Xiao-Yan Liu

Clinical Adverse Effects of Endothelin Receptor Antagonists: Insights From the Meta‐Analysis of 4894 Patients From 24 Randomized Double‐Blind Placebo‐Controlled Clinical Trials

Background Evidence of the clinical safety of endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs) is limited and derived mainly from individual trials; therefore, we conducted a meta‐analysis. Methods and Results After systematic searches of the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases and the ClinicalTrials.gov website, randomized controlled trials with patients receiving ERAs (bosentan, macitentan, or ambrisentan) in at least 1 treatment group were included. All reported adverse events of ERAs were evaluated. Summary relative risks and 95% CIs were calculated using random‐ or fixed‐effects models according to between‐study heterogeneity. In total, 24 randomized trials including 4894 patients met the inclusion criteria. Meta‐analysis showed that the incidence of abnormal liver function (7.91% versus 2.84%; risk ratio [RR] 2.38, 95% CI 1.36–4.18), peripheral edema (14.36% versus 9.68%; RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.20–1.74), and anemia (6.23% versus 2.44%; RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.78–4.07) was significantly higher in the ERA group compared with placebo. In comparisons of individual ERAs with placebo, bosentan (RR 3.78, 95% CI 2.42–5.91) but not macitentan (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.42–3.31) significantly increased the risk of abnormal liver function, whereas ambrisentan (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01–0.45) significantly decreased that risk. Bosentan (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.06–2.03) and ambrisentan (RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.40–2.91) but not macitentan (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.81–1.46) significantly increased the risk of peripheral edema. Bosentan (RR 3.09, 95% CI 1.52–6.30) and macitentan (RR 2.63, 95% CI 1.54–4.47) but not ambrisentan (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.20–8.48) significantly increased the risk of anemia. ERAs were not found to increase other reported adverse events compared with placebo. Conclusions The present meta‐analysis showed that the main adverse effects of treatment with ERAs were hepatic transaminitis (bosentan), peripheral edema (bosentan and ambrisentan), and anemia (bosentan and macitentan).

Incidence and risk of respiratory tract infection associated with specific drug therapy in pulmonary arterial hypertension: a systematic review

Specific drug therapy has been proven to improve functional capacity and slow disease progression in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), regretfully with the data on the risk of respiratory tract infection (RTI) associated with specific drug therapy being limited. Databases of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and the ClinicalTrials.gov Website were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported the RTI data of PAH-specific drug therapy in patients. The primacy outcome was assessed by employing a fixed-effects model. Totally, 24 trials involving 6307 patients were included in the analysis. PAH-specific drug therapy was not significantly associated with the increased risk of both RTI (19.4% vs. 21.1% RR 1.02, 95%CI 0.92–1.14, P = 0.69) and serious RTI (4.3% vs. 5.0% RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.77–1.26, P = 0.93) compared to placebo. The results were consistent across the key subgroups. No heterogeneity between the studies (I2 = 35.8% for RTI, and I2 = 0.0% for serious RTI) and no publication bias was identified. In conclusion, no significant increase in RTI had been found in PAH-specific drug therapy when compared with placebo. Whereas, RTI in PAH patients is still worthy of clinical attention.

Increased risk of myocardial infarction with dabigatran etexilate: fact or fiction? A critical meta-analysis of over 580,000 patients from integrating randomized controlled trials and real-world studies

BACKGROUND The question of whether the use of dabigatran etexilate is associated with a high risk of myocardial infarction (MI) remains unanswered owing to the lack of critical evidences. METHODS A comprehensive search of databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov Website) was performed for RCTs that reported MI events and observational nationwide database studies that reported adjusted hazard ratio (HR) with dabigatran treatment. Summary HRs and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using random-effects models. Cumulative meta-analysis was conducted for evaluating the results as a continuum, and subgroup analyses were undertaken on the basis of study type, indication, controls, and dosage. RESULTS Finally, 24 studies including 588,047 patients (44,856 patients in 14 RCTs and 543,191 patients in 10 observational database studies) met the inclusion criteria, among which 222,352 (37.8%) patients receiving dabigatran and 365,695 (62.2%) patients receiving placebo/other anticoagulants. In comparison to controls, no significant association was detected between the use of dabigatran and the higher risk of MI (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.87-1.06; I2 for heterogeneity: 26.3%, P = 0.089). The results were consistent across the key subgroups (indication, controls, and dosage, Pinteraction > 0.05 for each), with the exception of study type (RCTs or database studies, Pinteraction = 0.046). Cumulative meta-analysis was not suggestive of a temporal trend in the effect of dabigatran on MI. CONCLUSIONS This meta-analysis confirms a low risk of MI in patients exposed to dabigatran, which seems to be validated when pooling over 580,000 patients from RCTs and real-world studies.

