Increase In Serious Adverse Events Research Articles

Bosentan and ambrisentan in the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a meta-analysis.

The aim is to showcase the effectiveness and safety of bosentan or ambrisentan in individuals diagnosed with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and offer fresh evidence for the management of this condition. For this research, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials by searching various databases, including the Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica Database, PubMed, and Web of Science. The retrieval was conducted until November 2021. We analyzed the variances in 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), death, diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), forced vital capacity (FVC), hospitalization, IPF worsening, mean pulmonary arterial pressure, serious adverse events (SAEs), Short Form-36 improved, and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire between the treatment and control groups. A sum of six studies involving 1,928 participants were found to meet the inclusion criteria. The quality of evidence was high. The control group had significantly higher values for 6MWD, DLCO, and FVC compared to the ambrisentan treatment group. The rates of hospitalization and IPF worsening were considerably greater in comparison with the control group. The bosentan group exhibited significantly reduced rates of hospitalization and IPF worsening in comparison with the control group. Both drugs did not cause any raising in death or SAEs when in comparison with the control group. The findings of this research validate the effectiveness and safety of bosentan for treating IPF patients. This medication can enhance the quality of life for individuals with IPF without causing any significant increase in SAEs. However, it does not have a notable influence on the long-term prognosis. The findings of this research do not endorse the utilization of ambrisentan in individuals diagnosed with IPF.

Efficacy and safety of combination therapy with pirfenidone and nintedanib in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

Background: Recent studies have suggested that combination therapy with pirfenidone and nintedanib is safe and tolerable in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). However, data from real-world practice are limited. Thus, we aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of this combination therapy in patients with IPF in a real-world setting. Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted to investigate the safety and efficacy of combination therapy with pirfenidone and nintedanib in 45 patients with IPF. Incidences of adverse events and rates of lung function decline were compared before and after the combination therapy. Propensity score matching was performed to compare the outcomes between the combination and monotherapy groups. Results: The mean age of the patients was 68.8years, and 82.2% of them were male. The median follow-up duration after combination therapy was 12.1months. The majority of the patients (97.8%) received nintedanib as an add-on to pirfenidone. The most common adverse events after the combination therapy were diarrhea and anorexia. Pirfenidone or nintedanib was stopped in 12 patients owing to gastrointestinal AEs, lung transplantation, or financial problems. In patients with serial lung function data, the rate of decline in the forced vital capacity was significantly reduced after the combination therapy. In the matched analysis, the combination group had a higher incidence of diarrhea than the monotherapy group without an increase in serious adverse events; however, the two groups had similar changes in forced vital capacity (FVC). Conclusion: The combination of pirfenidone and nintedanib in patients with IPF has the potential to reduce the rate of FVC decline. However, in the matched analysis, FVC decline was comparable between the patients on combination therapy and those on monotherapy. The incidence of certain adverse events, particularly diarrhea, was higher with combination therapy, but serious adverse events were similar between the groups.

Shoulder replacement surgery’s rising demand, inequality of provision, and variation in outcomes: cohort study using Hospital Episode Statistics for England

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to forecast future patient demand for shoulder replacement surgery in England and investigate any geographic and socioeconomic inequalities in service provision and patient outcomes.MethodsFor this cohort study, all elective shoulder replacements carried out by NHS hospitals and NHS-funded care in England from 1999 to 2020 were identified using Hospital Episode Statistics data. Eligible patients were aged 18 years and older. Shoulder replacements for malignancy or acute trauma were excluded. Population estimates and projections were obtained from the Office for National Statistics. Standardised incidence rates and the risks of serious adverse events (SAEs) and revision surgery were calculated and stratified by geographical region, socioeconomic deprivation, sex, and age band. Hospital costs for each admission were calculated using Healthcare Resource Group codes and NHS Reference Costs based on the National Reimbursement System. Projected rates and hospital costs were predicted until the year 2050 for two scenarios of future growth.ResultsA total of 77,613 elective primary and 5847 revision shoulder replacements were available for analysis. Between 1999 and 2020, the standardised incidence of primary shoulder replacements in England quadrupled from 2.6 to 10.4 per 100,000 population, increasing predominantly in patients aged over 65 years. As many as 1 in 6 patients needed to travel to a different region for their surgery indicating inequality of service provision. A temporal increase in SAEs was observed: the 30-day risk increased from 1.3 to 4.8% and the 90-day risk increased from 2.4 to 6.0%. Patients from the more deprived socioeconomic groups appeared to have a higher risk of SAEs and revision surgery. Shoulder replacements are forecast to increase by up to 234% by 2050 in England, reaching 20,912 procedures per year with an associated annual cost to hospitals of £235 million.ConclusionsThis study reports a rising incidence of shoulder replacements, regional disparities in service provision, and an overall increasing risk of SAEs, especially in more deprived socioeconomic groups. These findings highlight the need for better healthcare planning to match local population demand, while more research is needed to understand and prevent the increase observed in SAEs.

