Effects of preeclampsia and eclampsia on maternal metabolic and biochemical outcomes in later life: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: To evaluate the association between preeclampsia (PE) and eclampsia (E) on subsequent metabolic and biochemical outcomes. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. We searched five engines until November 2018 for studies evaluating the effects of PE/E on metabolic and biochemical outcomes after delivery. PE was defined as presence of hypertension and proteinuria at >20 weeks of pregnancy; controls did not have PE/E. Primary outcomes were blood pressure (BP), body mass index (BMI), metabolic syndrome (MetS), blood lipids and glucose levels. Random effects models were used for meta-analyses, and effects reported as risk difference (RD) or mean difference (MD) and their 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses by time of follow up, publication year, and confounder adjustment were performed. Results: We evaluated 41 cohorts including 3300 PE/E and 13,967 normotensive controls. Women were followed up from 3 months after delivery up to 32 years postpartum. In comparison to controls, PE/E significantly increased systolic BP (MD = 8.3 mmHg, 95%CI 6.8 to 9.7), diastolic BP (MD = 6.8 mmHg, 95%CI 5.6 to 8.0), BMI (MD = 2.0 kg/m2; 95%CI 1.6 to 2.4), waist (MD = 4.3 cm, 95%CI 3.1 to 5.5), waist-to-hip ratio (MD = 0.02, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.03), weight (MD = 5.1 kg, 95%CI 2.2 to 7.9), total cholesterol (MD = 4.6 mg/dL, CI 1.5 to 7.7), LDL (MD = 4.6 mg/dL; 95%CI 0.2 to 8.9), triglycerides (MD = 7.7 mg/dL, 95%CI 3.6 to 11.7), glucose (MD = 2.6 mg/dL, 95%CI 1.2 to 4.0), insulin (MD = 19.1 pmol/L, 95%CI 11.9 to 26.2), HOMA-IR index (MD = 0.7, 95%CI 0.2 to 1.2), C reactive protein (MD = 0.05 mg/dL, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.09), and the risks of hypertension (RD = 0.24, 95%CI 0.15 to 0.33) and MetS (RD = 0.11, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.15). Also, PE/E reduced HDL levels (MD = –2.15 mg/dL, 95%CI –3.46 to −0.85). Heterogeneity of effects was high for most outcomes. Risk of bias was moderate across studies. Subgroup analyses showed similar effects as main analyses. Conclusion: Women who had PE/E have worse metabolic and biochemical profile than those without PE/E in an intermediate to long term follow up period. ©Revisión por pare

Efficacy and harms of tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction We systematically assessed benefits and harms of tocilizumab (TCZ), which is an antibody blocking IL-6 receptors, in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods Five electronic databases and two preprint webpages were searched until March 4, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) cohorts assessing TCZ effects in hospitalized, COVID-19 adult patients were included. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinical worsening, clinical improvement, need for mechanical ventilation, and adverse events (AE). Inverse variance random-effects meta-analyses were performed with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methodology. Results Nine RCTs (n = 7,021) and nine IPTW cohorts (n = 7,796) were included. TCZ significantly reduced all-cause mortality in RCTs (RR 0.89, 95%CI 0.81–0.98, p = 0.03; moderate QoE) and non-significantly in cohorts (RR 0.67, 95%CI 0.44–1.02, p = 0.08; very low QoE) vs. control (standard of care [SOC] or placebo). TCZ significantly reduced the need for mechanical ventilation (RR 0.80, 95%CI 0.71–0.90, p = 0.001; moderate QoE) and length of stay (MD -1.92 days, 95%CI -3.46 to -0.38, p = 0.01; low QoE) vs. control in RCTs. There was no significant difference in clinical improvement or worsening between treatments. AEs, severe AEs, bleeding and thrombotic events were similar between arms in RCTs, but there was higher neutropenia risk with TCZ (very low QoE). Subgroup analyses by disease severity or risk of bias (RoB) were consistent with main analyses. Quality of evidence was moderate to very low in both RCTs and cohorts. Conclusions In comparison to SOC or placebo, TCZ reduced all-cause mortality in all studies and reduced mechanical ventilation and length of stay in RCTs in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Other clinical outcomes were not significantly impacted. TCZ did not have effect on AEs, except a significant increased neutropenia risk in RCTs. TCZ has a potential role in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.Revisión por pare

EFICÁCIA E SEGURANÇA DE IVERMECTINA PARA O TRATAMENTO DE PACIENTES COM COVID-19 NÃO HOSPITALIZADOS: REVISÃO SISTEMÁTICA E META-ANÁLISE DE 12 ESTUDOS CLÍNICOS RANDOMIZADOS CONTROLADOS INCLUINDO 7035 CASOS

Introdução: Ivermectina, antiparasitário usado pela primeira vez em humanos em 1988, foi amplamente prescrito, principalmente na América Latina, para o tratamento de pacientes com Covid-19. Neste estudo, avaliamos a eficácia e segurança de ivermectina versus controles em pacientes não hospitalizados que apresentaram covid-19 precoce. Métodos: Foram incluídos estudos clínicos randomizados e controlados que avaliaram os efeitos de ivermectina em adultos com covid-19, publicados até o 22 de fevereiro de 2023 em cinco bases de dados. Os desfechos primários foram hospitalização, mortalidade por todas as causas, e eventos adversos. Os desfechos secundários incluíram ventilação mecânica, melhora clínica, piora clínica, clareamento viral, e eventos adversos graves. O risco de viés foi avaliado usando a ferramenta Cochrane RoB2. Foi realizada metanálise de efeitos aleatórios de variância inversa, com qualidade de evidência utilizando a metodologia GRADE. Foram realizados análise de subgrupo pré-especificados, segundo dose de ivermectina, tipo de controle, risco de viés, e tempo de seguimento. Resultados: Foram incluídos 12 estudos clínicos randomizados e controlados (n = 7035). Os controles foram o placebo em nove estudos, o padrão terapêutico em dois estudos, e o placebo ou medicamento ativo em um estudo. Ivermectina não reduziu hospitalização (risco relativo [RR], 0.81, intervalo de confiança 95% [IC 95%] 0.64-1.03; 8 estudos, qualidade de evidência baixa), mortalidade por todas as causas (RR 0.98, IC 95% 0.73-1.33; 9 estudos, qualidade de evidência baixa), ou eventos adversos (RR 0.89, IC 95% 0.75-1.07; 9 estudos, qualidade de evidência muito baixa), comparada com os controles. Ivermectina não reduziu a necessidade de ventilação mecânica, a piora clínica, ou os eventos adversos graves e não aumentou a melhora clínica nem o clareamento viral versus os controles (qualidade de evidência muito baixa para os desfechos secundários). As análises de subgrupo foram consistentes com as análises principais. Conclusões: Ivermectina não teve efeitos nos desfechos clínicos, intermediários ou de segurança versus os controles, em estudos clínicos randomizados que avaliaram pacientes com covid-19 não hospitalizados. Ivermectina não deve ser recomendada como tratamento de pacientes com covid-19 não hospitalizados

Oral turmeric/curcumin effects on inflammatory markers in chronic inflammatory diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Turmeric extract or active component curcumin may have anti-inflammatory effects in people with chronic inflammatory diseases. The effect of turmeric or curcumin on a wide range of inflammatory markers has not been evaluated in a systematic review. We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)evaluating the effects of oral turmeric or curcumin on inflammatory markers (CRP, hsCRP, IL-1, IL-6, TNF)in patients with a wide range of chronic inflammatory diseases. Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane library were evaluated until June 2018. Random effects meta-analyses with inverse variance methods and stratified by turmeric or curcumin were performed. Effects were expressed as mean differences (MD)and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Risk of bias of RCTs was evaluated with the Cochrane tool. Nineteen RCTs were identified; included patients had rheumatic diseases, advanced chronic kidney disease with hemodialysis, metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular diseases. Turmeric was the intervention in 5 RCTs (n = 356)and curcumin/curcuminoids in 14 RCTs (n = 988). Follow up times ranged between 4 and 16 weeks. One RCT had high risk of bias. In comparison to controls, turmeric or curcumin did not significantly decrease levels of CRP (MD -2.71 mg/L, 95%CI -5.73 to 0.31, p = 0.08, 5 studies), hsCRP (MD -1.44 mg/L, 95%CI -2.94 to 0.06, p = 0.06, 6 studies), IL-1 beta (MD -4.25 pg/mL, 95%CI -13.32 to 4.82, p = 0.36, 2 studies), IL-6 (MD -0.71 pg/mL, 95%CI -1.68 to 0.25, p = 0.15), and TNF alpha (MD -1.23 pg/mL, 95%CI -3.01 to 0.55, p = 0.18, 7 studies). There were no differences between turmeric and curcumin interventions. High heterogeneity of effects was observed for all markers across studies, except hsCRP. Other inflammatory markers such as IL-1 alpha, TNF beta, IL-17, and IL-22 had scarce data. Turmeric or curcumin did not decrease several inflammatory markers in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases.Revisión por pare

