Pharmacogenetics-Based versus Conventional Dosing of Warfarin: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Recently, using the patient’s genotype to guide warfarin dosing has gained interest; however, whether pharmacogenetics-based dosing (PD) improves clinical outcomes compared to conventional dosing (CD) remains unclear. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate these two strategies.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese VIP and Chinese Wan-fang databases were searched. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool was used to assess the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was time within the therapeutic range (TTR); the secondary end points were the time to maintenance dose and time to first therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR), an INR greater than 4, adverse events, major bleeding, thromboembolism and death from any cause.

Results

A total of 11 trials involving 2,678 patients were included in our meta-analysis. The results showed that PD did not improve the TTR compared to CD, although PD significantly shortened the time to maintenance dose (MD = -8.80; 95% CI: -11.99 to -5.60; P<0.00001) and the time to first therapeutic INR (MD = -2.80; 95% CI: -3.45 to -2.15; P<0.00001). Additionally, PD significantly reduced the risk of adverse events (RR = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.03) and major bleeding (RR = 0.36; 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.89, P = 0.03), although it did not reduce the percentage of INR greater than 4, the risk of thromboembolic events and death from any cause. Subgroup analysis showed that PD resulted in a better improvement in the endpoints of TTR and over-anticoagulation at a fixed initial dosage rather than a non-fixed initial dosage.

Conclusions

The use of genotype testing in the management of warfarin anticoagulation was associated with significant improvements in INR-related and clinical outcomes. Thus, genotype-based regimens can be considered a reliable and accurate method to determine warfarin dosing and may be preferred over fixed-dose regimens.

Trial Registration PROSPERO

Database registration: CRD42015024127.     

Wavefront-Guided versus Non-Wavefront-Guided Photorefractive Keratectomy for Myopia: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Purpose

To compare the efficacy, predictability, safety, and induced higher-order aberrations (HOAs) between wavefront-guided and non-wavefront-guided photorefractive keratectomy (PRK).

Methods

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMED, and EMBASE were searched for randomized controlled trials. Trials meeting the selection criteria were quality appraised, and data was extracted by 2 independent authors. Measures of association were pooled quantitatively using meta-analytical methods. Comparisons between wavefront-guided and non-wavefront-guided ablations were made as pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences. The pooled ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed for efficacy, safety, and predictability. The weighted mean differences and 95% CIs were used to compare induced HOAs.

Results

The study covered five trials involving 298 eyes. After wavefront-guided PRK, the pooled OR of achieving an uncorrected distance visual acuity of 20/20 (efficacy) was 1.18 (95% CI, 0.53–2.60; p = 0.69), the pooled OR of achieving a result within ±0.50 diopter of the intended target (predictability) was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.40–1.84; p = 0.70). No study reported a loss of 2 or more lines of Snellen acuity (safety) with either modality. In eyes with wavefront-guided PRK, the postoperative trefoil aberrations (mean difference −0.02; 95% CI, −0.03 to −0.00; p = 0.03) were significantly lower. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the postoperative total HOAs (mean difference −0.04; 95% CI, −0.23 to 0.14; p = 0.63), spherical (mean difference 0.00; 95% CI, −0.08 to 0.09; p = 0.93), and coma (mean difference −0.06; 95% CI, −0.14 to 0.03; p = 0.20) aberrations.

Conclusions

According to the meta-analysis, wavefront-guided PRK offered no advantage in efficacy, predictability, or safety measures over non-wavefront-guided PRK, although it may have induced fewer trefoil aberrations.     

Stereotactic Aspiration versus Craniotomy for Primary Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

A wealth of evidence based on the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has indicated that surgery may be a better choice in the management of primary intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) compared to conservative treatment. However, there is considerable controversy over selecting appropriate surgical procedures for ICH. Thus, this meta-analysis was performed to assess the effects of stereotactic aspiration compared to craniotomy in patients with ICH.