Empagliflozin in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction with and without atrial fibrillation.

Atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF) is common in heart failure (HF) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and associated with worse outcomes. Empagliflozin reduces cardiovascular death or HF hospitalizations and slows estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline in patients with HF and LVEF >40%. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of empagliflozin in improving outcomes in patients with HF and LVEF >40% with and without AF. In this pre-defined secondary analysis of EMPEROR-Preserved, we compared the effects of empagliflozin versus placebo on the primary and secondary endpoints and safety outcomes, stratified by baseline AF, defined as AF reported in any electrocardiogram before empagliflozin initiation or in medical history. Among 5988 patients randomized, 3135 (52%) had baseline AF; these patients were older, with worse functional class, more previous HF hospitalizations and higher natriuretic peptides compared to those without AF (all p < 0.001). After a median of 26 months, empagliflozin reduced cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization compared to placebo to a similar extent in patients with and without AF (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78 [95% confidence interval 0.66-0.93] vs. 0.78 [0.64-0.95], interaction p = 0.96). Empagliflozin also reduced total HF hospitalizations (HR 0.73 [0.57-0.94] vs. 0.72 [0.54-0.95], interaction p = 0.94) and annual eGFR decline (difference = 1.368 vs. 1.372 ml/min/1.73 m2 /year, interaction p = 0.99) consistently in patients with and without AF. There was no increase in serious adverse events with empagliflozin versus placebo in patients with and without AF. In patients with HF and ejection fraction >40%, empagliflozin reduced the risk of serious HF events and slowed the eGFR decline regardless of baseline AF.

Abstract #1406144: Safety and Efficacy of SGLT2 Inhibitors Use in Patient with Diabetes After Renal Transplant

The sodium glucose cotransporter2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) are preferred anti-glycemic agents for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). These agents have been shown to slow the progression of kidney disease. There is limited experience of SGLT2i in renal transplantation (RT). Concerns have been that the glycosuria induced osmotic diuresis might cause a decrease in renal perfusion and there might be a possible increased risk of urinary tract infections (UTI). We therefore performed a retrospective review of data of patients with DM and RT treated with SGLT2i compared to those without SGLT2i. The primary outcome was the change in eGFR or serum creatinine at 1-year. Secondary outcomes were documentations of serious adverse events (SAE). Data were retrieved from the electronic medical record of a Midwestern academic medical center using the program Epic and the sub-program Slicer/ Dicer. The search algorithm inclusion criteria were: “Diabetes Mellitus” “kidney transplant”, and “medicine: sodium glucose transport inhibitor”, which resulted in an inclusion of 44 patients in the “SGLT2i group”. A comparator group of patients with DM and RT who matched the above screening criteria (except for SGLT2i use), was then retrieved. We then devised a propensity score by performing a multivariate regression analysis with the covariates of age, type of transplant, duration of transplantation, and baseline eGFR. Data from 44 patients on SGLT2i were closely matched (by standardized effects size) for age, estimated GFR, duration and source of transplant with 70 control patients with DM and RT who were not on SGLT2i. Weight changed in SGLT2i group from baseline at 3, 6 and 12months (by -4.1 ± 3.3 kg, -5.1 ± 5.0 kg and -5.2 ± 6.5 kg) and did not change in controls (p [ANOVA, drug] = 0.009). There was no significant difference at 3, 6 or 12 months in changes in: A1c, systolic or diastolic blood pressure, hematocrit, hemoglobin, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, or serum triglycerides. There were no documented significant increases in SAE in those on SGLT2i compared with controls in hospitalizations for acute kidney injury, episodes of acute transplant rejections, amputations, cellulitis, diabetic ketoacidosis, or outpatient treatment for urinary tract infections, or genital mycotic infections. Use of SGLT2i in patients with diabetes and renal transplant showed beneficial effect in reducing weight without a higher risk of SAE. Longer follow up may be necessary to define the impact on eGFR.

