scholarly journals Comparison of platelet reactivity between prasugrel and ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mingxiang Wen ◽  
Yaqi Li ◽  
Xiang Qu ◽  
Yanyan Zhu ◽  
Lingfang Tian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Platelet Reactivity ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reactivity Index ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Abstract Background This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of prasugrel and ticagrelor on high (HTPR) and low on-treatment platelet reactivity (LTPR) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods Eligible studies were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. HTPR and LTPR were evaluated on the basis of the vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein platelet reactivity index (VASP-PRI) and P2Y12 reaction units (PRUs). HTPR and LTPR were analyzed using risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% CI were used to calculate the pooled effect size of platelet reactivity (PR). Results Fourteen eligible studies were obtained, which included 2629 patients treated with ticagrelor (n = 1340) and prasugrel (n = 1289). The pooled results showed that the prasugrel-treated patients had higher platelet reactivity than the ticagrelor-treated patients (PRU: WMD = − 32.26; 95% CI: − 56.48 to − 8.76; P < 0.01; VASP-PRI: WMD = − 9.61; 95% CI: − 14.63 to − 4.60; P = 0.002). No significant difference in HTPR based on PRU was identified between the ticagrelor and prasugrel groups (P = 0.71), whereas a lower HTPR based on VASP-PRI was found in the ticagrelor-treated patients than in the prasugrel-treated patients (RR = 0.30; 95% CI: 0.12–0.75; P = 0.010). In addition, the results showed a lower LTPR was observed in the prasugrel group than in the ticagrelor group (RR = 1.40; 95% CI: 1.08–1.81; P = 0.01). Conclusions Prasugrel might enable higher platelet reactivity than ticagrelor. Ticagrelor could lead to a decrease in HTPR and increase in LTPR. However, this result was only obtained in pooled observational studies. Several uncertainties such as the nondeterminancy of the effectiveness of ticagrelor estimated using VASP-PRI or the definition of HTPR (a high or modifiable risk factor) might have affected our results.

scholarly journals SURG-16. SUPRATOTAL VERSUS GROSS TOTAL RESECTION OF GLIOBLASTOMA: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_6) ◽  
pp. vi243-vi243
Author(s):  
Christina Jackson ◽  
John Choi ◽  
Carrie Price ◽  
Chetan Bettegowda ◽  
Michael Lim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Gross Total Resection ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Study Quality ◽  
Total Resection ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Supratotal Resection ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Abstract INTRODUCTION Due to the infiltrative nature of glioblastoma(GBM) outside of the contrast enhancing region in the peritumoral zone, there is increasing movement to perform supratotal resections (SpTR) by extending the edge of resection beyond the contrast enhancing portion of the tumor. However, there is currently no consensus on the potential survival benefit of SpTR in GBM as compared to gross total resection (GTR). METHODS Therefore, we performed a systematic review using PRISMA guidelines and performed a comprehensive literature search on Pubmed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov, from inception to August 16, 2018, to identify articles comparing overall survival (OS) after SpTR versus GTR. Furthermore, we assessed study quality using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines. RESULTS We identified 8902 unique citations, of which 11 articles and 2 abstracts met study inclusion criteria. 925 patients underwent SpTR out of a total of 2137 patients. 9 of the 13 studies demonstrated improved survival with SpTR compared to GTR (median improvement in OS of 10.5 months), with no significant difference in post-operative complication rate. Conversely, one abstract found worsened outcomes with SpTR compared to GTR (median decrease in OS of 4 months). However, overall study quality was poor, with 12 of the 13 studies of level IV evidence and one study of level IIIb evidence. We were unable to perform a meta-analysis due to significant clinical and methodological heterogeneity amongst the studies (e.g. differences in adjuvant therapy and lack of standardization of definition of supratotal resection). CONCLUSIONS Our systematic review indicates that SpTR may be associated with improved OS compared to GTR for GBM. However, this is limited by poor study quality and significant clinical and methodological heterogeneity amongst the studies. There is need for prospective clinical trials to further establish standardized guidelines for SpTR in GBM.