Methods

According to the study strategy, we searched PUBMED, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Other sources such as the internet-based clinical trial registries, relevant journals and the lists of references were also searched. After literature searching, two investigators independently performed literature screening, assessment of quality of the included trials and data extraction. The outcome measures included death or dependence, total risk of complication, and the risk of rebleeding, gastrointestinal hemorrhage and systematic infection.

Results

Four RCTs with 2996 participants were included. The quality of the included trials was acceptable. Stereotactic aspiration significantly decreased the odds of death or dependence at the final follow-up (odds ratio (OR): 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.69–0.93; P = 0.004) and the risk of intracerebral rebleeding (OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.26–0.74; P = 0.002) compared to craniotomy with no significant heterogeneity among the study results.

Conclusions

The present meta-analysis provides evidence that the stereotactic aspiration may be associated with a reduction in the odds of being dead or dependent in primary ICH, which should be interpreted with caution. Further trials are needed to identify those patients most likely to benefit from the stereotactic aspiration.     

Single Incision versus Conventional Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Previous meta-analyses that compared the outcome of SILC and CLC have not presented consistent conclusions. This meta-analysis was performed after adding many recent RCTs, to clarify this issue.

Methods

Relevant articles published in English were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register from January 1997 to February 2013. Reference lists of the retrieved articles were reviewed to identify additional articles. Primary outcomes (postoperative pain scores, cosmetic score, and length of incision) and secondary outcomes (operating time, blood loss, conversion rates, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, time to initial oral intake, and time to resume work) were pooled. Quantitative variables were calculated using the weighted mean difference (WMD), and qualitative variables were pooled using odds ratios (OR).

Results

25 appropriate RCTs were identified from 2128 published articles. 1841 patients were treated, 944 with SILC and 897 with CLC. SILC was superior to CLC in cosmetic score (WMD = 1.155, P<0.001), shorter length of incision (WMD = -3.285, P = 0.029), and postoperative pain within 12 h (VAS in 3-4 h, WMD = -0.704, P = 0.026; VAS in 6-8 h, WMD = -0.613, P = 0.010). CLC was superior to SILC in operating time (OT) (WMD = 13.613, P<0.001) and need of additional instruments (OR = 7.448, P<0.001). Other secondary outcomes were similar.

Conclusions

SILC offered a better cosmetic result and less postoperative pain for patients with uncomplicated cholelithiasis or polypoid lesions of the gallbladder. However, SILC was associated with a longer OT and required additional instruments.     

Early versus Deferred Treatment for Smoldering Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized,Controlled Trials

Purpose

Whether patients with smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) needed to receive early interventional treatment remains controversial. Herein, we conducted a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of early treatment over deferred treatment for patients with SMM.

Methods

MEDLINE and Cochrane Library were searched to May 2014 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effect of early treatment over deferred treatment. Primary outcome measure was mortality, and secondary outcome measures were progression, response rate, and adverse events.

Results

Overall, 5 trials including 449 patients were identified. There was a markedly reduced risk of disease progression with early treatment (Odds Ratio [OR] = 0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.07 to 0.24). There were no significant differences in mortality and response rate (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.45 to 1.60, and OR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.32 to 1.23, respectively). More patients in the early treatment arm experienced gastrointestinal toxicities (OR = 10.02, 95%CI = 4.32 to 23.23), constipation (OR = 8.58, 95%CI = 3.20 to 23.00) and fatigue or asthenia (OR = 2.72, 95%CI = 1.30 to 5.67). No significant differences were seen with the development of acute leukemia (OR = 2.80, 95%CI = 0.42 to 18.81), hematologic cancer (OR = 2.07, 95%CI = 0.43 to 10.01), second primary tumors (OR = 3.45, 95%CI = 0.81 to 14.68), nor vertebral compression (OR = 0.18, 95%CI = 0.02 to 1.59).