Efficacy and safety of concomitant chemo-endocrine therapy in neoadjuvant treatment of hormone-positive HER2-negative breast cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT Background The rate of pathological complete response (pCR) with both chemotherapy alone (CT) and endocrine therapy (ET) in the neoadjuvant (Na) treatment of hormone receptor (HR)-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer (BC) is unsatisfactory. Limited data on neoadjuvant concomitant chemotherapy and endocrine therapy (NaCET) are available. Research design and methods In this meta-analysis analyzed the efficacy and safety of randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing the use of NaCET in HR-positive/HER2-negative BC. A comprehensive search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases, and congress paper lists for studies published/presented until 1 December 2022. Results Five RCTs involving a total of 630 patients were included. A pooled analysis of the five studies demonstrated that the pCR ratio was numerically higher in the NaCET arm than in the NaCT arm, but the difference was not statistically significant (6.5% vs. 3.8%; OR:1.72, 95% CI 0.82–3.62). Nonetheless, the NaCET arm exhibited a significantly higher objective response rate (ORR) (82% vs. 72.7%; OR:1.77, 95% CI 1.20–2.62). There was no difference between the arms in terms of grade 3–5 adverse events. Conclusions In HR-positive/HER2-negative BC, NaCET significantly increases ORR without an increase in serious adverse events. Although the pCR rate increased numerically, it was not statistically significant.

Comparative Benefits and Risks Associated with Currently Authorized COVID-19 Vaccines.

This article provides a systematic assessment of the efficacy, risks, and methodological quality of evidence from five major publicly available vaccine trials. Results from Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA, Moderna-US NIH mRN-1273, AstraZeneca-Oxford ChAdOx1 nCov-19, Gamaleya GamCovidVac (Sputnik V), and Ad26.COV2.S Johnson & Johnson vaccines were included. Extracted benefits and risks data from each trial were summarized using the GRADE approach denoting the overall certainty of evidence along with relative and absolute effects. Relative risk reduction across all five vaccine trials ranged from 45% to 96%. Absolute risk reduction in symptomatic COVID-19 ranged from 6 to 17 per 1000 across trials. None of the vaccines were associated with a significant increase in serious adverse events compared to placebo. The overall certainty of evidence varied from low to moderate. All five vaccines are effective and safe, but suggest room for improvement in the conduct of large-scale vaccine trials. Certainty of evidence was downrated due to risk of bias, which can be mitigated by improving transparency and thoroughness in conduct and reporting of outcomes.

P076 Safety of higher doses of melatonin in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Introduction Melatonin is commonly used for sleep and jetlag at low doses. There is less documentation on the safety of higher doses which are being increasingly used for a wide variety of conditions. This systematic review aimed to investigate the safety of higher doses of melatonin in adults. Methods We searched Medline, Scopus, Embase and PsycINFO databases from study inception until December 2019 with convenience searches until October 2020. The inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials investigating high-dose melatonin (≥10mg) in human adults over 30 years of age. The outcomes examined were the number of adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and withdrawals due to AEs. A meta-analysis was conducted on studies lasting 3 months or longer. Results 79 studies were identified with a total of 3861 participants. 29 studies (37%) made no mention of the presence or absence of AEs. Only 4 studies met the pre-specified low-risk of bias criteria for meta-analysis. In that small subset, melatonin did not cause a detectable increase in SAEs (Rate Ratio=0.88 [0.52, 1.50], p=0.64) or withdrawals due to AEs (0.93 [0.24, 3.56], p=0.92), but did appear to increase the risk of AEs such as drowsiness, headache, and dizziness (1.40, [1.15, 1.69], p&amp;lt;0.001). Discussion There has been limited AE reporting from high-dose melatonin studies. Based on this limited evidence, melatonin appears to have a good safety profile. Better safety reporting in future long-term trials is needed to confirm this as our confidence limits were very wide due to the paucity of suitable data.

