The Efficacy of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor Versus Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor or Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Post Myocardial Infarction: A Meta-Analysis.

Acute myocardial infarction (MI) is one of the leading global healthcare emergencies, contributing to over three million global deaths. The purpose of this study is to investigate further the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan over angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in reducing the risk of heart failure (HF) in post-MI patients and providing a clear evidence-based medicine guideline for future use. An electronic database search was conducted on English databases. Eight articles were included, fulfilling our inclusion criteria, i.e., adult patients of ≥18 years with a recent diagnosis of acute MI. Pooled analysis was done using Review Manager version 5.4.1 (Cochrane Collaboration, London, England), and the data for each outcome were analyzed as dichotomous variables. A total of eight clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis. Six studies analyzed the sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI combination. The pooled analysis reported a significant increase in the risk of hypotension (relative risk {RR}: 1.29 {1.18, 1.41}) in the sacubitril/valsartan compared to the ACEI alone group. In addition, a significant increase was observed in the left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) after using the sacubitril/valsartan combination compared to using ACEI alone (RR: 3.08 {2.68, 4.48}). Furthermore, no significant difference was observed between the groups in terms of mortality rate (RR: 0.86 {0.73, 1.02}), the risk of heart failure (RR: 0.62 {0.39, 1.00}), the frequency of recurrent MI (RR: 0.86 {0.27, 2.76}), and the mean difference of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) (weighted mean difference {WMD}: -174.36 {-414.18, 65.46}) between both the groups. However, the sacubitril/valsartan combination proved to be beneficial in significantly reducing the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (RR: 0.64 {0.48, 0.84}) and rehospitalizations (RR: 0.53 {0.39, 0.71}) as compared to ACEI post MI. Additionally, sacubitril/valsartan and ARB's combination was reported in two studies. This led to a significant decrease in NT-proBNP concentration (WMD: -71.91 {-138.43, -5.39}) post MI in the sacubitril/valsartan combination group compared to the ARB usage alone. However, no significant difference was observed in the improvement of LVEF (WMD: 0.88 {-5.11, 6.87}) between both groups. Although the sacubitril/valsartan combination has no difference in mortality and outcomes compared to ACEI, there is evidence that using it proves to be more beneficial post MI compared to ACEI and ARB usage alone.

Safety and Efficacy of Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-Prolyl Hydroxylase Inhibitors vs. Erythropoietin-Stimulating Agents in Treating Anemia in Renal Patients (With or Without Dialysis): A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

Hypoxia-inducible factor-prolyl hydroxylase domain inhibitors (HIF-PHIs) are a novel group of drugs used to treat renal anemia, but their benefits vary among different trials. Our meta-analysis aims to assess the safety and efficacy of HIF-PHI versus erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) in managing anemia among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), regardless of their dialysis status. PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were queried to discover eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To quantify the specific effects of HIF-PHI, we estimated pooled mean differences (MDs) and relative risks (RR) with 95% CIs. Our meta-analysis involved 22,151 CKD patients, with 11,234 receiving HIF-PHI and 10,917 receiving ESA from 19 different RCTs. The HIF-PHI used included roxadustat, daprodustat, and vadadustat. HIF-PHI yielded a slight but significant increase in change in mean hemoglobin (Hb) levels (MD: 0.06, 95% CI (0.00, 0.11); p = 0.03), with the maximum significant increase shown in roxadustat followed by daprodustat as compared to ESA. There was a significant decrease in efficacy outcomes such as change in mean iron (MD: -1.54, 95% CI (-3.01, -0.06); p = 0.04), change in mean hepcidin (MD: -21.04, 95% CI (-28.92, -13.17); p < 0.00001), change in mean ferritin (MD: -16.45, 95% CI (-27.17,-5.73); p = 0.03) with roxadustat showing maximum efficacy followed by daprodustat. As for safety, HIF-PHI showed significantly increased incidence in safety outcomes such as diarrhea (MD: 1.3, 95% CI (1.11, 1.51); p = 0.001), adverse events leading to withdrawal (MD: 2.03, 95% CI (1.5, 2.74), p = 0.00001) among 25 various analyzed outcomes. This meta-analysis indicates that HIF-PHIs present a potentially safer and more effective alternative to ESAs, with increased Hb levels and decreased iron usage in CKD patients without significantly increasing adverse events. Therefore, in these patients, we propose HIF-PHI alongside renal anemia treatment.