Conclusions

Early treatment delayed disease progression but increased the risk of gastrointestinal toxicities, constipation and fatigue or asthenia. The differences on vertebral compression, acute leukemia, hematological cancer and second primary tumors were not statistically significant. Based on the current evidence, early treatment didn’t significantly affect mortality and response rate. However, further much larger trials were needed to provide more evidence.     

Dezocine for Preventing Postoperative Pain: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Dezocine is considered to be an alternative medication for managing postoperative pain. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of this drug in this regard.

Methods

Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare dezocine with placebo or dezocine with morphine on postoperative pain. The data were extracted and pooled using Mantel-Haenszel random effects model. Heterogeneity was tested using the I ² statistic with values >50% and Chi² test with P ≤ 0.05 indicating obvious heterogeneity between the studies.

Results

Seven trials evaluating 665 patients were included. The number of patients with at least 50% pain relief was increased (N = 234; RR 3.04, 95% CI 2.27 to 4.08) and physician (N = 465; RR 2.84, 95% CI 1.66 to 4.84) and patient satisfaction (N = 390; RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.85 to 4.26) were improved following the administration of dezocine compared with the placebo. The effects of dezocine were similar to those of morphine in terms of the number of patients reporting at least 50% pain relief within 2–6 h after surgery (N = 235; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.46) and physician (N = 234; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.49) and patient (N = 158; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.92) satisfaction. While, the number of patients with at least 50% pain relief within 0–1 h after surgery increased following dezocine compared with morphine treatment (N = 79; RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.77). There was no difference in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) following dezocine treatment compared with the placebo (N = 391; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.68) or morphine treatment (N = 235; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.93).

Conclusion

Dezocine is a promising analgesic for preventing postoperative pain, but further studies are required to evaluate its safety.     

Propofol versus Midazolam for Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Cirrhotic Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BackgroundSedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy is often achieved using propofol or midazolam in general population. However, impaired protein synthesis, altered drug metabolism, and compromised hepatic blood flow in patients with liver cirrhosis might affect the pharmacokinetics of sedatives, placing cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy at a greater risk of adverse events. The objective of this study was to assess comparative efficacies and safety of propofol and midazolam in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy.MethodsRandomized, controlled trials comparing propofol with midazolam in cirrhotic patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were selected. We performed the meta-analysis, using a random-effect model, the Review Manager, Version 5.2, statistical software package (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) according to the PRISMA guidelines.ResultsFive studies between 2003 and 2012, including 433 patients, were included. Propofol provided a shorter time to sedation (weight mean difference: -2.76 min, 95% confidence interval: -3.00 to -2.51) and a shorter recovery time (weight mean difference -6.17 min, 95% confidence interval: -6.81 to -5.54) than midazolam did. No intergroup difference in the incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, or hypoxemia was observed. Midazolam was associated with the deterioration of psychometric scores for a longer period than propofol.ConclusionThis meta-analysis suggests that Propofol sedation for endoscopy provides more rapid sedation and recovery than midazolam does. The risk of sedation-related side effects for propofol does not differ significantly from that of midazolam. The efficacy of propofol in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopy is superior to those of midazolam.     

Endoscopic Enucleation versus Open Prostatectomy for Treating Large Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objectives

To evaluate the overall efficacy and safety of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EP) vs open prostatectomy (OP) for large benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

Methods

We conducted an electronic search of PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to detect all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EP with OP. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3.

