Comparative Safety and Efficacy of Low/Moderate-Intensity Statin plus Ezetimibe Combination Therapy vs. High-Intensity Statin Monotherapy in Patients with Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: An Updated Meta-Analysis.

AIM: Statin therapy is considered the gold standard for treating hypercholesterolemia. This updated meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of a low/moderate-intensity statin in combination with ezetimibe compared with high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). METHODS: A systematic search of two databases (PubMed and Cochrane CENTRAL) was conducted from inception to January 2023 and a total of 21 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were identified and included in the analysis. Data were pooled using Hedges's g and a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model to derive standard mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (Cis). The primary outcome studied was the effect of these treatments on lipid parameters and safety events. RESULTS: The results revealed that combination therapy was more effective in reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (SMD= - 0.41; CI - 0.63 to - 0.19; P = 0.0002). There was no significant change in the levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), Apo A1, or Apo B. The safety of these treatments was assessed by the following markers alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and creatine phosphokinase (CK), and a significant difference was only observed in CK (SMD: - 0.81; CI - 1.52 to - 0.10; P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis demonstrated that the use of low/moderate-intensity statin combination therapy significantly reduced LDL-C levels compared with high-intensity statin monotherapy, making it preferable for patients with related risks. However, further trials are encouraged to evaluate potential adverse effects associated with combined therapy.

Comparing the efficacy of corticosteroids among patients with community-acquired pneumonia in the ICU versus non-ICU settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite the potential of corticosteroids in treating community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), conflicting evidence exists regarding their effect on mortality. To address this gap and provide new insights, we conducted a pre-specified subgroup meta-analysis of corticosteroid use in CAP patients, focusing on the ICU versus non-ICU subsets. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and SCOPUS from inception to May 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcomes of interest were mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, need for ICU admission, and treatment failure. Secondary outcomes analysed were the need for hospital readmission, length of hospital stay, length of ICU stay, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, secondary infections, and hyperglycaemic events. The results were analysed through the random-effects model. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Eighteen randomized controlled trials (n = 4472) analyzing patients withCAP were included. Our results suggest that corticosteroids significantly reduced the incidence of mortality (RR: 0.66; 95 % CI: 0.54, 0.81; P = <0.0001) and need for mechanical ventilation (RR: 0.57; 95 % CI: 0.44, 0.73; P = <0.00001). It was also observed that corticosteroids significantly decrease the lengths of ICU (MD: -1.67; 95 % CI: -2.97, -0.37; P = 0.01) and hospital stay (MD: -1.94; 95 % CI: -2.89, -0.98; P = 0.0001), while increasing the number of hyperglycemic events (RR: 1.68; 95 % CI: 1.32, 2.12; P = <0.0001) and hospital readmissions (RR: 1.19; 95 % CI: 1.04, 1.37; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that corticosteroids yield improved outcomes in CAP patients with regard to reduced mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation. It highlights the need for further large-scale RCTs with the proposed, specific stratifications.

Is endovascular treatment alone as effective and safe as that with preceding intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of direct endovascular therapy (EVT) and bridging therapy (EVT with preceding intravenous thrombolysis i.e. IVT), in acute anterior circulation, large vessel occlusion stroke. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature review of the English language literature was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, SCOPUS and ClinicalTrials.gov. Outcomes of interest were measured by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), and included: no disability (mRS0), no significant disability despite some symptoms (mRS1), slight disability (mRS2), moderate disability (mRS3), moderately severe disability (mRS4), severe disability (mRS5), mortality (mRS6). Additionally, we inspected patients having excellent outcome, functional independence outcome, and poor outcome, along with successful reperfusion and intracranial hemorrhage. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of seven RCTs involving 2,392 patients were finally included. The chances of achieving successful reperfusion were significantly more with IVT+EVT as compared to EVT alone (RR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.00; P=0.03) (I2=0%). There was no significant difference in the number of patients having outcomes ranging from mRS0 to mRS6, excellent outcome, functional independence, poor outcome or incidence of intracranial hemorrhage, who underwent either EVT alone or IVT+EVT. CONCLUSIONS: Additional trials are needed to determine if the absence of significant differences is due to insufficient sample size or if the combination therapy is truly not beneficial.