The impact of biologics and tofacitinib on cardiovascular risk factors and outcomes in patients with rheumatic disease: a systematic literature review

Introduction Rheumatic diseases are autoimmune, inflammatory diseases often associated with cardiovascular (CV) disease, a major cause of mortality in these patients. In recent years, treatment with biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), either as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs, have become the standard of treatment. In this systematic literature review, we evaluated the effect of treatment with biologic or tofacitinib on the CV risk and outcomes in these patients. Methods A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for articles reporting on CV risk and events in patients with rheumatic disease treated with a biologic agent or tofacitinib. Articles identified were subjected to two levels of screening. Articles that passed the first level based on title and abstract were assessed on full-text evaluation. The quality of randomized clinical trials was assessed by Jadad scoring system and the quality of the other studies and abstracts was assessed using the Downs and Black instrument. The data extracted included study design, baseline patient characteristics, and measurements of CV risk and events. Results Of the 5722 articles identified in the initial search, screening yielded 105 unique publications from 90 unique studies (33 clinical trials, 39 prospective cohort studies, and an additional 18 retrospective studies) that reported CV risk outcomes. A risk of bias analysis for each type of report indicated that they were of good or excellent quality. Importantly, despite some limitations in data reported, there were no indications of significant increase in adverse CV events or risk in response to treatment with the agents evaluated. Conclusions Treatment with biologic or tofacitinib appears to be well-tolerated with respect to CV outcomes in these patients

Critical analysis of quality of life and cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) for patient's undergoing urologic oncology surgery: a systematic review

Purpose: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been implemented across a variety of disciplines to improve outcomes. Herein we describe the impact of ERAS on quality of life (QOL) and cost for patients undergoing urologic oncology surgery. Methods: A systematic literature search using the MEDLINE, Scopus, Clinictrials.gov, and Cochrane Review databases for studies published between 1946 and 2020 was conducted. Articles were reviewed and assigned a risk of bias by two authors and were included if they addressed ERAS and either QOL or cost-effectiveness for patients undergoing urologic oncology surgery. Results: The literature search yielded a total of 682 studies after removing duplicates, of which 10 (1.5%) were included in the review. Nine articles addressed radical cystectomy, while one addressed ERAS and QOL for laparoscopic nephrectomy. Six publications assessed the impact of ERAS on QOL domains. Questionnaires used for assessment of QOL varied across studies, and timing of administration was heterogeneous. Overall, ERAS improved patient QOL during early phases of recovery within the realms of bowel function, physical/social/cognitive functioning, sleep and pain control. Costs were assessed in 4 retrospective studies including 3 conducted in the United States and one from China all addressing radical cystectomy. Studies demonstrated either decreased costs associated with ERAS as a result of decreased length of stay or no change in cost based on ERAS implementation. Conclusion: While limited studies are published on the subject, ERAS implementation for radical cystectomy and laparoscopic nephrectomy improved patient-reported QOL during early phases of recovery. For radical cystectomy, there was a decreased or neutral overall financial cost associated with ERAS. Further studies assessing QOL and cost-effectiveness over the entire global period of care in a variety of urologic oncology surgeries are warranted.This article is freely available to RD&E staff via NHS OpenAthens (subject to any publisher embargo). Click on the Publisher URL, and log in with NHS OpenAthens if prompted.This study was conducted with the support of a Department of Defense Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program (PRCRP) Career Development Award (W81XWH1710576) (SBW).published version, accepted version (12 month embargo