Results

Seven RCTs (735 patients) were included. At the 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-up, there were no significant differences in the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), maximum flow rate (Qmax), quality of life (QoL) score and post-void residual urine volume (PVR) between EP and OP. The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) was higher with EP (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21 to 1.78, p=0.01) at the 12-month follow-up. The catheterization time (WMD: 3.80 d, 95%CI: -5.11 to -2.48, P<0.00001) and hospital stay (WMD: 4.93 d, 95%CI: -5.96 to -3.89, P<0.00001) were shorter with EP. The duration of operation was longer for EP compared with OP (WMD: 16.21 min, 95%CI: 3.72 to 28.70, P=0.01). The resected tissue weight (WMD: -9.63 g, 95%CI: -14.46 to -4.81, P<0.0001) and decrease in hemoglobin (WMD: -1.14 g/dL, 95%CI: -1.81 to -0.47, P=0.0008) were less with EP. EP was associated with fewer blood transfusions (risk ratio: 0.22, 95%CI: 0.10 to 0.47, P=0.0001). There were no significant differences between EP and OP when comparing other complications.

Conclusions

Although only a limited number of RCTs with relatively limited follow-up are available, EP is shown to have a similar postoperative profile and comparable safety to OP. By contrast, EP may have a more desirable perioperative profile. EP appears to be an effective and safe minimally invasive option for treating large prostates that requires only brief convalescence.     

Radiofrequency Ablation versus Hepatic Resection for Small Hepatocellular Carcinomas: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Nonrandomized Controlled Trials

Objectives

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus hepatic resection (HR) for early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) meeting the Milan criteria.

Methods

A meta-analysis was conducted, and PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI and VIP databases were systematically searched through November 2012 for randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials (RCTs and NRCTs). The Cochrane Collaboration''s tool and modified MINORS score were applied to assess the quality of RCTs and NRCTs, respectively. The GRADE approach was employed to evaluate the strength of evidence.

Results

Three RCTs and twenty-five NRCTs were included. Among 11,873 patients involved, 6,094 patients were treated with RFA, and 5,779 with HR. The pooled results of RCTs demonstrated no significant difference between groups for 1- and 3-year overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS) and disease-free survival (DFS) (p>0.05). The 5-year OS (Relative Risk, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.88) and RFS (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.78) were lower with RFA than with HR. The 3- and 5-year recurrences with RFA were higher than with HR (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.94, and RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.97, respectively), but 1-year recurrence and in-hospital mortality showed no significant differences between groups (p>0.05). The complication rate (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.53) was lower and hospital stays (Mean difference -8.77, 95% CI −10.36 to −7.18) were shorter with RFA than with HR. The pooled results of NRCTs showed that the RFA group had lower 1-, 3- and 5-year OS, RFS and DFS, and higher recurrence than the HR group (p<0.05). But for patients with very early stage HCC, RFA was comparable to HR for OS and recurrence.

Conclusion

The effectiveness of RFA is comparable to HR, with fewer complications but higher recurrence, especially for very early HCC patients.     

Coaxial Microincision Cataract Surgery versus Standard Coaxial Small-Incision Cataract Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of coaxial microincision cataract surgery (C-MICS) and standard coaxial small incision cataract surgery (C-SICS).

Methods

The outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting C-MICS and C-SICS were collected from PubMed, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library in May 2015. The final meta-analysis was conducted on the following intraoperative and postoperative outcomes: ultrasound time (UST), effective phacoemulsification time (EPT), balanced salt solution use (BSS use), cumulative dissipated energy (CDE), mean surgery time, endothelial cell loss percentage (ECL%), best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), increased central corneal thickness (CCT), laser flare photometry values and surgically induced astigmatism (SIA).

Results

A total of 15 RCTs, involving 1136 eyes, were included in the final meta-analysis. No significant between-group differences were detected in EPT, BSS use, CDE, BCVA, laser flare photometry values or increased CCT. However, the C-MICS group showed less SIA (at postoperative day 7: p<0.01; at postoperative day 30 or more: p<0.01) and greater ECL% (at postoperative day 60 or more: p<0.01), whereas the C-SICS group required a shorter UST (p<0.01).

Conclusions

The present meta-analysis suggested that the C-MICS technique was more advantageous than C-SICS in terms of SIA, but C-MICS required a longer UST and induced a higher ECL%. Further studies should be done to confirm our results.     

