degree a clinical practice guideline is likely to be trustworthy: 1) Do the authors have conflicts of interests? 2) Is the clinical question relevant? 3) Have relevant stakeholders been involved? 4) Have methods for study selection been described? 5) Is there a link between evidence and recommendations (transparent methods)? 6) Has the certainty of evidence been assessed? 7) Have the methods for reaching recommendations been described? 8) Are the recommendations unambiguous? 9) Are the recommendations relevant in your situation? 10) Is there an implementation strategy?

Prophylaxis for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

ObjectiveTo determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sourcesWHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 19 January 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 January 2021. Study selectionRandomized trials in which people at risk of covid-19 were randomized to drug prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. MethodsAfter duplicate data abstraction, we conducted random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included studies using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. ResultsThe first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomized trials - six addressing hydroxychloroquine (6,059 participants), one addressing ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (234 participants) and two addressing ivermectin alone (540 participants), all compared to standard care or placebo. Hydroxychloroquine has no important effect on admission to hospital (risk difference (RD) 1 fewer per 1,000, 95% credible interval (CrI) 3 fewer to 4 more, high certainty) or mortality (RD 1 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 2 fewer to 3 more, high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably has no important effect on laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 2 more per 1,000, 95% CrI 18 fewer to 28 more, moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (RD 19 more per 1,000, 95% CrI 1 fewer to 70 more, moderate certainty) and may have no important effect on suspected, probable or laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 15 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 64 fewer to 41 more, low certainty). Due to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision - and thus very low certainty evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 52 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 58 fewer to 37 fewer), and ivermectin alone on laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 50 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable or laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 159 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain uncertain. ConclusionHydroxychloroquine prophylaxis does not have an important effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not have an important effect on laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, we are highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement. FundingThis study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR-IRSC:0579001321). Readers noteThis article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.