Colchicine and aspirin in community patients with COVID-19 (ACT): an open-label, factorial, randomised, controlled trial

The large number of patients worldwide infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus has overwhelmed health-care systems globally. The Anti-Coronavirus Therapies (ACT) outpatient trial aimed to evaluate anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine and antithrombotic therapy with aspirin for prevention of disease progression in community patients with COVID-19. The ACT outpatient, open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, controlled trial, was done at 48 clinical sites in 11 countries. Patients in the community aged 30 years and older with symptomatic, laboratory confirmed COVID-19 who were within 7 days of diagnosis and at high risk of disease progression were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive colchicine 0·6 mg twice daily for 3 days and then 0·6 mg once daily for 25 days versus usual care, and in a second (1:1) randomisation to receive aspirin 100 mg once daily for 28 days versus usual care. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was assessed at 45 days in the intention-to-treat population; for the colchicine randomisation it was hospitalisation or death, and for the aspirin randomisation it was major thrombosis, hospitalisation, or death. The ACT outpatient trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324463 and is ongoing. Between Aug 27, 2020, and Feb 10, 2022, 3917 patients were randomly assigned to colchicine or control and to aspirin or control; after excluding 36 patients due to administrative reasons 3881 individuals were included in the analysis (n=1939 colchicine vs n=1942 control; n=1945 aspirin vs 1936 control). Follow-up was more than 99% complete. Overall event rates were 5 (0·1%) of 3881 for major thrombosis, 123 (3·2%) of 3881 for hospitalisation, and 23 (0·6%) of 3881 for death; 66 (3·4%) of 1939 patients allocated to colchicine and 65 (3·3%) of 1942 patients allocated to control experienced hospitalisation or death (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02, 95% CI 0·72-1·43, p=0·93); and 59 (3·0%) of 1945 of patients allocated to aspirin and 73 (3·8%) of 1936 patients allocated to control experienced major thrombosis, hospitalisation, or death (HR 0·80, 95% CI 0·57-1·13, p=0·21). Results for the primary outcome were consistent in all prespecified subgroups, including according to baseline vaccination status, timing of randomisation in relation to onset of symptoms (post-hoc analysis), and timing of enrolment according to the phase of the pandemic (post-hoc analysis). There were more serious adverse events with colchicine than with control (34 patients [1·8%] of 1939 vs 27 [1·4%] of 1942) but none in either group that led to discontinuation of study interventions. There was no increase in serious adverse events with aspirin versus control (31 [1·6%] vs 31 [1·6%]) and none that led to discontinuation of study interventions. The results provide no support for the use of colchicine or aspirin to prevent disease progression or death in outpatients with COVID-19. Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Bayer, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, and Thistledown Foundation. For the Portuguese, Russian and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Varenicline for Tobacco-Dependent Adults Who Are Not Ready to Discontinue Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Rationale: Not all individuals with tobacco dependence are ready to give up smoking. Research reveals behavioral differences between adults ready to discontinue tobacco use and those who are not. Thus, the interventions applied to these populations might differ. However, the evidence of using varenicline in individuals who are not ready to discontinue tobacco use is uncertain. Objectives: To determine if, in tobacco-dependent adults who report not being ready to discontinue tobacco use, clinicians should begin treatment with varenicline or wait until subjects are ready to discontinue tobacco use. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to assess the effectiveness and safety of treatment with varenicline in tobacco-dependent adults who are not ready to discontinue tobacco use. We systematically searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials comparing varenicline versus placebo for individuals who were not ready to discontinue tobacco use. Outcomes of interest include point prevalence abstinence during treatment or at six months or longer, smoking reduction, motivation to quit, adverse events, and withdrawal symptoms. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed eligibility and risk of bias using a standardized data collection form. We followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Results: Five trials met our inclusion criteria. All 2,616 participants were adults who were not ready to discontinue tobacco use at study entry. For 7-day point prevalence abstinence at six months or longer, high-certainty evidence suggested that varenicline increased abstinence compared with placebo (relative risk, 2.00 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.70-2.35]; absolute risk reduction, 173 more per 1,000 [95% CI, 121 more to 234 more]). We identified moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that varenicline increased serious adverse events (relative risk, 1.75 [95% CI, 0.98-3.13]; absolute risk reduction, 12 more per 1,000 [95% CI, 0 fewer to 35 more]). For withdrawal, low-certainty evidence suggested that varenicline treatment was associated with a lower symptom score (mean difference, 1.54 points lower; 95% CI, 2.15-0.93 points lower; low certainty) assessed using the Brief Questionnaire of Smoking Urges. Conclusions: In tobacco-dependent adults who are not ready to discontinue tobacco use, initiating varenicline treatment results in a large increase in abstinence and likely results in a slight increase in serious adverse events.