Levofloxacin-Based First-Line Therapy versus Standard First-Line Therapy for Helicobacter pylori Eradication: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

First-line levofloxacin-based treatments eradicate Helicobacter pylori with varying success. We examined the efficacy and safety of first-line levofloxacin-based treatment in comparison to standard first-line therapy for H pylori eradication.

Materials and Methods

We searched literature databases from Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Register of Randomized Controlled Trials through March 2013 for randomized controlled trials comparing first-line levofloxacin and standard therapy. We included randomized controlled trials conducted only on naïve H pylori infected patients in adults. A systematic review was conducted. Meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.2. Treatment effect was determined by relative risk with a random or fixed model by the Mantel-Haenszel method.

Results

Seven trials were identified with 888 patients receiving 7 days of first-line levofloxacin and 894 treated with standard therapy (Amoxicillin, Clarithromycin and proton pump inhibitor) for 7 days. The overall crude eradication rate in the Levofloxacin group was 79.05% versus 81.4% in the standard group (risk ratio 0.97; 95% CI; 0.93, 1.02). The overall dropout was 46 (5.2%) in the levofloxacin group and 52 (5.8%) for standard therapy. The dizziness was more common among group who took Levofloxacin based treatment and taste disturbance was more common among group who took standard therapy. Meta-analysis of overall adverse events were similar between the two groups with a relative risk of 1.06 (95% CI 0.72, 1.57).

Conclusion

Helicobacter pylori eradication with 7 days of Levofloxacin-based first line therapy was safe and equal compared to 7 days of standard first-line therapy.     

Compliance with Once-Daily versus Twice or Thrice-Daily Administration of Antibiotic Regimens: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective

To investigate whether compliance of patients to antibiotic treatment is better when antibiotics are administered once than multiple times daily.

Methods

We performed a systematic search in PubMed and Scopus databases. Only randomized controlled trials were considered eligible for inclusion. Compliance to antibiotic treatment was the outcome of the meta-analysis.

Results

Twenty-six studies including 8246 patients with upper respiratory tract infections in the vast majority met the inclusion criteria. In total, higher compliance was found among patients treated with once-daily treatment than those receiving treatment twice, thrice or four times daily [5011 patients, RR=1.22 (95% CI, 1.11, 1.34]. Adults receiving an antibiotic once-daily were more compliant than those receiving the same antibiotic multiple times daily [380 patients, RR=1.09 (95% CI, 1.02, 1.16)]. Likewise, children that received an antibiotic twice-daily were more compliant than those receiving the same antibiotic thrice-daily [2118 patients, RR=1.10 (95% CI, 1.02, 1.19)]. Higher compliance was also found among patients receiving an antibiotic once compared to those receiving an antibiotic of different class thrice or four times daily [395 patients, RR=1.20 (95% CI, 1.12, 1.28)]. The finding of better compliance with lower frequency daily was consistent regardless of the study design, and treatment duration.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis showed that compliance to antibiotic treatment might be associated with higher when an antibiotic is administered once than multiple times daily for the treatment of specific infections and for specific classes of antibiotics.     

Minimally Invasive Midvastus versus Standard Parapatellar Approach in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective

Minimally invasive midvastus approach (mini-midvastus) has been widely used in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, the clinical effects still remains controversial. This meta-analysis was based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aiming to quantitatively analyze the clinical efficacy of mini-midvastus versus standard parapatellar approach in TKA.

Methods

This meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. A literature search for the eligible RCTs was carried out in the databases of PubMed, the Cochrane library, EMBASE and Web of Science. Two independent reviewers independently completed the study selection, data extraction, and the assessment of methodological quality. Meta-analysis was conducted by the RevMan 5.2 software.

