scholarly journals Combination therapy versus pharmacotherapy, endoscopic variceal ligation, or the transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt alone in the secondary prevention of esophageal variceal bleeding: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Oncotarget ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (34) ◽  
pp. 57399-57408 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lu-Lu Lin ◽  
Shi-Ming Du ◽  
Yan Fu ◽  
Hui-Yun Gu ◽  
Lei Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Portosystemic Shunt ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Endoscopic Variceal Ligation ◽  
Esophageal Variceal ◽  
Esophageal Variceal Bleeding ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt

scholarly journals Covered versus bare stents for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xingshun Qi ◽  
Yulong Tian ◽  
Wei Zhang ◽  
Zhiping Yang ◽  
Xiaozhong Guo
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Portosystemic Shunt ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Covered Stents ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) is a standard treatment option for the management of portal hypertension in liver cirrhosis. Since the introduction of covered stents, shunt patency has been greatly improved. However, it remains uncertain about whether covered stents could improve survival. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials has been performed to compare the outcomes of covered versus bare stents for TIPS. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify the relevant randomized controlled trials. Overall survival, shunt patency, and hepatic encephalopathy were the major endpoints. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Heterogeneity was calculated. Cochrane risk of bias tool was employed. Results: Overall, 119 papers were identified. Among them, four randomized controlled trials were eligible. Viatorr covered stents alone, Fluency covered stents alone, and Viatorr plus Fluency covered stents were employed in one, two, and one randomized controlled trials, respectively. Risk of bias was relatively low. Meta-analyses demonstrated that the covered-stents group had significantly higher probabilities of overall survival (HR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.50–0.90, p = 0.008) and shunt patency (HR = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.29–0.62, p < 0.0001) than the bare-stents group. Additionally, the covered-stents group might have a lower risk of hepatic encephalopathy than the bare-stents group (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.49–1.00, p = 0.05). The heterogeneity among studies was not statistically significant in the meta-analyses. Conclusions: Compared with bare stents, covered stents for TIPS may improve the overall survival. In the era of covered stents, the indications for TIPS may be further expanded.

scholarly journals Cardiovascular safety and efficacy of metformin-SGLT2i versus metformin-sulfonylureas in type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Desye Gebrie ◽  
Desalegn Getnet ◽  
Tsegahun Manyazewal
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Sodium Glucose Cotransporter

AbstractDiabetes is a serious threat to global health and among the top 10 causes of death, with nearly half a billion people living with it worldwide. Treating patients with diabetes tend to become more challenging due to the progressive nature of the disease. The role and benefits of combination therapies for the management of type 2 diabetes are well-documented, while the comparative safety and efficacy among the different combination options have not been elucidated. We aimed to systematically synthesize the evidence on the comparative cardiovascular safety and efficacy of combination therapy with metformin-sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors versus metformin-sulfonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes. We searched MEDLINE-PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 15 August 2019 without restriction in the year of publication. We included randomized controlled trials of patients with type 2 diabetes who were on metformin-sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors or metformin-sulphonylureas combination therapy at least for a year. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events, and the secondary endpoints were cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, hypoglycemia, and changes in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), body weight, fasting plasma glucose, blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. We used a random-effects meta-analysis model to estimate mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes. We followed PICOS description model for defining eligibility and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 guidelines for reporting results. Of 3,190 citations, we included nine trials involving 10,974 participants. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference in all-cause mortality (risk ration [RR] = 0.93, 95% CI [0.52, 1.67]), serious adverse events (RR = 0.96, 95% CI [0.79, 1.17]) and adverse events (RR = 1.00, 95% CI [0.99, 1.02]) between the two, but in hypoglycemia (RR = 0.13, 95% CI [0.10, 0.17], P < 0.001). Participants taking metformin-sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors showed a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c (mean difference [MD] = − 0.10%, 95% CI [− 0.17, − 0.03], body weight (MD = − 4.57 kg, 95% CI [− 4.74, − 4.39], systolic blood pressure (MD = − 4.77 mmHg, 95% CI [− 5.39, − 4.16]), diastolic blood pressure (MD = − 2.07 mmHg, 95% CI [− 2.74, − 1.40], and fasting plasma glucose (MD = − 0.55 mmol/L, 95% CI [− 0.69, − 0.41]), p < 0.001. Combination therapy of metformin and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors is a safe and efficacious alternative to combination therapy of metformin and sulphonylureas for patients with type 2 diabetes who are at risk of cardiovascular comorbidity. However, there remains a need for additional long-term randomized controlled trials as available studies are very limited and heterogeneous.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document