Biologics and Small Molecule Inhibitors for Treating Hidradenitis Suppurativa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: The treatment guidelines for hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) vary among different countries, and several biologics and small molecule inhibitors have been tested for treating moderate-to-severe HS over the past few years. However, treatment guidelines for HS vary among different countries. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to exam the efficacy and serious adverse events (SAEs) of biologics and small-molecule inhibitors in treating moderate-to-severe HS. Binary outcomes were presented as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: We included 16 RCTs with a total of 2076 participants on nine biologics and three small-molecule inhibitors for treating moderate-to-severe HS, including adalimumab, anakinra, apremilast, avacopan, bimekizumab, CJM112, etanercept, guselkumab, IFX-1, INCB054707, infliximab, and MABp1. The meta-analysis revealed only adalimumab (RR 1.77, 95% CI, 1.44–2.17) and bimekizumab (RR 2.25, 95% CI, 1.03–4.92) achieved significant improvement on hidradenitis suppurativa clinical response (HiSCR), and adalimumab was superior to placebo in achieving dermatology life quality index (DLQI) 0/1 (RR 3.97; 95% CI, 1.70–9.28). No increase in SAEs was found for all included active treatments when compared with placebo. Conclusions: Adalimumab and bimekizumab are the only two biologics effective in achieving HiSCR with acceptable safety profile, whereas adalimumab is the only biologic effective in achieving DLQI 0/1.

Anamorelin for cancer cachexia.

Cancer anorexia-cachexia syndrome is a multifactorial condition characterized by significant weight loss due to muscle loss. It is associated with functional impairment, changes in body composition and nutritional disorders. Ghrelin receptors are involved in the release of growth hormone (GH) in the pituitary gland and increase appetite via the hypothalamus. The secretion of GH from the pituitary gland stimulates the liver to secrete insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), which promotes muscle protein synthesis. Anamorelin is a ghrelin receptor agonist used to treat cancer cachexia. It promotes GH secretion via ghrelin receptor activation and increases appetite, resulting in increased muscle mass and weight. Clinical trials of anamorelin have demonstrated a significant increase in lean body mass index, improved cachexia and no significant increase in serious adverse events. The present review describes the processes leading to the approval of anamorelin in Japan, focusing on pharmacology, metabolism, efficacy, safety and clinical trials.

Additional Use of Prostacyclin Analogs in Patients With Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: A Meta-Analysis.

Background: Combination therapy has become an attractive option in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate whether additional use of prostacyclin analogs could exert any additional benefits over background targeted therapies in PAH patients. Methods: Searches were performed on PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 1 October 2021. Randomized controlled trials were included if patients had been treated with prostacyclin analog-containing combination therapy and compared with the use of other PAH-specific background therapies. The bias risk and statistical analysis of the enrolled studies were performed with RevMan 5.1. Sensitivity analysis and funnel plot were used to evaluate the stability and publication bias, respectively. PROSPERO registered number CRD42021284196. Results: Ten trials involving 1828 patients were included. Prostacyclin analog treatment was associated with greater improvement in clinical worsening (risk ratio [RR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57–0.86), 6-min walk distance (mean difference [MD], 37.17 m; 95% CI, 3.01–71.33 m), NYHA/WHO functional class (RR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.21–2.05), mean pulmonary artery pressure (MD, −9.23 mmHg; 95% CI, −17.44 to −1.03 mmHg), and cardiac index (MD, 0.41 L/min/m2; 95% CI, 0.26–0.55 L/min/m2) than the control group. No significant differences in pulmonary vascular resistance (MD, −137.22 dyn·s/cm5; 95% CI, −272.61 to −1.84 dyn·s/cm5) and all-cause mortality (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.57–1.61) were found between the prostacyclin analog group and control group. Of note, more adverse events (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02–1.13) occurred in the prostacyclin analog group but no significant increase in serious adverse events (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.75–2.11). Conclusion: Additional prostacyclin analog treatment exerted benefits on clinical worsening, exercise capacity, functional class, mean pulmonary artery pressure, and cardiac index in PAH patients, but it was associated with overall risk of adverse events. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021284196, identifier CRD42021284196.