Results

A total of 18 RCTs (937 patients with 1093 TKAs) published from 2007 to 2013 were included. The meta-analysis suggested that the mini-midvastus approach significantly improved knee range of motion (ROM) and decreased visual analog score (VAS) at postoperative 1–2 weeks (p<0.05), and there were no statistical differences in terms of knee society score (KSS) (6 weeks to 1 year), VAS (6 weeks to 6 months), ROM (6 weeks to 6 months), lateral retinacular release, blood loss, straight leg raise, hospital stay and postoperative complications between the mini-midvastus and standard parapatellar approach (p>0.05). However, the operative time was significantly longer when performing the mini-midvastus group than the parapartellar approach (p<0.05).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis found that compared with the standard parapatellar approach, the mini-midvastus approach had early advantages in the VAS and ROM, but had the disadvantage in the operative time.

Level of Evidence

Therapeutic study Level I.     

Efficacy and Safety of Endovascular Treatment versus Intravenous Thrombolysis for Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background and Purpose

Although endovascular therapy (ET) is increasingly used in patients with moderate to severe acute ischemic stroke, its efficacy and safety remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis aiming to compare the benefits and safety of endovascular treatment and intravenous thrombolysis in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Science direct and Springer unitil July, 2013. The primary outcomes included good outcome (mRS ≤ 2) and excellent outcome (mRS ≤ 1) at 90 days or at trial end point. Secondary outcomes were occurrence of symptomatic hemorrhage and all-cause mortality.

Results

Using a prespecified search strategy, 5 RCTs with 1106 patients comparing ET and intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) were included in the meta-analysis. ET and IVT were associated with similar good (43.06% vs 41.78%; OR=1.14; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.69; P=0.52;) and excellent (30.43% vs 30.42%; OR=1.05; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.38; P=0.72;) outcome. For additional end points, ET was not associated with increased occurrence of symptomatic hemorrhage (6.25% vs. 6.22%; OR=1.03; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.69; P=0.91;), or all-cause mortality (18.45% vs. 17.35%; OR=1.00; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.39; P=0.99;).

Conclusions

Formal meta-analysis indicates that there are similar safety outcomes and functional independence with endovascular therapy and intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke.     

Ranibizumab Monotherapy or Combined with Laser versus Laser Monotherapy for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective

To evaluate the relative efficacy of ranibizumab (RBZ) monotherapy or combined with laser (RBZ + Laser) versus laser monotherapy for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME).

Methods

A comprehensive literature search using PUBMED, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RBZ or RBZ + Laser to laser monotherapy in patients with DME. Efficacy estimates were determined by comparing weighted mean differences (WMD) in the change of best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) from baseline, and the risk ratios (RR) for the proportions of patients with at least 15 letters change from baseline. Safety analysis estimated the RR of cardiac disorders at 6 to 12 months in RBZ therapy vs. laser monotherapy. Statistical analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.1 software.

Results

Seven RCTs were selected for this meta-analysis, including 1749 patients (394 patients in the RBZ group, 642 patients in the RBZ + Laser group, and 713 patients in the laser group). RBZ and RBZ + Laser were superior to laser monotherapy in the mean change of BCVA and CMT from baseline (WMD = 5.65, 95% confidence interval (CI), 4.44–6.87, P<0.00001; WMD  = 5.02, 95% CI, 3.83–6.20, P<0.00001, and WMD  = −57.91, 95% CI, −77.62 to −38.20, P<0.00001; WMD  = −56.63, 95% CI, −104.81 to −8.44, P = 0.02, respectively). The pooled RR comparing the proportions of patients with at least 15 letters improvement or deterioration were also in favor of RBZ and RBZ + Laser (RR = 2.94, 95% CI, 1.82–4.77, P<0.00001; RR = 2.04, 95% CI, 1.50–2.78, P<0.00001, and RR = 0.21, 95% CI, 0.06–0.71, P = 0.01; RR = 0.52, 95% CI, 0.29–0.95, P = 0.03, respectively). There were no significant differences between RBZ and RBZ + Laser for any of the parameters. There were no difference in the safety profile between RBZ and laser.

