Efficacy and safety of low dose rivaroxaban in patients with coronary heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Khan SU
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7554154 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundControversy has persisted over the clinical benefits of low-dose sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure (HF).HypothesisLow-dose sacubitril/valsartan might also be effective and safe in HF patients.MethodsElectronic databases including PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane Library were systematically retrieved from inception to August 5, 2021. Review manager 5.4 and Stata 15.1 were employed in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Key efficacy outcomes of interest included HF hospitalization, all-cause mortality, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), together with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class. The safety outcome was systolic blood pressure (SBP). The grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach was conducted to evaluate the quality of evidence for each outcome.ResultsA total of 1269 studies were screened and 9 real-world studies met the inclusion criteria were included in the meta-analysis, with 1697 participants. Compared with low-dose sacubitril/valsartan, high-dose sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced the risk of HF hospitalization (odds ratio [OR]: 0.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.27-0.61, p < .0001) and the risk of all-cause mortality (OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.11-0.47, p < .0001). However, there were no appreciable differences in improvements of NYHA (OR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.15-2.35, p = .45), changes of LVEF (mean difference [MD]: 2.73%, 95% CI: -2.24% to 7.7%, p = .28), changes of NT-proBNP (MD: 43.09, 95% CI: -28.41 to 114.59, p = .24) and changes of SBP (MD: 3.01, 95% CI: -4.62 to 10.64, p = .44) between groups with low-dose and high-dose sacubitril/valsartan.ConclusionsCompared with high-dose sacubitril/valsartan, low-dose sacubitril/valsartan was associated with increased risks of HF hospitalization and all-cause mortality. However, no distinct between-group differences in improvements of NYHA, changes of LVEF, changes of NT-proBNP and changes of SBP were observed.
| S-EPMC10018087 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: This study aims to explore the role of low-dose rivaroxaban (≤10 mg daily) for the treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Methods: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of low-dose rivaroxaban in patients with ASCVD including coronary artery disease (CAD) and peripheral artery disease (PAD). Literature screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were carried out independently by two researchers. Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using random-effect models to determine risks of outcomes in ASCVD patients treated with rivaroxaban and comparators, and meta-analysis was conducted via Review Manager 5.3.5 software. Results: 3,768 records were obtained through literature search, and 9 articles representing 6 RCTs ultimately qualified for this study. The meta-analysis indicated that for patients with CAD, the addition of rivaroxaban (5 mg daily) to aspirin could significantly reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) compared with aspirin alone (HR 0.81, 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.91, p = 0.0004, I2 = 60%, 4 studies). For PAD patients receiving rivaroxaban (5 mg daily) plus aspirin, there was no significant reduction in the risk of MACEs (HR 0.84, 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.13, p = 0.25, I2 = 74%, 2 studies); however, there was significant reduction in major adverse limb events (MALEs) (HR 0.54, 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.83, p = 0.005, one studies) and in the composite of MACEs or MALEs (HR 0.78, 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.95, p = 0.02, I2 = 66%, 2 studies) when compared with patients receiving aspirin alone. Meanwhile, rivaroxaban combined with aspirin significantly increased the risk of International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) major bleeding compared with aspirin alone in patients with CAD (HR 1.74, 95% CI, 1.43 to 2.13, p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%, 2 studies) and PAD (HR 1.47, 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.83, p = 0.0004, I2 = 0%, 2 studies). Conclusions: Compared with standard antiplatelet therapy, the addition of a 5 mg daily dose of rivaroxaban to standard antiplatelet therapy may improve cardiovascular or limb outcomes of patients with ASCVD, with an increase in major bleeding. Patients who would benefit from the addition of low-dose rivaroxaban to antiplatelet agents and appropriate dual-pathway antithrombotic strategies should be identified in clinical practice to individualize antithrombotic therapy.
