SummaryBackgroundThe vascular and gastrointestinal effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including selective COX-2 inhibitors (coxibs) and traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (tNSAIDs), are not well characterised, particularly in patients at increased risk of vascular disease. We aimed to provide such information through meta-analyses of randomised trials.MethodsWe undertook meta-analyses of 280 trials of NSAIDs versus placebo (124 513 participants, 68 342 person-years) and 474 trials of one NSAID versus another NSAID (229 296 participants, 165 456 person-years). The main outcomes were major vascular events (non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or vascular death); major coronary events (non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death); stroke; mortality; heart failure; and upper gastrointestinal complications (perforation, obstruction, or bleed).FindingsMajor vascular events were increased by about a third by a coxib (rate ratio [RR] 1·37, 95% CI 1·14–1·66; p=0·0009) or diclofenac (1·41, 1·12–1·78; p=0·0036), chiefly due to an increase in major coronary events (coxibs 1·76, 1·31–2·37; p=0·0001; diclofenac 1·70, 1·19–2·41; p=0·0032). Ibuprofen also significantly increased major coronary events (2·22, 1·10–4·48; p=0·0253), but not major vascular events (1·44, 0·89–2·33). Compared with placebo, of 1000 patients allocated to a coxib or diclofenac for a year, three more had major vascular events, one of which was fatal. Naproxen did not significantly increase major vascular events (0·93, 0·69–1·27). Vascular death was increased significantly by coxibs (1·58, 99% CI 1·00–2·49; p=0·0103) and diclofenac (1·65, 0·95–2·85, p=0·0187), non-significantly by ibuprofen (1·90, 0·56–6·41; p=0·17), but not by naproxen (1·08, 0·48–2·47, p=0·80). The proportional effects on major vascular events were independent of baseline characteristics, including vascular risk. Heart failure risk was roughly doubled by all NSAIDs. All NSAID regimens increased upper gastrointestinal complications (coxibs 1·81, 1·17–2·81, p=0·0070; diclofenac 1·89, 1·16–3·09, p=0·0106; ibuprofen 3·97, 2·22–7·10, p<0·0001; and naproxen 4·22, 2·71–6·56, p<0·0001).InterpretationThe vascular risks of high-dose diclofenac, and possibly ibuprofen, are comparable to coxibs, whereas high-dose naproxen is associated with less vascular risk than other NSAIDs. Although NSAIDs increase vascular and gastrointestinal risks, the size of these risks can be predicted, which could help guide clinical decision making.FundingUK Medical Research Council and British Heart Foundation.

NASH is currently the second leading cause for LT waitlist registration/liver transplantation overall, and in females, the leading cause. Given the rate of increase, NASH will likely rise to become the leading indication for LT in males as well.

The objective of this study was to explore the efficacy of combination therapy with citalopram plus omega-3 fatty acids versus citalopram plus placebo (olive oil) in the initial treatment of individuals with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). We hypothesized that combination therapy would not only lead to greater efficacy, but a more rapid onset of therapeutic response. Forty-two subjects participated in this nine week randomized, masked, placebo-controlled study of combination therapy (2 grams containing a blend of 900mg EPA, 200mg DHA, and 100mg other omega-3 fatty acids twice daily plus citalopram) versus monotherapy (2 grams olive oil per day plus citalopram) treatment of MDD. The combination therapy demonstrated significantly greater improvement in Hamilton Depression Rating scales scores beginning at week 4 (t = −2.48, df 38, p = 0.018) and continuing throughout the rest of the study (F = 7.32, df 1,177, p = 0.008). Combination therapy was more effective than monotherapy in decreasing signs and symptoms of MDD during the 8 weeks of active treatment, however, combination therapy did not seem to enhance the speed of the initial antidepressant response. These findings suggest that there may be an advantage to combining omega-3 fatty acids with a selective serotonin uptake inhibitor in the initial treatment of individuals with MDD. A larger definitive study is warranted.

Objective: Laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy are widely used for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) treatment. Evidence comparing outcomes and costs is lacking. We compared costs and clinically relevant outcomes in women randomized to laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy. Methods: Participants with symptomatic stage POP II or greater, including significant apical support loss, were randomized to either laparoscopic or robotic sacrocolpopexy. We compared surgical costs (including costs for robot, initial hospitalization) and re-hospitalization within 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain, POP quantification, symptom severity and quality of life, and adverse events. Results: We randomized 78 women [mean age 59 years]: laparoscopic (n=38), robotic (n=40). The robotic sacrocolpopexy group had higher initial hospital costs ($19,616 vs. $11,573, p < 0.001) and over 6 weeks, hospital costs remained higher for robotic sacrocolpopexy ($20,898 vs. $12,170, p < 0.001). When we excluded costs of robot purchase and maintenance, we did not detect a statistical difference in initial day of surgery costs of robotic vs. laparoscopic ($12,586 vs. $11,573; p = 0.160) or hospital costs over 6 weeks ($13,867 vs. $12,170; p = 0.060). The robotic group had longer operating room times (202.8 min vs. 178.4 min, p = 0.030) and higher pain scores 1-week after surgery (3.5 ± 2.1 vs. 2.6 ± 2.2; p = 0.044). There were no group differences in symptom bother by Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, POP stage, or rate of adverse events. Conclusion: Costs of robotic sacrocolpopexy are higher than laparoscopic, while short-term outcomes and complications are similar. Primary cost differences resulted from robot maintenance and purchase costs.