Conclusion

RBZ and RBZ + Laser had better visual and anatomic outcomes than laser monotherapy in the treatment of DME. RBZ + Laser seemed to be equivalent to RBZ.     

Intravenous N-Acetylcysteine for Prevention of Contrast-Induced Nephropathy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized,Controlled Trials

Background

Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is one of the common causes of acute renal insufficiency after contrast procedures. Whether intravenous N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is beneficial for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy is uncertain. In this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, we aimed to assess the efficacy of intravenous NAC for preventing CIN after administration of intravenous contrast media.

Study Design

Relevant studies published up to September 2012 that investigated the efficacy of intravenous N-acetylcysteine for preventing CIN were collected from MEDLINE, OVID, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the conference proceedings from major cardiology and nephrology meetings. The primary outcome was CIN. Secondary outcomes included renal failure requiring dialysis, mortality, and length of hospitalization. Data were combined using random-effects models with the performance of standard tests to assess for heterogeneity and publication bias. Meta-regression analyses were also performed.

Results

Ten trials involving 1916 patients met our inclusion criteria. Trials varied in patient demographic characteristics, inclusion criteria, dosing regimens, and trial quality. The summary risk ratio for contrast-induced nephropathy was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.46 to 1.02), a nonsignificant trend towards benefit in patients treated with intravenous NAC. There was evidence of significant heterogeneity in NAC effect across studies (Q = 17.42, P = 0.04; I² = 48%). Meta-regression revealed no significant relation between the relative risk of CIN and identified differences in participant or study characteristics.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis showed that research on intravenous N-acetylcysteine and the incidence of CIN is too inconsistent at present to warrant a conclusion on efficacy. A large, well designed trial that incorporates the evaluation of clinically relevant outcomes in participants with different underlying risks of CIN is required to more adequately assess the role for intravenous NAC in CIN prevention.     

Aerobic Exercise for Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Although some trials assessed the effectiveness of aerobic exercise for Parkinson''s disease (PD), the role of aerobic exercise in the management of PD remained controversial.

Objective

The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the evidence about whether aerobic exercise is effective for PD.

Methods

Seven electronic databases, up to December 2013, were searched to identify relevant studies. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality based on PEDro scale. Standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of random-effects model were calculated. And heterogeneity was assessed based on the I² statistic.

Results

18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 901 patients were eligible. The aggregated results suggested that aerobic exercise should show superior effects in improving motor actions (SMD, −0.57; 95% CI −0.94 to −0.19; p = 0.003), balance (SMD, 2.02; 95% CI 0.45 to 3.59; p = 0.01), and gait (SMD, 0.33; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.49; p<0.0001) in patients with PD, but not in quality of life (SMD, 0.11; 95% CI −0.23 to 0.46; p = 0.52). And there was no valid evidence on follow-up effects of aerobic exercise for PD.

Conclusion

Aerobic exercise showed immediate beneficial effects in improving motor action, balance, and gait in patients with PD. However, given no evidence on follow-up effects, large-scale RCTs with long follow-up are warrant to confirm the current findings.     

Adjunctive Aripiprazole Versus Placebo for Antipsychotic-Induced Hyperprolactinemia: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective

To compare the safety and efficacy of adjunctive aripiprazole versus placebo for antipsychotic-induced hyperprolactinemia.

Methods

Population: adult patients presenting with antipsychotic-induced hyperprolactinemia diagnosed by prolactin level with or without prolactin-related symptoms. Interventions: adjunctive aripiprazole vs. adjunctive placebo. Outcome measures: adverse events and efficacy of treatment. Studies: randomized controlled trials.