Non-vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants vs. Warfarin at Risk of Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Warfarin is a traditional oral anticoagulant for preventing thrombotic events in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism. Along with the widespread clinical use, the potential association between warfarin use and fracture risk have been addressed gradually. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs), targeting thrombin or Xa factor, have been recommended as an optimal alternative due to their favorable property of thromboembolism prophylaxis and reduced bleeding risk. However, evidence of the fracture risk with NOACs use is limited. Therefore, the present study investigated this issue by a meta-analysis. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and the ClinicalTrials.gov Website were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported the fracture data of NOACs and warfarin. The primacy outcome was a composite of any fracture. Summary relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random- or fixed-effects models according to between-study heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was assessed through I2 test and Q statistic, and the number of patients needed to treat (NNT) was calculated based on fracture incidence. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to individual NOACs, indications, and duration of follow up. Finally, 12 RCTs involving 89,549 patients were included, among which 44,816 (50%) receiving NOACs and 44,733 (50%) receiving warfarin. Overall, 1,139 (1.3%) patients including 515 NOACs users (1.1%) and 624 warfarin users (1.4%) developed fracture. Risk of fracture was significantly lower in NOACs compared to warfarin (RR: 0.82, 95%CI: 0.73–0.93, P = 0.001), with a NNT of 333. No significantly decreased risk was detected according to fracture sites. Subgroup analysis confirmed that the estimate of decreased fracture risk was derived mainly from AF patients receiving long-term anticoagulation treatment. The meta-regression did not detect any potential confounding on fracture risk. No heterogeneity between the studies (I2 = 15.0%) and no publication bias was identified. In conclusion, the use of NOACs was associated with a lower risk of fracture compared to warfarin, but with a relatively low absolute risk reduction. Therefore, screening for the fracture risk should be considered before initiating anticoagulation treatment. For patients who are at high risk of fracture or expected long-term treatment of anticoagulation, NOACs may represent a preferable alternative to warfarin.

Efficacy and Safety of Once-Weekly Semaglutide for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Semaglutide, a newly once-weekly glucagon like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, has showed a favorable effect on glycaemic control and weight reduction in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of semaglutide in T2DM. Methods: A comprehensive searching was performed for Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which reported the efficacy and safety data of semaglutide and other therapies. The efficacy data expressed as weight mean difference (WMD) and the safety data expressed as risk ratios (RRs) were calculated by employing random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed through I2 test, and subgroup analyses were performed by different control groups, dosage of semaglutide, and durations of follow up. Results: 9 RCTs including 9,773 subjects met the inclusion criteria. For efficacy, compared with other therapies, semaglutide resulted in a significant reduction in glycosylated hemoglobin (weight mean difference, WMD: −0.93%, 95% CI: −1.24 to −0.62, P < 0.001), fasting plasma glucose (WMD: −1.15 mmol/L, 95% CI: −1.67 to −0.63, P < 0.001), mean self-monitoring of plasma glucose (WMD: −1.19 mmol/L, 95% CI: −1.68 to −0.70, P < 0.001), body weight (WMD: –3.47 kg, 95% CI: −3.96 to −2.98, P < 0.001), body mass index (WMD: –1.25 kg/m2, 95% CI: −1.45 to −1.04, P < 0.001), systolic blood pressure (WMD: −2.55 mmHg, 95% CI: −3.22 to −1.88, P < 0.001), with the exception of negative result of diastolic blood pressure (WMD: −0.29 mmHg, 95% CI: −0.65 to 0.07, P = 0.113) and increased impact on pulse rate (WMD: −2.21, 95% CI: 1.54 to 2.88, P < 0.001). The results were consistent across the key subgroups. For safety, semaglutide did not increase the risk of any adverse events, hypoglycemia and pancreatitis, but induced a higher risk of gastrointestinal disorders when compared with other therapies (RR: 1.98, 95%CI: 1.49 to 2.62, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Semaglutide was effective and acceptable in patients with T2DM except for a high risk of gastrointestinal disorders. The capacity of glycaemic and body weight control of semaglutide appeared more effective than other add-on therapies including other GLP-1 receptor agonists of exenatide release and dulaglutide.

