Dataset Information

Association Between Previous or Active Cancer and Clinical Outcomes in TAVR Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 255,840 Patients

ABSTRACT: Background: It has been proposed that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be an option for patients with cancer and severe aortic stenosis. We assessed the association between previous or active cancer and clinical outcomes in TAVR patients. Methods: We searched four electronic databases from inception to March 05, 2021. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, acute kidney injury, pacemaker implantation, major bleeding, and vascular complications. All meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Relative risks (RRs) and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) with their 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were pooled. Results: Thirteen cohort studies involving 255,840 patients were included. The time period for mortality ranged from inpatient to 10 years. Patients with active cancer had a higher risk of all-cause mortality using both crude (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.13–1.88) and adjusted (aHR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.43–2.25) estimates compared to non-cancer group. In contrast, the risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.58–2.73), myocardial infarction (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.34–2.57), stroke (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.75–1.09), pacemaker implantation (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.50–1.53), acute kidney injury (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74–1.04), major bleeding (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.80–1.66), and vascular complications (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.79–1.18) was similar between patients with or without cancer. Conclusion: Our review shows that TAVR patients with active cancer had an increased risk of all-cause mortality. No significant association with secondary outcomes was found.

SUBMITTER: Diaz-Arocutipa C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8593236 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:There has been limited evaluation of the association between vedolizumab trough concentration and clinical outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). AIM:To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the potential role of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for vedolizumab. METHODS:Through a systematic literature search through 28 February 2019, we identified five cohort studies (558 patients, 42% with ulcerative colitis) reporting the association between vedolizumab trough concentration and clinical outcomes in patients with IBD. We calculated mean difference (MD) in vedolizumab trough concentration in patients achieving vs not achieving clinical outcomes, and qualitatively synthesized thresholds associated with favourable outcomes. RESULTS:In patients with UC, median vedolizumab trough concentrations were consistently higher in patients achieving clinical remission (median, 14.3 ?g/mL vs 10.5 ?g/mL; MD, 5.1 ?g/mL, 95% CI, 2.8-7.4) or endoscopic remission (median, 13.0 ?g/mL vs 9.7; MD, 5.1 ?g/mL, 95% CI, 2.2-7.9). In patients with CD, there was no significant difference in median vedolizumab trough concentrations in patients achieving vs not achieving clinical remission (MD, 2.0 ?g/mL; 95% CI, -0.5 to 4.5) or endoscopic remission (MD, 3.6 ?g/mL; 95% CI, -1.4 to 8.6). In patients with UC, week 6 vedolizumab trough concentrations ?18.5-20.8 ?g/mL, and maintenance trough concentrations ?9.0-12.6 ?g/mL were associated with favourable clinical outcomes. Antibodies to vedolizumab were reported in 1.7%-3.0% patients on maintenance therapy. CONCLUSION:Based on meta-analysis, patients with UC who achieve endoscopic and clinical remission have significantly higher vedolizumab trough concentration during maintenance therapy. Vedolizumab trough concentration >20 ?g/mL at week 6, and >12 ?g/mL during maintenance may be associated with better outcomes, though cause-effect relationship remains unclear. Prospective studies on reactive and proactive therapeutic drug monitoring of vedolizumab (vs empiric dose escalation) are warranted.

Project description:ImportanceThe chronic receipt of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) has been assumed to exacerbate complications associated with COVID-19 and produce worse clinical outcomes.ObjectiveTo conduct an updated and comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis comparing mortality and severe adverse events (AEs) associated with receipt vs nonreceipt of ACEIs or ARBs among patients with COVID-19.Data sourcesPubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched from December 31, 2019, until September 1, 2020.Study selectionThe meta-analysis included any study design, with the exception of narrative reviews or opinion-based articles, in which COVID-19 was diagnosed through laboratory or radiological test results and in which clinical outcomes (unadjusted or adjusted) associated with COVID-19 were assessed among adult patients (≥18 years) receiving ACEIs or ARBs.Data extraction and synthesisThree authors independently extracted data on mortality and severe AEs associated with COVID-19. Severe AEs were defined as intensive care unit admission or the need for assisted ventilation. For each outcome, a random-effects model was used to compare the odds ratio (OR) between patients receiving ACEIs or ARBs vs those not receiving ACEIs or ARBs.Main outcomes and measuresUnadjusted and adjusted ORs for mortality and severe AEs associated with COVID-19.ResultsA total of 1788 records from the PubMed and Embase databases were identified; after removal of duplicates, 1664 records were screened, and 71 articles underwent full-text evaluation. Clinical data were pooled from 52 eligible studies (40 cohort studies, 6 case series, 4 case-control studies, 1 randomized clinical trial, and 1 cross-sectional study) enrolling 101 949 total patients, of whom 26 545 (26.0%) were receiving ACEIs or ARBs. When adjusted for covariates, significant reductions in the risk of death (adjusted OR [aOR], 0.57; 95% CI, 0.43-0.76; P < .001) and severe AEs (aOR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.88; P < .001) were found. Unadjusted and adjusted analyses of a subgroup of patients with hypertension indicated decreases in the risk of death (unadjusted OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.49-0.91]; P = .01; aOR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.32-0.84]; P = .008) and severe AEs (unadjusted OR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.54-0.91]; P = .007; aOR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.36-0.85]; P = .007).Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, receipt of ACEIs or ARBs was not associated with a higher risk of multivariable-adjusted mortality and severe AEs among patients with COVID-19 who had either hypertension or multiple comorbidities, supporting the recommendations of medical societies. On the contrary, ACEIs and ARBs may be associated with protective benefits, particularly among patients with hypertension. Future randomized clinical trials are warranted to establish causality.

Dataset Information

Association Between Previous or Active Cancer and Clinical Outcomes in TAVR Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 255,840 Patients

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets