Allogeneic bone marrow transplantation compared to peripheral blood stem cell transplantation for the treatment of hematologic malignancies: a meta-analysis based on time-to-event data from randomized controlled trials

Controversy remains regarding the transplant outcomes of human leukocyte antigen-identical related bone marrow transplantation (BMT) and peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT) for the treatment of patients with hematological malignancies. To provide an estimate of the effect of BMT and PBSCT on clinical outcomes in patients with hematological malignancies, we conducted a meta-analysis based on time-to-event data from 17 randomized controlled trials. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), from 1972 through July 2010, and conference proceedings through July 2009 and reference lists, without any language restriction, of randomized trials that compared the transplant outcomes after BMT and PBSCT in patients with hematological malignancies were searched for details. Two independent reviewers extracted the data. The outcomes examined were engraftment, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), relapse, transplant-related mortality (TRM), leukemia-free-survival (LFS), and overall survival (OS). Compared to PBSCT, BMT had lower neutrophil (HR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.80 to 2.42; p < 0.00001) and platelet (HR, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.78 to 4.30; p < 0.00001) engraftment. BMT was associated with a significant decrease in the development of grades II-IV (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.90; p = 0.002) and III-IV (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.84; p = 0.001) acute GVHD as well as overall (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.83; p < 0.0001) and extensive (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.91; p = 0.002) chronic GVHD. BMT was associated with a higher incidence of relapse (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.34 to 2.74; p = 0.0004). Comparable TRM (1.08; 95% CI, 0.56 to 2.10; p = 0.81), LFS (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.30; p = 0.73), and OS (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.39; p = 0.65) were demonstrated for both treatments. An inverse linear relationship was observed between the acute GVHD difference (PBSCT minus BMT) and the outcome of OS (p = 0.016). Our meta-analysis suggest that BMT leads to slower hematological recovery, increasing rates of relapse, and a lower risk of GVHD, but no significant difference in LFS and OS. A lower incidence of acute GVHD is associated with a superior OS

Comparison of glucose-insulin-potassium and insulin-glucose as adjunctive therapy in acute myocardial infarction: a contemporary meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background There is conflicting evidence regarding two different insulin regimens for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), one focusing on delivering insulin ('insulin focus', glucose-insulin-potassium (GIK)) and one focusing on tight glycaemic control ('glycaemia focus', insulin-glucose). A longstanding controversy has focused on which strategy provides the greatest reduction in mortality. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing GIK or insulin-glucose therapy versus standard therapy for AMI in the reperfusion era. Methods A MEDLINE/EMBASE/CENTRAL search was conducted of RCTs evaluating GIK or insulin-glucose as adjunctive therapy for AMI. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. The data were analysed with a random effect model. Results A total of 11 studies (including 23 864 patients) were identified, eight evaluating insulin focus with GIK and three evaluating glycaemia focus with insulin-glucose. Overall, insulin focus with GIK was not associated with a statistically significant effect on mortality (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.29, p=0.487). Before the use of reperfusion, GIK also had no clear impact on mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.20, p=0.522). Pooled data from the three studies evaluating glycaemia focus showed that insulin-glucose did not reduce mortality in the absence of glycaemia control in patients with AMI with diabetes (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.36, p=0.547). Conclusions Current evidence suggests that GIK with insulin does not reduce mortality in patients with AMI. However, studies of glycaemia are inconclusive and it remains possible that glycaemic control is beneficial