| S-EPMC7957832 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Recent studies have revealed the benefits of using colchicine, a drug with anti-inflammatory properties, in coronary artery disease (CAD). This study systematically reviewed the benefits and risks of low-dose colchicine in patients with CAD. Methods and Results: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science databases (March 2020). Efficacy and safety outcomes were evaluated. Estimates are expressed as risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 test. Confidence in the pooled evidence was appraised using the GRADE framework. Colchicine reduced the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.49-0.86; 6 RCTs; I2=50%; 11,718 patients; GRADE, moderate confidence), acute coronary syndrome (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.46-0.90; I2=47%; 7 RCTs; 11,955 patients; GRADE, very low confidence), stroke (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.30-0.78; I2=0%; 6 RCTs; 11,896 patients; GRADE, moderate confidence), and cardiovascular interventions (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.42-0.89; I2=40%; 4 RCTs; 11,284 patients; GRADE, high confidence). Colchicine did not increase the risk of adverse events, except for gastrointestinal events (RR 1.54; 95% CI 1.11-2.13; I2=72%; 9 RCTs; 12,374 patients; GRADE, very low confidence). Conclusions: Low-dose colchicine in patients with CAD is associated with beneficial effects on prognosis, although an increased risk of gastrointestinal events was confirmed.
| S-EPMC8338916 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of conventional treatments (CTs) to those that included traditional Chinese medicine injections (TCMIs) in patients with combined coronary heart disease and heart failure (CHD-HF). Methods: Eight electronic literature databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, Wanfang Database, Chinese Biomedical Database) were searched from their inceptions to May 18, 2021, to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcomes analyzed included the total effectiveness rate and adverse events (ADRs). The secondary outcomes analyzed included the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), and 6-min walk test (6MWT). Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess quality of the analyzed RCTs. Stata and OpenBUGS software were used to prior to the systematic review and network meta-analysis. Results: Sixty-one eligible trials involved 5,567 patients and one of the following 15 TCMIs: Shuxuetong, Shenmai, Shenfu, Shengmai, Danshenduofenyansuan, Danhong, Dazhuhongjingtian, Xinmailong, Dengzhanxixin, Gualoupi, Shuxuening, Xuesaitong, Yiqi Fumai, Shenqi Fuzheng, Huangqi. Network meta-analysis revealed that Shuxuetong injection + CT group was superior to CT only in improving the total effectiveness rate [odds ratio (OR): 7.8, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.17-27.41]. Shenmai injection + CT was superior to CT only for LVEF (OR: 8.97, CI: 4.67-13.18), Xinmailong injection + CT was superior to CT only for NT-proBNP (OR: -317.70, CI: -331.10-303.10), Shenqi Fuzheng injection + CT was superior to CT only for BNP (OR: -257.30, CI: -308.40-242.80); and Danhong injection + CT was superior to CT only for 6MWT (OR: 84.40, CI: 62.62-106.20). Different TCMIs had different toxicity spectrums. Conclusion: TCMIs combined with CT are better than CT alone in treating CHD-HF. Different TCMIs improve different outcomes. Additional properly designed RCTs are needed to conduce a more refined comparison of various TCMIs. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/], identifier [CRD42021258263].
| S-EPMC8652334 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThis meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of aspirin and indobufen in patients with coronary heart disease. The primary focus was on the incidence of cardiovascular events, bleeding events, and gastrointestinal reactions. Given the relatively limited research on indobufen, this study utilized aspirin as a control drug and employed meta-analysis to integrate existing clinical studies. The goal was to provide a reference for the clinical use of indobufen and to suggest directions for further largescale, multicenter prospective studies.MethodsThis review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We conducted a comprehensive search of the PubMed, EMBASE, WOS, and Cochrane Library databases to identify all relevant literature on indobufen. A total of nine trials met the inclusion criteria, encompassing seven randomized controlled trails (RCTs) and two retrospective studies. Categorical variables were analyzed using odds ratio and random effects models.ResultsThe meta-analysis included nine trials, comprising seven RCTs and two retrospective studies. The pooled results indicated that indobufen significantly reduced the incidence of minor bleeding events, and gastrointestinal discomfort compared to aspirin. However, both drugs had similar effects on the incidence of recurrent angina pectoris, myocardial infarction and mortality due to coronary heart disease.ConclusionIndobufen was associated with fewer gastrointestinal reactions and a low risk of bleeding, making it a viable option for patients with high-risk factors for bleeding and gastric ulcers. Despite this, indobufen's short history and limited evidence base compared to aspirin highlight the need for further research. Aspirin remains widely available, cost-effective, and the preferred drug for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. Indobufen or other antiplatelet agents should only be considered when aspirin is not tolerated or contraindicated. Further clinical trials are necessary to determine whether indobufen can replace aspirin.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/, identifier [CRD42024523477].
| S-EPMC11357911 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectiveThe effectiveness of immunosuppressive and corticosteroid treatments for Immunoglobulin A (IgA) nephropathy (IgAN) remains thoroughly evaluated. We undertook a meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of low-dose corticosteroids plus leflunomide for progressive IgA nephropathy.MethodsEligible studies were obtained from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. We also searched the references of the included studies. Our protocol followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Eligibility criteria were defined using a PICOS framework.ResultsOur study included three articles presenting 342 patient cases. Findings revealed that low-dose corticosteroids combined with the leflunomide group were effective in relieving urine protein excretion (UPE) [mean difference (MD) = -0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.41 to -0.30, P < 0.00001] compared with the full-dose corticosteroids group. Regarding serum creatinine (SCr), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), complete remission rate, and overall response rate, there was no difference between the groups (p > 0.05). Regarding safety, low-dose corticosteroids combined with leflunomide significantly reduced the risk of serious adverse events [odds ratio (OR): 0.11, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.91, P = 0.04]. Besides, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in the incidence of respiratory infection, abnormal liver function, diarrhea, herpes zoster, alopecia, pruritus, insomnia, pneumonia, diabetes, and urinary tract infection (P > 0.05).ConclusionsLow-dose corticosteroids combined with leflunomide are a safe and effective treatment for progressive IgA nephropathy.Trial registrationThe PROSPERO registration number is CRD42022361883.
| S-EPMC10926645 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImpaired adrenal function is a well-described entity in critically ill term and preterm neonates with systemic hypotension. The standard treatment for neonatal hypotension includes volume expanders and vasopressors. Recent evidence supports the use of glucocorticoids for the primary or rescue treatment of neonatal hypotension associated with impaired adrenal function. However, inconsistency regarding the prescribed dosing regimen to provide the best balance between efficacy and safety in this vulnerable population remains an area of concern.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate low-dosing compared with high-dosing regimens of hydrocortisone for the treatment of hypotension in critically ill term, preterm and very low birth weight neonates. Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science will be searched from inception to November 2021. Study screening and selection will be completed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. Our primary outcomes will be (1) an improvement in end-organ perfusion, defined as an increase in blood pressure along with an increase in urine output or a reduction in serum lactate and (2) mortality prior to discharge. Our secondary outcomes will be the development of (1) major neurosensory abnormality, (2) bronchopulmonary dysplasia and (3) the occurrence of adverse events.DiscussionHydrocortisone may be beneficial in the treatment of hypotension associated with impaired adrenal function among critically ill neonates. However, its optimal dosing to balance desired efficacy with the risk of adverse events is yet to be determined. Our systematic review and meta-analysis aims to address this evidence gap, providing valuable knowledge for a large audience, including guideline developers, policy-makers and clinicians.Prospero registration numberThis protocol is submitted for registration to the international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews (PROSPERO, awaiting registration number).