Safety of higher doses of melatonin in adults: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Melatonin is commonly used for sleep and jetlag at low doses. However, there is less documentation on the safety of higher doses, which are being increasingly used for a wide variety of conditions, including more recently COVID-19 prevention and treatment. The aim of this review was to investigate the safety of higher doses of melatonin in adults. Medline, Scopus, Embase and PsycINFO databases from inception until December 2019 with convenience searches until October 2020. Randomised controlled trials investigating high-dose melatonin (≥10mg) in human adults over 30years of age were included. Two investigators independently abstracted articles using PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed by a committee of three investigators. 79 studies were identified with a total of 3861 participants. Studies included a large range of medical conditions. The meta-analysis was pooled data using a random effects model. The outcomes examined were the number of adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and withdrawals due to AEs. A total of 29 studies (37%) made no mention of the presence or absence of AEs. Overall, only four studies met the pre-specified low risk of bias criteria for meta-analysis. In that small subset, melatonin did not cause a detectable increase in SAEs (Rate Ratio=0.88 [0.52, 1.50], p=.64) or withdrawals due to AEs (0.93 [0.24, 3.56], p=.92), but did appear to increase the risk of AEs such as drowsiness, headache and dizziness (1.40 [1.15, 1.69], p<.001). Overall, there has been limited AE reporting from high-dose melatonin studies. Based on this limited evidence, melatonin appears to have a good safety profile. Better safety reporting in future long-term trials is needed to confirm this as our confidence limits were very wide due to the paucity of suitable data.

Targeted Therapeutics for Transthyretin Amyloid Cardiomyopathy.

Deposition of wild-type or mutant transthyretin (TTR) amyloid fibrils in the myocardium causes TTR amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM). Targeted therapeutics for ATTR-CM include TTR stabilizers (tafamidis and diflunisal) and oligonucleotide drugs (revusiran, patisiran, and inotersen). TTR stabilizers prevent dissociation of transthyretin tetramers. Transthyretin monomers can misfold and form amyloid fibrils. TTR stabilizers thereby limit amyloid fibrils development and deposition. Oligonucleotide drugs inhibit hepatic synthesis of transthyretin, which decreases transthyretin protein levels and thus the amyloid fibril substrate. To study the safety and efficacy of targeted therapeutics in patients with ATTR-CM, we performed a pooled analysis. A random-effects model with the Mantel-Haenszel method was used to pool the data. A literature search was performed using PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Embase databases using the search terms "cardiac amyloidosis" AND "tafamidis" OR "patisiran" OR "inotersen" OR "revusiran" OR "diflunisal." We identified 6 studies that compared targeted therapeutics with placebo. One study was stopped prematurely because of increased mortality in the targeted therapeutics arm. Pooled analysis included 1238 patients, of which 738 patients received targeted therapeutics and 500 patients received placebo. When compared with placebo, targeted therapeutics significantly reduced all-cause mortality [OR 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.16-0.97, P = 0.04]. Only 2 studies reported the effect on cardiovascular-related hospitalizations. There was a trend toward an improvement in global longitudinal strain (mean difference -0.69, 95% CI: -1.44 to 0.05, P = 0.07). When compared with placebo, there was no increase in serious adverse events with targeted therapeutics (OR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.78-1.44, P = 0.72). Evidence from the pooled analysis revealed targeted therapeutics improve survival and are well-tolerated. These findings suggest a potential role for targeted therapeutics in the treatment of patients with ATTR-CM.

Risk-Based Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering and Prevention of Heart Failure: A SPRINT Post Hoc Analysis.

[Figure: see text].

B-cell depletion with obinutuzumab for the treatment of proliferative lupus nephritis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

ObjectiveRandomised trials of type I anti-CD20 antibodies rituximab and ocrelizumab failed to show benefit in proliferative lupus nephritis (LN). We compared obinutuzumab, a humanised type II anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that...

Safety and efficacy of endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection in the management of gastric varices: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and AimBleeding from gastric varices is a catastrophic event and poses difficulty in management. The efficacy and safety of cyanoacrylate injection remain unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to evaluate the effect of endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection in the management of gastric varices.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus databases, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews through November 2020 and manually reviewed the literature. Trial‐specific risk ratios (RRs) were estimated and pooled using random‐effect model meta‐analysis.ResultsWe included seven randomized controlled trials (six for secondary prophylaxis and one for primary prophylaxis) at low risk of bias in which 126 deaths were reported among 583 patients with gastric varices. All studies reported the use of N‐butyl‐2‐cyanoacrylate glue. Cyanoacrylate use was associated with significantly lower all‐cause mortality (RR, 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36–0.98; I2 = 41%) and rebleeding rate after hemostasis (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.35–0.68, I2 = 0%) compared with any other treatment approach not involving cyanoacrylate. When cyanoacrylate was compared with each individual treatment approach (propranolol only, band ligation, sclerotherapy with alcohol or ethanolamine), data comprised sparse limited comparative conclusions. The use of cyanoacrylate injection was not associated with an increase in serious adverse events. The quality of evidence is moderate, graded down due to the small number of events and wide CIs.ConclusionThe use of endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection therapy for gastric varices may be associated with lower all‐cause mortality and better hemostasis compared with other therapies.

