Efficacy and Safety of Rivaroxaban Versus Enoxaparin in Prevention of Recurrence of Venous Thrombo-Embolism Events in Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of rivaroxaban compared to enoxaparin in patients diagnosed with cancer and venous thromboembolism. METHODS: A search of Pub Med, Scopus, and Google Scholar, from inception through April 2023 was conducted. Articles comparing rivaroxaban with enoxaparin in patients with cancer and VTE/PE/DVT were included. Review Manager Version 5.2 was utilised for the analysis of the following outcomes; VTE, PE, DVT, major bleeding, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 8 articles and 2276 patients were included in the final analysis. Pooled analysis showed that rivaroxaban had a statistically insignificant reduced association with VTE occurrence (RR:0.83, 95% CI:0.58-1.18, P:0.3) as well as a statically insignificant reduction in major bleeding (RR:0.79, 95% CI:0.53-1.18, P:0.25). Analysis showcased that there was an insignificant reduction of mortality rivaroxaban as compared to enoxaparin (RR:0.74, 95% CI: 0.46-1.20, P:0.23). CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban can serve as a viable alternative to enoxaparin, with no appreciable drawbacks, for preventing and managing VTE in patients with malignancy.

A comparison of the accuracy of Tzanakis and Alvarado Score in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Acute appendicitis is one of the most commonly encountered surgical emergencies on a global level. Due to the requirement of an immediate clinical diagnosis and the presence of limited resources, clinicians and diagnosticians refer to scoring systems to diagnose this condition, among which Alvarado and Tzanakis scoring systems are widely used. This meta-analysis aims to compare the diagnostic accuracy of these two systems. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and SCOPUS databases. All studies that reported diagnostic parameters of Alvarado and Tzanakis scores in patients with suspected acute appendicitis were selected. Diagnostic values such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy were extracted from the selected studies and statistical analysis was performed with Meta Disc 1.4 software. Quality assessment of the selected studies was performed using the QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C tools. Fourteen studies were included in our meta-analysis which enrolled 2235 patients. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity of the Tzanakis score was calculated as 0.86 (95% CI; 0.84-00.87) while the specificity was 0.73 (95% CI; 0.69-0.78). In addition, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.9261 (SE; 0.0169) and the diagnostic Odds Ratio (OR) was 22.52 (95% CI; 9.47-53.56). The pooled sensitivity of Alvarado score was 0.67 (95% CI; 0.65-0.69) and the specificity was 0.74 (95% CI; 0.69-0.79). Moreover, the area under the curve (AUC) of the Alvarado score was 0.7389 (SE; 0.0489) and the diagnostic Odds Ratio was 4.92 (95% CI; 2.48-9.75). INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSION: The Tzanakis scoring system has a higher sensitivity, area under the curve, and diagnostic odds ratio when compared to the Alvarado score. However, the Alvarado score has a marginally better specificity making it more reliable in excluding acute appendicitis.

Zuranolone for treatment of major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Current treatment modalities for Major Depressive Disorder have variable efficacies and a variety of side effects. To amend this, many trials for short term, well tolerated monotherapies are underway. One such option is Zuranolone (SAGE-217), which is a recent FDA approved antidepressant for Post Partum depression (PPD) and is undergoing clinical trials for PPD, major depressive disorder (MDD) and essential tremors (ET). Objectives: Pool currently available data that compare Zuranolone to Placebo for the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder and evaluate its efficacy and safety profile. Methods: We retrieved data from PUBMED and SCOPUS from inception to July 2023. We included articles comparing Zuranolone or SAGE 217 with placebo in patients suffering from Major Depressive Disorder. Review Manager 5.4 was used to analyze the outcomes including changes in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores from baseline as well as any treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and severe adverse events. Results: Our review analyzed 4 trials and the data of 1,357 patients. Patients treated with Zuranolone indicated a statistically significant effect in the change from baseline in HAM-D score (p = 0.0009; MD [95% CI]: -2.03 [-3.23, -0.84]) as well as in MADRS score (p = 0.02; MD [95% CI]: -2.30[-4.31, -0.30]) and HAM-A score (p = 0.03; MD [95% CI]: -1.41[-2.70, -0.11]) on 15th day when compared to the Placebo group. Zuranolone was also significantly associated with a higher response rate (p = 0.0008; OR [95% CI]: 1.63[1.14, 2.35]) and higher remission rate (p = 0.03; OR [95% CI]: 1.65[1.05, 2.59]) when compared with the placebo. As for safety, Zuranolone was significantly associated with 1 or more TEAE (p = 0.006; RR [95% CI]: 1.14[1.04, 1.24]) but an insignificant association with side effects that lead to drug discontinuation (p = 0.70; RR [95% CI]: 1.18[0.51, 2.76]) and serious adverse events (p = 0.48; RR [95% CI]: 1.46 [0.52, 4.10]) when compared with placebo. Conclusion: Zuranolone is an effective and safe drug for short course major depressive disorder monotherapy. It shows results in 14 days (compared to 2-4 weeks that SSRI's take) and has anti-anxiolytic effects as well. However, only 4 trials have been used for the analysis and the sample size was small. The trials reviewed also cannot determine the long-term effects of the drug. More trials are needed to determine long term effects.