ABSTRACT
Background and Aims: We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis (NWM) to examine comparative effectiveness of non-selective beta blockers (NSBBs) on prophylaxis of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding (GVB) and mortality benefit. Methods: MEDLINE (OVID) and EMBASE databases were searched for eligible randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from inception to July 3, 2021. Outcomes of interest included primary/secondary prophylaxis of GVB, failure to achieve hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) decremental response, liver-related and all-cause mortality. A Bayesian NWM was performed to derive relative risk (RR) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The ranking probability of each NSBB was assessed by surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Results: Thirty-three RCTs including 3,188 cirrhosis patients with gastroesophageal varices were included. Compared with placebo, nadolol ranked first for reducing variceal bleeding [RR:0.25, (95% CrI:0.11-0.51); SUCRA:0.898], followed by carvedilol [RR:0.33, (95% CrI: 0.11-0.88); SUCRA:0.692] and propranolol [RR:0.52, (95% CrI:0.37-0.75); SUCRA:0.405]. Carvedilol was more effective than propranolol in achieving HVPG decremental response [RR:0.43, (95% CrI: 0.26-0.69)]. Carvedilol ranked first for reducing all-cause mortality [RR: 0.32, (95% CrI:0.17-0.57); SUCRA:0.963), followed by nadolol [RR:0.48, (95% CI:0.29-0.77); SUCRA:0.688], and propranolol [RR:0.77, (95% CI:0.58-1.02); SUCRA: 0.337]. Similar findings were observed for liver-related mortality. Carvedilol ranked the safest. The RR of adverse events was 4.38, (95% CrI:0.33-161.4); SUCRA:0.530, followed by propranolol [RR: 7.54, (95% CrI:1.90-47.89); SUCRA:0.360], and nadolol [RR: 18.24, (95% CrI:91.51-390.90); SUCRA:0.158]. Conclusions: Carvedilol is the preferred NSBB with better survival benefit and lower occurrence of adverse events among patients with gastroesophageal varices.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Data of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine immunogenicity among chronic liver disease (CLD) and liver transplant (LT) patients are conflicting. We performed meta-analysis to examine vaccine immunogenicity regarding etiology, cirrhosis status, vaccine platform and type of antibody. METHODS: We collected data via three databases from inception to February 16, 2022, and reported pooled seroconversion rate, T cell response and safety data after two vaccine doses. RESULTS: Twenty-eight (CLD only: 5; LT only: 18; both: 2; LT with third dose: 3) observational studies of 3,945 patients were included. For CLD patients, seroconversion rate ranged between 84% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76-90%) and 91% (95% CI, 83-95%), based predominantly on neutralizing antibody and anti-spike antibody, respectively. Seroconversion rate was 81% (95% CI, 76-86%) in chronic hepatitis B, 96% (95% CI, 93-97%) in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, 85% (95% CI, 75-91%) in cirrhosis and 85% (95% CI, 78-90%) in non-cirrhosis, 86% (95% CI, 78-92%) for inactivated vaccine and 89% (95% CI, 71-96%) for mRNA vaccine. The pooled seroconversion rate of anti-spike antibody was 66% (95% CI, 55-75%) after two doses of mRNA vaccines and 88% (95% CI, 58-98%) after third dose among LT recipients. T cell response rate was 65% (95% CI, 30-89%). Prevalence of adverse events was 27% (95% CI, 18-38%) and 63% (95% CI, 39-82%) among CLD and LT groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: CLD patients had good humoral response to COVID-19 vaccine, while LT recipients had lower response.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Liver Diseases , Liver Transplantation , Humans , COVID-19 Vaccines , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , COVID-19/prevention & control , Antibodies, Neutralizing , Vaccines, Inactivated , Antibodies, Viral , mRNA VaccinesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: East and Southeast Asia has the greatest burden of diabetes in the world. We sought to derive a reference set of utility values for type 2 diabetes without complication and disutility (utility decrement) values for important diabetes-related complications to better inform economic evaluation. METHODS: A systematic review to identify utility values for diabetes and related complications reported in East and Southeast Asia. We searched MEDLINE (OVID) from inception to May 26, 2020 for utility values elicited using direct and indirect methods. Identified studies were assessed for quality based on the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence guidelines. Utility and disutility estimates were pooled by meta-analyses with subgroup analyses to evaluate differences by nationality and valuation instrument. (PROSPERO: CRD42020191075). RESULTS: We identified 17 studies for the systematic review from a total of 13 035 studies in the initial search, of which 13 studies met the quality criteria for inclusion in the meta-analyses. The pooled utility value for diabetes without complication was 0.88 (95% CI 0.83-0.93), with the pooled utility decrement for associated complications ranged from 0.00 (for excess BMI) to 0.18 (for amputation). The utility values were consistently more conservative than previous estimates derived in Western populations. Utility decrements were comparable for SF-6D and EQ-5D valuation instruments and for Chinese and other Asian groups. CONCLUSIONS: A reference set of pooled disutility and utility values for type 2 diabetes and its complications in East and Southeast Asian populations yielded more conservative estimates than Western populations.