Comparison of prasugrel and ticagrelor for patient with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
L.C.W Fong ◽  
N Lee ◽  
A.T Yan ◽  
M.Y Ng
Keyword(s):  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Stent Thrombosis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Composite Endpoint ◽  
Cardiovascular Death ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Primary Composite Endpoint ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
St Elevation

Abstract Background Prasugrel and ticagrelor are both effective anti-platelet drugs for patients with acute coronary syndrome. However, there has been limited data on the direct comparison of prasugrel and ticagrelor until the recent ISAR-REACT 5 trial. Purpose To compare the efficacy of prasugrel and ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndrome with respect to the primary composite endpoint of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke or cardiac cardiovascular death, and secondary endpoints including MI, stroke, cardiovascular death, major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2 or above), and stent thrombosis within 1 year. Methods Meta-analysis was performed on randomised controlled trials (RCT) up to December 2019 that randomised patients with acute coronary syndrome to either prasugrel or ticagrelor. RCTs were identified from Medline, Embase and ClinicalTrials.gov using Cochrane library CENTRAL by 2 independent reviewers with “prasugrel” and “ticagrelor” as search terms. Effect estimates with confidence intervals were generated using the random effects model by extracting outcome data from the RCTs to compare the primary and secondary clinical outcomes. Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (Ver 2.0) was used for assessment of all eligible RCTs. Results 411 reports were screened, and we identified 11 eligible RCTs with 6098 patients randomised to prasugrel (n=3050) or ticagrelor (n=3048). The included trials had a follow up period ranging from 1 day to 1 year. 330 events on the prasugrel arm and 408 events on the ticagrelor arm were recorded. There were some concerns over the integrity of allocation concealment over 7 trials otherwise risk of other bias was minimal. Patients had a mean age of 61±4 (76% male; 50% with ST elevation MI; 35% with non-ST elevation MI; 15% with unstable angina; 25% with diabetes mellitus; 64% with hypertension; 51% with hyperlipidaemia; 42% smokers). There was no significant difference in risk between the prasugrel group and the ticagrelor group on the primary composite endpoint (Figure 1) (Risk Ratio (RR)=1.17; 95% CI=0.97–1.41; p=0.10, I2=0%). There was no significant difference between the use of prasugrel and ticagrelor with respect to MI (RR=1.24; 95% CI=0.81–1.90; p=0.31); stroke (RR=1.05; 95% CI=0.66–1.67; p=0.84); cardiovascular death (RR=1.01; 95% CI=0.75–1.36; p=0.95); BARC type 2 or above bleeding (RR=1.17; 95% CI =0.90–1.54; p=0.24); stent thrombosis (RR=1.58; 95% CI =0.90–2.76; p=0.11). Conclusion Compared with ticagrelor, prasugrel did not reduce the primary composite endpoint of MI, stroke and cardiovascular death within 1 year. There was also no significant difference in the risk of MI, stroke, cardiovascular death, major bleeding and stent thrombosis respectively. Figure 1. Primary Objective Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Appendectomy Does Not Increase the Risk of Future Emergence of Parkinson’s Disease: A Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 000313482198903
Author(s):  
Mitsuru Ishizuka ◽  
Norisuke Shibuya ◽  
Kazutoshi Takagi ◽  
Hiroyuki Hachiya ◽  
Kazuma Tago ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Random Effects Models ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Cochrane Library ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Observation Period

Objective To explore the impact of appendectomy history on emergence of Parkinson’s disease (PD). Background Although there are several studies to investigate the relationship between appendectomy history and emergence of PD, the results are still controversial. Methods We performed a comprehensive electronic search of the literature (the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and the Web of Science) up to April 2020 to identify studies that had employed databases allowing comparison of emergence of PD between patients with and those without appendectomy history. To integrate the impact of appendectomy history on emergence of PD, a meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the selected studies, and heterogeneity was analyzed using I2 statistics. Results Four studies involving a total of 6 080 710 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Among 1 470 613 patients with appendectomy history, 1845 (.13%) had emergences of PD during the observation period, whereas among 4 610 097 patients without appendectomy history, 6743 (.15%) had emergences of PD during the observation period. These results revealed that patients with appendectomy history and without appendectomy had almost the same emergence of PD (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, .87-1.20; P = .83; I2 = 87%). Conclusion This meta-analysis has demonstrated that there was no significant difference in emergence of PD between patients with and those without appendectomy history.

scholarly journals Assessment of the effect of vacuum-formed retainers and Hawley retainers on periodontal health: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. e0253968
Author(s):  
Bowen Li ◽  
Yifeng Xu ◽  
Cailian Lu ◽  
Zhenheng Wei ◽  
Yongyue Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Periodontal Health ◽  
Probing Depth ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Orthodontic Patients ◽  
The Cochrane Library ◽  
Sulcus Probing Depth