Results

Five randomized controlled trials with a total of 639 patients (326 adjunctive aripiprazole, 313 adjunctive placebo) met the inclusion criteria. Adjunctive aripiprazole was associated with a 79.11% (125/158) prolactin level normalization rate. Meta-analysis of insomnia, headache, sedation, psychiatric disorder, extrapyramidal symptom, dry mouth, and fatigue showed no significant differences in the adjunctive aripiprazole treatment group compared with the placebo group (risk difference (Mantel-Haenszel, random or fixed) −0.05 to 0.04 (95% confidence interval −0.13 to 0.16); I² = 0% to 68%, P = 0.20 to 0.70). However, sedation, insomnia, and headache were more frequent when the adjunctive aripiprazole dose was higher than 15 mg/day. Meta-analysis of the prolactin level normalization indicated adjunctive aripiprazole was superior to placebo (risk difference (Mantel-Haenszel, random) 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.85); I² = 43%, P<0.00001). The subgroup analysis confirmed that the subjects who received adjunctive aripiprazole 5 mg/day showed a degree of prolactin normalization similar to that of all participants. No significant differences between groups in discontinuation and improvements of psychiatric symptoms.

Conclusion

Adjunctive aripiprazole is both safe and effective as a reasonable choice treatment for patients with antipsychotic-induced hyperprolactinemia. The appropriate dose of adjunctive aripiprazole may be 5 mg/day.     

Effect of Grape Polyphenols on Blood Pressure: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

The effect of grape polyphenols on blood pressure remains unclear, which we aimed to address via a meta-analysis study.

Methods

We conducted study trial searches in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases. Summary estimates of weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were obtained by using fixed-effects models. Subgroup analyses were performed to identify the source of heterogeneity. The protocol details of our meta-analysis have been submitted to the international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews (registration number CRD42015019196).

Results

Ten studies were included in the present meta-analysis. Our results showed daily grape polyphenol intake could significantly reduce systolic blood pressure by 1.48 mmHg when compared to control subjects (12 comparisons; -1.48 [-2.79 to -0.16] mmHg; P = 0.03). Subgroup analyses indicated larger reduction was identified in the intake of low-dose of grape polyphenols (< 733 mg/day, median level of the included studies) or patients with metabolic syndrome. Contrarily, diastolic blood pressure was not significantly decreased in the grape polyphenols group as compared to controls. No significant heterogeneity or publication bias was detected in the meta-analysis of either systolic or diastolic blood pressure.

Conclusions

Daily grape polyphenol intake can significantly reduce the systolic blood pressure in humans, although the reduction is modest when compared with anti-hypertensive medications. Larger, better designed trials, that specifically include hypertensive subjects, are required to verify our results in the future.     

Early versus Delayed Antiretroviral Therapy for HIV and Tuberculosis Co-Infected Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

ObjectiveTo compare important clinical outcomes between early and delayed initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in adults who had a co-infection of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and tuberculosis (TB).MethodsWe performed a systematic search for relevant publications on PubMed, EMBASE, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared early ART initiation (within four weeks after anti-TB treatment starting) and delayed ART initiation (after eight weeks but less than twelve weeks of anti-TB treatment starting) in the course of TB treatment. Pooled estimates with corresponding 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were calculated with random-effects model. Sensitivity analysis was performed to investigate the stability of pooled estimates.ResultsA meta-analysis was evaluated from six RCTs with 2272 participants. Compared to delayed ART initiation, early ART initiation significantly reduces all-cause mortality in HIV-positive patients with TB [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.75, 95%CI 0.59 to 0.95; I² = 0.00%; p = 0.67], even though there is an increased risk for IRD [IRR 2.29, 95%CI 1.81 to 2.91; I²2 = 0.00%; p = 0.56]. Additionally, early ART initiation was not associated with an increased risk for grade 3-4 drug-related adverse events [IRR 0.99, 95%CI 0.83 to 1.18; I² = 0.00%; p = 0.56].ConclusionsAlthough limited evidence, our results provide support for early ART initiation in the course of anti-TB treatment. However, more well-designed cohort or intervention studies are required to further confirm our findings.