Impact of Prophylactic Hydroxychloroquine on People at High Risk of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

There are no proven prophylactic interventions for COVID-19. We systematically reviewed the efficacy of prophylactic hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. Studies evaluating hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis of COVID-19 were searched in several engines until 8 December 2020. Primary outcomes included RT-PCR positivity, COVID-19 infections (positive RT-PCR or compatible COVID-19 symptoms), and all-cause mortality. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for all outcomes. Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 5579) and one cohort (n = 106) were included. Placebo was the comparator in four RCTs, and usual care in one RCT. Compared to the controls, five RCTs showed that hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis did not reduce RT-PCR positivity (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.88–1.16), COVID-19 infection (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78–1.22), or all-cause mortality (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.27–1.99). There were no differences of effects by pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis. Prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine increased the risk of diarrhea, abdominal pain, or vomiting (RR 4.56, 95% CI 1.58–13.19). There were no effects of hydroxychloroquine on other secondary outcomes. Quality of evidence was low to very low for all outcomes. Hydroxychloroquine was not efficacious as a prophylaxis for COVID-19 infections, defined either as RT-PCR positivity or as a composite of RT-PCR positivity or compatible symptoms. Hydroxychloroquine did not reduce all-cause mortality, clinical worsening, or adverse events

Efficacy and Safety of Hydroxychloroquine for Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as treatment for hospitalized COVID-19. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating hydroxychloroquine as treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients were searched until 2nd of December 2020. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, need of mechanical ventilation, need of non-invasive ventilation, ICU admission and oxygen support at 14 and 30 days. Secondary outcomes were clinical recovery and worsening, discharge, radiological progression of pneumonia, virologic clearance, serious adverse events (SAE) and adverse events. Inverse variance random effects meta-analyses were performed. Thirteen RCTs (n=18,540) were included. Hydroxychloroquine total doses ranged between 2000 and 12,400 mg; treatment durations were from 5 to 16 days and follow up times between 5 and 30 days. Compared to controls, hydroxychloroquine non-significantly increased mortality at 14 days (RR 1.07, 95%CI 0.92–1.25) or 30 days (RR 1.08, 95%CI 1.00–1.16). Hydroxychloroquine did not affect other primary or secondary outcomes, except SAEs that were significantly higher than the control (RR 1.24, 95%CI 1.05–1.46). Eleven RCTs had high or some concerns of bias. Subgroup analyses were consistent with main analyses. Hydroxychloroquine was not efficacious for treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients and caused more severe adverse events. Hydroxychloroquine should not be recommended as treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients

Renal Denervation for Uncontrolled and Resistant Hypertension: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Comparative efficacy and safety of renal denervation (RDN) interventions for uncontrolled (UH) and resistant hypertension (RH) is unknown. We assessed the comparative efficacy and safety of existing RDN interventions for UH and RH. Six search engines were searched up to 1 May 2020. Primary outcomes were mean 24-h ambulatory and office systolic blood pressure (SBP). Secondary outcomes were mean 24-h ambulatory and office diastolic blood pressure (DBP), clinical outcomes, and serious adverse events. Frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses were used to evaluate effects of RDN interventions. Twenty randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 2152) were included, 15 in RH (n = 1544) and five in UH (n = 608). Intervention arms included radiofrequency (RF) in main renal artery (MRA) (n = 10), RF in MRA and branches (n = 4), RF in MRA+ antihypertensive therapy (AHT) (n = 5), ultrasound (US) in MRA (n = 3), sham (n = 8), and AHT (n = 9). RF in MRA and branches ranked as the best treatment to reduce 24-h ambulatory, daytime, and nighttime SBP and DBP versus other interventions (p-scores: 0.83 to 0.97); significant blood pressure effects were found versus sham or AHT. RF in MRA+AHT was the best treatment to reduce office SBP and DBP (p-scores: 0.84 and 0.90, respectively). RF in MRA and branches was the most efficacious versus other interventions to reduce 24-h ambulatory SBP and DBP in UH or RH