Background Recently, increasing attention has been paid to the periodontal health of orthodontic patients in the maintenance stage in clinical practice. The focus of this meta-analysis was to compare the effects of vacuum-formed retainers (VFR) and Hawley retainers (HR) on periodontal health, in order to provide a reference for clinical selection. Methods From the establishment of the database until November 2020, a large number of databases were searched to find relevant randomized control trials, including the Cochrane Library databases, Embase, PubMed, Medline via Ovi, Web of Science, Scopus, Grey Literature in Europe, Google Scholar and CNKI. Related literature was manually searched and included in the analysis. Two researchers screened the literature according to relevant criteria. The size of the effect was determined using RevMan5.3 software, and the mean difference and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to estimate the results using a random effects model. Results This meta-analysis included six randomized controlled trials involving 304 patients. The results of the meta-analysis showed that there was no statistical difference in sulcus probing depth status between the VFR group and the HR group, including at 1, 3, and 6 months. Compared with the VFR group, the HR group showed a lower gingival index at 1 month (mean difference = 0.12, 95%CI: 0.06 to 0.19) and 3 months (mean difference = 0.11, 95%CI: 0.06 to 0.17), while there was no statistically significant difference at 6 months (mean difference = 0.10, 95%CI: -0.07 to 0.27). The plaque index of the HR group also showed a good state at 1 month (mean difference = 0.06, 95%CI: 0.01 to 0.12), 3 months (mean difference = 0.12, 95%CI: 0.08 to 0.16), and 6 months (mean difference = 0.19, 95%CI: 0.09 to 0.29). Subgroup analysis of PLI showed that when all teeth were measured, PLI status was lower in the HR group at 6 months (mean difference = 0.32, 95%CI: 0.18 to 0.46). PLI status was also low for the other teeth group (mean difference = 0.15, 95%CI: 0.08 to 0.22). Conclusion Our meta-analysis showed that patients using the Hawley retainer had better periodontal health compared with those using vacuum-formed retainers. However, more research is needed to look at the periodontal health of patients using these two retainers.

scholarly journals Efficacy of high-pressure balloon for the treatment of arteriovenous fistula stenosis: a meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu Li ◽  
Wenhao Cui ◽  
Jukun Wang ◽  
Chao Zhang ◽  
Tao Luo
Keyword(s):  
High Pressure ◽  
Arteriovenous Fistula ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Technical Success Rate ◽  
Stenosis Rate ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Arteriovenous Fistula Stenosis ◽  
Using Data ◽  
The Cochrane Library

AbstractObjectiveThe objective of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of high-pressure balloon (HPB) versus conventional balloon angioplasty (BA) in treating arteriovenous fistula (AVF) stenosis.Materials and MethodsA meta-analysis was conducted using data acquired from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, SinoMed, CNKI, WanFang and VIP databases from the time the databases were established to November 2020. All analyses included in the studies comprised the subgroups of HPB and BA. The patency of AVF was compared between the two groups at 3 months, 6 months and 12 months after operation.ResultsNine studies comprising 475 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results revealed that stenosis rate of AVFs treated with HPB was significantly lower than that of AVFs treated with conventional balloon at 3 months (OR= 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.67, p<0.001) and 6 months after operation (OR= 0.33, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.75, p=0.008). In addition, the technical success rate of HPB groups was high (OR= 0.14, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.35, p<0.001). However, no significant difference was observed between the experimental and control groups at 12 months after operation (OR= 0.61, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.25, p=0.18). No significant publication bias was observed in the analyses.ConclusionHPB is a potential primary option for the treatment of AVF stenosis, with a lower 3- and 6-month stenosis rate than BA. However, the long-term effect of HPB was not satisfactory; therefore, further research should be conducted to elucidate the relationship between the two groups.

Assessment of the Ovarian Reserve by Serum Anti-Müllerian Hormone in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Xian-hui Zhang ◽  
Ying-an Zhang ◽  
Xin Chen ◽  
Peng-yan Qiao ◽  
Li-yun Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Ovarian Reserve ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Dmard Treatment ◽  
Standard Mean Difference ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Newcastle Ottawa Scale ◽  
The Cochrane Library

<b><i>Background:</i></b> The ovarian reserve has been reported to be diminished in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. However, these results are still controversial. Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) is considered a reliable biomarker for the ovarian reserve. We thus performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the AMH levels and the effect of DMARDs on the ovarian reserve in rheumatoid arthritis patients. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and 2 Chinese databases (CNKI and Wanfang database), up to September 2021, were searched for relevant studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Pooled standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined with the random-effects model. The heterogeneity was described by <i>I</i><sup><i>2</i></sup> statistic and <i>p</i> value from the Cochrane Q test. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Eight eligible studies (679 patients and 1,460 controls) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with healthy control, the AMH levels in RA patients were significantly lower with the pooled SMD of −0.40 (95% CI: −0.66 to −0.14). However, in comparison of AMH with and without DMARD treatment, there was no significant difference with the pooled SMD of −0.1 (95% CI: −0.39 to 0.19). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> The results indicated that there was an increased risk of ovarian failure in RA patients and which is not related to DMARD treatment.