Ticagrelor-induced life-threatening bleeding via the cyclosporine-mediated drug interaction: A case report

Rationale: Ticagrelor has become one of the first-line antiplatelet agents in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients recommend by the guideline due to its more potent and predictable antiplatelet effect. However, bleeding is still a severe drug adverse reaction of ticagrelor therapy. We report a first case on ticagrelor-induced life-threatening bleeding via the cyclosporine-mediated drug interaction. Patient concerns: A 58-year-old Chinese male who received cyclosporine 200 mg daily 5 years after renal transplantation. Ticagrelor was added for treating ACS. Unfortunately, gum bleeding and life-threatening bloody stool appeared 8 days later, accompanied with the sudden drop of blood pressure. Interventions: Ticagrelor was replaced with clopidogrel. Intravenous injection of proton pump inhibitor and agkistrodon snake venom hemocoagulase were used to stop the bleeding. Meanwhile, packed red blood cells and plasma were continuously transfused to maintain adequate blood volume. Outcomes: The patients bloody stool was well controlled after treatment. Lessons: The present case demonstrates that a potential drug–drug interaction (DDI) may lead to a life-threatening drug adverse reaction especially in special subjects. Therefore, regarding DDI, optimizing antiplatelet treatment should be considered for the efficacy and safety of P2Y12 receptor antagonist in this fragile population.

Net Clinical Benefit of Non-vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Patients With Cancer: A Systematic Review and Trade-Off Analysis From 9 Randomized Controlled Trials

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is highly prevalent in patients with cancer. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs), directly targeting the enzymatic activity of thrombin or factor Xa, have been shown to be as effective as and safer than traditional anticoagulation for VTE prophylaxis in no-cancer patients. However, related studies that focused on the anticoagulation in cancer patients are lacked, and almost no net clinical benefit (NCB) analyses that quantified both VTE events and bleeding events have been addressed in this fragile population. Therefore, we aim to investigate this issue using a systematic review and NCB analysis. A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported the VTE events and major bleeding of NOACs and traditional anticoagulants in patients with or without cancer. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of VTE and bleeding events were calculated using a random-effects model. The primacy outcome of narrow NCB was calculated by pooling ORs of VTE and major bleeding, with a weighting of 1.0. Similarly, the broad NCB was calculated by pooling ORs of VTE and clinically relevant bleeding. Heterogeneity was assessed through I2 test and Q statistic, and subgroup analyses were performed on the basis of different patients (VTE patients or acutely ill patients), comparators (vitamin-K antagonists or low-molecular-weight heparin), and follow-up duration (≤6 months or >6 months). Overall, 9 RCTs including 41,454 patients were enrolled, of which 2,902 (7%) were cancer patients, and 38,552 (93%) were no-cancer patients; 20,712 (50%) were administrated with NOACs and 20,742 (50%) were administrated with traditional anticoagulants. The use of NOACs had a superior NCB than traditional anticoagulation in both cancer patients (OR: 0.68, 95%CI: 0.50-0.85 for narrow NCB; OR: 0.76, 95%CI: 0.61–0.91 for broad NCB) and no-cancer patients (OR: 0.75, 95%CI: 0.54-0.96 for narrow NCB; OR: 0.85, 95%CI: 0.67–1.04 for broad NCB), with the estimates mainly from VTE patients receiving long-term warfarin treatment. In conclusion, NOACs may represent a better NCB property compared to traditional anticoagulants in cancer patients who need long-term anticoagulation treatment.

Non-vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants and Cognitive Impairment in Atrial Fibrillation: Insights From the Meta-Analysis of Over 90,000 Patients of Randomized Controlled Trials and Real-World Studies.

Background: The relationship between the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and the impairment of cognition in atrial fibrillation (AF) remains unknown. Methods: A comprehensive database search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov Website was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting cognitive impairment events and observational nationwide database studies reporting adjusted hazard ratio (HR) in AF patients with NOACs. The primacy outcome was a composite of any cognitive impairment. Summary of HRs and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated using the fixed- and random-effects models. Subgroup analyses were undertaken according to the individual NOACs, study types, and duration of follow-up. Results: Finally, eight studies including 97,595 patients (77,643 patients in 6 RCTs and 19,952 patients in 2 observational database studies) met the inclusion criteria, among which 55,337 (56.7%) patients were receiving NOACs and 42,258 (43.3%) patients were receiving vitamin K Antagonists (VKAs) or acetylsalicylic acid. The results showed a borderline significant association between the use of NOACs and the lower risk of cognitive impairment when compared with VKAs/ acetylsalicylic acid (HR: 0.80, 95%CI: 0.63–0.98 for fixed-effects model; HR: 0.77; 95%CI: 0.53–1.01 for random-effects model), with no significant heterogeneity between the studies (I2 = 39.4%, P = 0.12). The results were consistent across the key subgroups (Pinteraction > 0.05 for each). Conclusions: The results indicated that the use of NOACs might lower the tendency on the risk of cognitive impairment in comparison to VKAs/acetylsalicylic acid, and further RCTs and real-world studies are required on an urgent basis to obtain a robust result.