| S-EPMC8671989 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To systematically review evidence comparing the effect of low-dose versus high-dose ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and hospitalisation, functional capacity and side effects in patients with heart failure (HF). METHODS:We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and LILACS up to January 2019. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing low-dose versus high-dose ACEIs in adults with HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF). Study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2.0, and quality of evidence with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). We conducted random effects meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. RESULTS:We included eight RCTs (5829 patients with HF). In comparison with low-dose ACEIs, high-dose ACEIs showed a non-significant effect on all-cause mortality (8 RCTs, n=5828, relative risk (RR) 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.02; moderate quality of evidence), cardiovascular mortality (6 RCTs, n=4048, RR 0.93, 95%?CI 0.85 to 1.01; moderate quality of evidence), all-cause hospitalisation (5 RCTs, n=5394, RR 0.95, 95%?CI 0.82 to 1.10; moderate quality of evidence) and cardiovascular hospitalisation (4 RCTs, n=5242, RR 0.98, 95%?CI 0.83 to 1.17; low quality of evidence). High-dose ACEI increased functional capacity (4 studies, n=555, standardised mean difference 0.38, 95%?CI 0.20 to 0.55; low quality of evidence) and the risk of hypotension (4 RCTs, n=3783, RR 1.64, 95%?CI 1.30 to 2.05; moderate quality of evidence). High-dose ACEI had no effect on dizziness (3 RCTs, n=4994, RR 1.37, 95%?CI 0.97 to 1.93; low quality of evidence), but decreased the risk of cough (4 RCTs, n=5146, RR 0.85, 95%?CI 0.73 to 0.98; moderate quality of evidence). CONCLUSIONS:The magnitude of benefit of using high dose versus low to intermediate doses of ACEIs might be less than traditionally suggested in clinical guidelines. These findings might help clinicians address the complex task of HF management in a more rational and timely fashion, saving efforts to implement strategies with the greatest net clinical benefit.
| S-EPMC7443275 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsWe sought to conduct a meta-analysis regarding the safety and efficacy of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in patients with heart failure (HF).Methods and resultsMEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from their inception to November 2020 for placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials of SGLT2 inhibitors. Randomized controlled trials were selected if they reported at least one of the prespecified outcomes in patients with HF. Hazard ratios (HRs) or risk ratios and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals were pooled using a random-effects model. A total of seven trials including 16 820 HF patients (N = 8884 in the SGLT2 inhibitor arms; N = 7936 in the placebo arms) were included. In the overall HF cohort, SGLT2 inhibitors compared with placebo significantly reduced the risk of the composite endpoint of first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death [HR: 0.77 (0.72-0.83); P < 0.001; I2 = 0%], time to first HF hospitalization [HR: 0.71 (0.64-0.78); P < 0.001; I2 = 0], cardiovascular mortality [HR: 0.87 (0.79-0.96); P = 0.005; I2 = 0%], and all-cause mortality [HR: 0.89 (0.82-0.96); P = 0.004; I2 = 0%]. Results remained consistent across HF-specific trials and according to diabetes mellitus status. A trend towards benefit was observed in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction for the composite of HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death [HR: 0.80 (0.63-1.00); P = 0.05; I2 = 29%]. No increased risk of hypovolaemia, hyperkalaemia, and hypotension was seen with SGLT2 inhibitors compared with placebo.ConclusionsSGLT2 inhibitors significantly improve cardiovascular outcomes including cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in patients with HF without an increased risk of serious adverse events. A trend towards benefit was observed in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction.
| S-EPMC7755023 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cyclosporine A (CsA) is effective in treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarize the effectiveness and safety of low-dose (<4 mg/kg) versus high-dose (≥4 mg/kg) CsA and other systemic immunomodulatory agents in patients with AD. Five randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis included 159 patients with moderate-to-severe AD who were randomized to receive low-dose CsA, and 165 patients randomized to receive high-dose CsA and other systemic immunomodulatory agents. We found that low-dose CsA was not inferior to high-dose CsA and other systemic immunomodulatory agents in reducing AD symptoms [standard mean difference (SMD) -1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.47; 3.23]. High-dose CsA and other systemic immunomodulatory agents showed a significantly lower incidence of adverse events [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.72, 95% CI 0.56; 0.93], however, after sensitivity analysis, there was no difference between the two groups except for one study (IRR 0.76, 95% CI 0.54; 1.07). Regarding serious adverse events requiring discontinuation of treatment, we observed no significant differences between low-dose CsA and other systemic immunomodulatory agents (IRR 1.83, 95% CI 0.62; 5.41). Our study may justify the use of low-dose CsA rather than high-dose CsA and other systemic immunomodulatory agents in moderate-to-severe AD.
| S-EPMC9959975 | biostudies-literature