Safety of Contemporary Heart Failure Therapy in Patients with Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices

Limited data are available concerning the safety, optimal administration and benefits of contemporary heart failure therapy in patients after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. Between 2015 and 2019, 257 patients underwent LVAD implantation and were included in this observational study. Oral heart failure therapy was initiated and uptitrated during the further course. After propensity matching and excluding patients with immediate postoperative treatment in an affiliated center with different medical standards, hospitalization rates and mortality within 12 months after LVAD implantation were compared between 83 patients who received medical therapy including an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and 83 patients who did not receive an ARNI. The overall use of heart-failure medications after 12 months was high: prescriptions: beta-blockers, 85%; angiotensin inhibiting drugs, 90% (angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors 30%, angiotensin receptor blockers 23%, ARNI 37%); mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, 80%. No serious drug-related adverse events occurred. The conditional 1-year survival in the group with ARNIs was 97% (95% CI: 94%-100%) compared to 88% in the group without an ARNI (95% CI: 80%-96%); P = 0.06. Contemporary heart failure therapy is safe in patients with LVADs. No increase in serious adverse events was seen in patients receiving ARNIs. No significant difference in the conditional 1-year survival was seen between the ARNI group and the nonARNI group.

P108 Anti-nerve growth factor (anti-NGF) antibodies as analgesia in the management of osteoarthritis

Abstract Background/Aims Osteoarthritis is a major cause of morbidity and disability. Much of this comes from joint pain, which is exacerbated by movement and exercise. Pharmacological analgesia therefore not only has the obvious benefit of alleviating pain, but in doing so, it also facilitates exercise (a pillar of conservative management). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids are currently the main analgesics used in this context. However, these agents can cause unwanted side effects and are contraindicated in some patients. We thus conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using the Cochrane collaboration criteria to evaluate the efficacy of anti-nerve growth factor (anti-NGF) antibodies as potential alternative analgesics in osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee. Whilst tanezumab has been studied extensively and monoclonal anti-NGF antibodies have been reviewed in other pain states, this is the first systematic review of three key anti-NGF antibodies: tanezumab, fulranumab and fasinumab in symptomatic hip and/or knee osteoarthritis. Methods An interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search across seven electronic databases for the use of anti-NGF antibodies in osteoarthritis. All hip/knee osteoarthritis studies investigating anti-NGF antibodies regardless of dose regimen or phase of trial were included. Studies in which participants received NSAIDs or analgesics other than anti-NGF antibodies, or studies in which the only intervention was the administration of anti-NGF antibodies in combination with NSAIDs or other analgesics were excluded. The Jadad Scale score was used to assess the quality of each study. Results Thirteen studies involving 8,145 patients with a diagnosis of hip and/or knee osteoarthritis were analysed. Demographic information including duration of disease and Kellgren-Lawrence grades were also extracted. Anti-NGF antibodies showed significant improvements compared to placebo as rated on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scales for pain (SMD= -0.50, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.28, P &amp;lt; 0.00001; I2 = 88%), physical function (SMD= -0.82, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.55, P &amp;lt; 0.00001; I2 = 94%) and stiffness (SMD= -0.88, 95% CI -1.22 to -0.54, P &amp;lt; 0.00001; I2 = 95%). These agents were not associated with a significant increase in serious adverse events but were associated with a significant increase in discontinuation due to adverse events, abnormal peripheral sensations and peripheral neuropathy. Conclusion Anti-NGF antibodies appear very promising with regard to alleviating osteoarthritic hip/knee pain but more studies are needed to determine the optimal dosage and the overall risk-to benefit ratio, particularly with long-term use. Disclosure J. Rammanohar: None. J. Sutton: None. K. Seah: None. W.S. Khan: None. K. To: None.