Statin Use and Risk of Prostate Cancer : A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

Background: Emerging evidence suggests that statins may decrease the risk of cancers. However, available evidence on prostate cancer (PCa) is conflicting. We therefore examined the association between statin use and risk of PCa by conducting a detailed meta-analysis of all observational studies published regarding this subject. Methods: Literature search in PubMed database was undertaken through February 2012 looking for observational studies evaluating the association between statin use and risk of PCa. Before meta-analysis, the studies were evaluated for publication bias and heterogeneity. Pooled relative risk (RR) estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects model (DerSimonian and Laird method). Subgroup analyses, sensitivity analysis and cumulative meta-analysis were also performed. Results: A total of 27 (15 cohort and 12 case-control) studies contributed to the analysis. There was heterogeneity among the studies but no publication bias. Statin use significantly reduced the risk of both total PCa by 7% (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87-0.99, p = 0.03) and clinically important advanced PCa by 20% (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.90, p<0.001). Long-term statin use did not significantly affect the risk of total PCa (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84-1.05, p = 0.31). Stratification by study design did not substantially influence the RR. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of results. Cumulative meta-analysis showed a change in trend of reporting risk from positive to negative in statin users between 1993 and 2011. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis provides evidence supporting the hypothesis that statins reduce the risk of both total PCa and clinically important advanced PCa. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and to identify the underlying biological mechanisms.Peer reviewe

Beta-blocker plus nitrates for secondary prevention of variceal bleeding

This article does not have an abstract

Cyclosporin versus Tacrolimus for Liver Transplanted Patients

A systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCT) was undertaken to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of immunosuppression with cyclosporin versus tacrolimus for liver transplanted patients. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central and Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Registers were searched. Using fixed and random effects model, relative risk (RR), values \u3c1 favoring\u3etacrolimus, with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Of 717 potentially relevant references, 16 RCTs were eligible for inclusion. Mortality and graft loss at 1 year were significantly reduced in tacrolimus-treated recipients (Death: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73-0.99; graft loss: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61-0.86). Tacrolimus reduced the number of recipients with acute rejection (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75-0.88) and steroid-resistant rejection (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.47-0.74) in the first year. Lymphoproliferative disorder or dialysis rates were not different but more de novo diabetes (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.01-1.86) occurred with tacrolimus. More patients stopped cyclosporin than tacrolimus (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.49-0.66). Treating 100 recipients with tacrolimus instead of cyclosporin would avoid rejection and steroid-resistant rejection in nine and seven patients respectively, graft loss and death in five and two patients respectively, but four additional patients would develop diabetes after liver transplantation

Effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists on weight loss: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials

Objective To determine whether treatment with agonists of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) result in weight loss in overweight or obese patients with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus

Liver support systems for adults with acute‐on‐chronic liver failure.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the benefits and harms of liver support systems for adults with acute‐on‐chronic liver failure.post-print900 K

Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study

Objective: To examine whether the association of inadequate or unclear allocation concealment and lack of blinding with biased estimates of intervention effects varies with the nature of the intervention or outcome. Design: Combined analysis of data from three metaepidemiological studies based on collections of metaanalyses. Data sources 146 meta-analyses including 1346 trials examining a wide range of interventions and outcomes. Main outcome measures Ratios of odds ratios quantifying the degree of bias associated with inadequate or unclear allocation concealment, and lack of blinding, for trials with different types of intervention and outcome. A ratio of odds ratios <1 implies that inadequately concealed or nonblinded trials exaggerate intervention effect estimates. Results: In trials with subjective outcomes effect estimates were exaggerated when there was inadequate or unclear allocation concealment (ratio of odds ratios 0.69 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.82)) or lack of blinding (0.75 (0.61 to 0.93)). In contrast, there was little evidence of bias in trials with objective outcomes: ratios of odds ratios 0.91 (0.80 to 1.03) for inadequate or unclear allocation concealment and 1.01 (0.92 to 1.10) for lack of blinding. There was little evidence for a difference between trials of drug and nondrug interventions. Except for trials with all cause mortality as the outcome, the magnitude of bias varied between meta-analyses. Conclusions: The average bias associated with defects in the conduct of randomised trials varies with the type of outcome. Systematic reviewers should routinely assess the risk of bias in the results of trials, and should report meta-analyses restricted to trials at low risk of bias either as the primary analysis or in conjunction with less restrictive analyses

Determining a healthy reference range and factors potentially influencing PRO-C3 – A biomarker of liver fibrosis

Background & AimsProgressive fibrosis has been identified as the major predictor of mortality in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Several biomarkers are currently being evaluated for their ability to substitute the liver biopsy as the reference standard. Recent clinical studies in NAFLD/NASH patients support the utility of PRO-C3, a marker of type III collagen formation, as a marker for the degree of fibrosis, disease activity, and effect of treatment. Here we establish the healthy reference range, optimal sample handling conditions for both short- and long-term serum storage, and robustness for the PRO-C3 assay.MethodsPRO-C3 was measured in 269 healthy volunteers and in 222 NAFLD patients. Robustness of the PRO-C3 assay was measured according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute standards and included validation of interference, precision, and reagent stability, whilst sample stability was defined for storage at different temperatures and for 3 freeze-thaw cycles. Fibrosis scoring was based on histological assessments and used as a reference for the diagnostic ability of PRO-C3 to discriminate between patients with different levels of fibrosis.ResultsRobustness of the PRO-C3 analysis validated by interference, precision, and reagent stability was found to be within the predefined acceptance criteria. The healthy reference range was determined to be 6.1–14.7 ng/ml. Levels of PRO-C3 were not affected by sex, age, BMI, or ethnicity. Levels of PRO-C3 were able to identify patients with clinically significant fibrosis and advanced fibrosis (AUC = 0.83 (95% CI [0.77–0.88], p <0.0001), and AUC = 0.79 (95% CI [0.73–0.85], p <0.0001), respectively).ConclusionsThe assay proved to be robust and sample stability was found to comply with hospital sample handling requirements. PRO-C3 measured in samples from patients with NAFLD/NASH was diagnostic for significant and advanced liver fibrosis