Comparison of conservative treatment with appendectomy for acute uncomplicated pediatric appendicitis: a meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 767-780
Author(s):  
Le-wee Bi ◽  
Bei-lei Yan ◽  
Qian-yu Yang ◽  
Hua-lei Cui
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Treatment Group ◽  
Conservative Treatment ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Treatment Efficacy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Aim: We aimed to compare conservative treatment with surgery for uncomplicated pediatric appendicitis to estimate effectiveness and safety. Methods: Data recorded until September 2018 were searched, and relevant academic articles from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and other libraries were selected. STATA version 13.0 (Stata Corporation, TX, USA) was used for statistical analysis. Results: We identified nine eligible papers. The study reported a significant difference in the success rate of treatment in 1 month and in 1 year, and no difference in the incidence of complications. The patients with fecaliths showed low treatment efficacy in conservative treatment group (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Standardized conservative treatment as inpatients for pediatric appendicitis is safe and feasible. Appendectomy was the better choice for patients with fecaliths.

scholarly journals Drainage versus No Drainage after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for Acute Cholecystitis: A Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 85 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-91
Author(s):  
Ming Xu ◽  
You-Liang Tao
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy ◽  
Acute Cholecystitis ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Wound Infection Rate ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Prophylactic Drainage ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Cochrane Library

To conduct a randomized controlled trial (RCT), meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of drains in reducing complications after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for acute cholecystitis needs to be carried out. An electronic search of PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, and the Cochrane Library from January 1990 to January 2018 was performed to identify randomized clinical trials that compare prophylactic drainage with no drainage in LC for acute cholecystitis. The outcomes were calculated as odds ratios (ORs) with 95 per cent confidence intervals (CIs) using RevMan 5.2. Four RCTs, which included 796 patients, were identified for analysis in our study. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of morbidities (OR = 1.23, 95% CI 0.55–2.76, P = 0.61). Abdominal pain was more severe in the drain group 24 hours after surgery (mean difference = 0.80, 95% CI 0.47–1.14; P < 0.00001). No significant difference was present with respect to wound infection rate and hospital stay. The use of abdominal drainage does not appear to be of any benefit in patients having undergone early LC for acute cholecystitis.

Serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors for the prevention of migraine and vestibular migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. 323-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fengzhi Wang ◽  
Jiaoqi Wang ◽  
Yumeng Cao ◽  
Zhongxin Xu
Keyword(s):  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Vestibular Migraine ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Severity Scores ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Norepinephrine Reuptake ◽  
Better Than

Background and objectivesThe role of serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) in migraine prophylaxis has not been completely established. Current treatments for vestibular migraine (VM) are based on scarce evidence. We aimed to perform an updated review focusing on the efficacy and tolerability of SNRIs for migraine and VM prevention.MethodsWe searched the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant studies. The primary outcome was migraine frequency. In the case of VM, the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) scores and Vertigo Severity Scores (VSSs) were extracted.ResultsSix randomized controlled trials involving 418 patients were analyzed. Patients receiving SNRIs had fewer migraine days than those receiving a placebo (standardized mean difference −0.38, 95% CI −0.76 to −0.01, p=0.04). The effects of SNRIs and other active drugs were comparable. In patients with VM, venlafaxine had a significant advantage over other active drugs in decreasing the VSS (weighted mean difference (MD) −1.45, 95% CI −2.11 to −0.78, p<0.0001) and the emotional domain score of the DHI (MD −2.64, 95% CI −4.97 to −0.31, p=0.03). We found no significant difference in the rate of withdrawals due to any reason or withdrawals due to side effects between SNRIs and active drugs and between SNRIs and a placebo.ConclusionsSNRIs were clinically safe and effective for migraine and VM prophylaxis, were better than a placebo, and not inferior to other active drugs. SNRIs may be a preferable choice for patients with VM with psychiatric disorders.

scholarly journals Effects of palonosetron and ondansetron on preventing nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic surgery

2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 411-420 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qili Liu ◽  
Chengmao Zhou ◽  
Zeqing Bao ◽  
Yu Zhu
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Time Intervals ◽  
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Background This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery with general anesthesia. Methods We searched for randomized controlled clinical trials in PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library. Results Nine studies were enrolled in this meta-analysis and showed no statistically significant difference between palonosetron and ondansetron in the prevention of PONV in the first 24 hours after surgery (relative risk [RR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35–1.10). Palonosetron more effectively prevented vomiting at various time intervals during the first 24 hours postoperatively than did ondansetron: 0–2 hours (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26–0.78), 2–6 hours (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.39–1.40), and 6–24 hours (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.55–2.64). No significant differences in side effects were found between palonosetron and ondansetron (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.40–1.14). Conclusion This meta-analysis demonstrated that palonosetron is not more efficacious than ondansetron in the prevention of early PONV. However, palonosetron was more efficacious than ondansetron in the prevention of vomiting after laparoscopic surgery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document