Short- and long-term cardiovascular outcomes in insulin-treated versus non-insulin-treated diabetes mellitus patients after percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: This study aims to assess differences in severity of short-term (<1 year) and long-term (≥1 year) adverse CV outcomes after PCI in insulin-treated vs. non-insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (DM) patients. METHODS: A systematic search on Pubmed and Embase led to the incorporation of 29 studies that compared post-percutaneous coronary interventional outcomes in insulin-treated and non-insulin-treated diabetes mellitus. Diabetes mellitus (type 2) was defined as fasting blood glucose (FBG) level of >7.0 mmol/L or with an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) level of >11.1 mmol/L at least on two separate occasions. Adverse CV outcomes were assessed in insulin-treated and non-insulin-treated DM after the PCI procedure considered for the analyses were mortality, MACE, TLR, TVR, MI, stent thrombosis, target lesion failure (TLF), and need for-post PCI CABG. Data were pooled and analyzed using Review Manager 5.3, and risk ratios (RR) with respective 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.The statistical analyses were carried out by Review Manager v.5.3, and the data were pooled using a random-effects model. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported along with forest plots. The chi-square test was performed to assess for differences between the subgroups. Heterogeneity across studies was evaluated using Higgins I2 statistics. Visual inspection of the funnel plot and Begg's regression test were used to assess publication bias. RESULTS: A total of 40,527 patients (11742 in the Insulin-treated diabetes mellitus group and 28785 in the non-insulin-treated DM group) who underwent PCI were included. The pooled analysis of short-term follow up outcomes preceding PCI demonstrated a significantly higher risk of mortality (RR = 1.75 [1.24,2.47]; p = 0.002), MI (RR = 1.81[1.14,2.87]; p = 0.01], stent thrombosis (RR = 1.63[1.13, 2.35]; p = 0.009) and target lesion revascularization (TLR) (RR = 1.29[1.02,1.63]; p = 0.03) in insulin-treated DM patients. Similarly, analysis of long-term follow-up studies depicted a significantly higher risk mortality (RR = 1.55 [1.22, 1.97]; p = 0.0003), MI (RR = 1.63 [1.35, 1.97]; p=<0.00001), MACE (R = 1.47 [1.31, 1.65]; p=<0.00001), stent thrombosis (RR = 1.54 [1.19,1.99]; p = 0.001), TLR (RR = 1.40 [1.18, 1.66]; p = 0.0001), target vessel revascularization (TVR) (RR = 1.35 [1.11, 1.64]; p = 0.003) in insulin-treated DM group after PCI versus non-insulin-treated DM patients. CONCLUSION: Despite a tremendous technical success rate of multi-vessel stenting, people living with diabetes who were being treated with insulin had higher long-term, and short-term mortality rates, MI, TLR, TVR, and stroke compared to people living with diabetes who were being treated with means other than insulin and are more prone to detrimental cardiovascular outcomes.

Use of Tocilizumab in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Current Evidence.

Background and objectives A flare-up in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases threatens the health of people, and though there is no proven pharmacological treatment, many analytical studies have suggested that interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels are elevated in cases of severe COVID-19 and that the anti-IL-6 biologic agent tocilizumab may be beneficial. This is a critical review of studies aiming to assess the safety and efficacy of tocilizumab as compared to the standard regimen in patients with COVID-19. Materials and methods Online databases (PubMed and Cochrane) were searched until June 29, 2020, for original articles investigating the immunological response in COVID-19 and its treatment with tocilizumab. Data on multiple baseline characteristics and pre-specified endpoints were extracted and pooled using a random effect model. We used Review Manager version 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014, Denmark) and Stata 11.0 (Stata Corporation LP, College Station, TX) for all analyses. Risk ratios (RR) and the weighted mean difference (WMD) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Results From a total of 1,246 identified articles, 13 studies were included after duplicate removal and narrowing based on title and abstract. Of the 13 included studies, seven case-control studies were shortlisted for meta-analysis (quantitative) and six-single arm studies were used in the discussion (qualitative). These studies had 766 patients (351 in the tocilizumab arm and 414 in the control arm). Their pooled analysis demonstrated that mortality was significantly lower in the tocilizumab group (RR=0.56 [0.34, 0.92]; p=0.02; I2=76%), as was the need for artificial invasive ventilation (RR=0.34 [0.12, 0.99]; p=0.05; I2=0%) as compared to the control group. No significant differences were observed between tocilizumab and control group in intensive care unit admissions (RR=0.73 [0.15, 3.59]; p=0.70; I2=60%) and risks of post-drug infection (RR=1.29 [0.41, 4.04]; p=0.66; I2=88%). In terms of efficacy outcome, improved oxygen saturation (RR=1.13 [1.04, 1.65]; p=0.02; I2=0%) was reported to be markedly significant in tocilizumab patients when compared with the standard care group. Conclusions Our results based on pooled studies show tocilizumab to be safe and efficacious in reducing mortality among critically ill COVID-19 patients. However, due to the limited number of observational studies, the positive findings should be viewed cautiously and warrant further investigation.