Background: Since COVID-19 outbreak, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been tested for effective therapies, and the relevant researches have shown controversial results. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted after a thorough search of relevant studies from databases. Trials that have evaluated HCQ for COVID-19 treatment were recruited for statistical analysis with fixed- and random-effect models. Results: Nine trials involving 4112 patients were included in present meta-analysis. It was seen that HCQ-azithromycin (HCQ-AZI) combination regimen increased the mortality rate in COVID-19 (odds ratio [OR], 2.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.63–3.36) patients; however, it also showed benefits associated with the viral clearance in patients (OR, 27.18; 95% CI, 1.29–574.32). HCQ-alone when used as a therapy in COVID-19 did not reveal significant changes in mortality rate, clinical progression, viral clearance, and cardiac QT prolongation. Subsequent subgroup analysis showed that HCQ treatment could decrease mortality rate and progression to severe illness in severely infected COVID-19 patients (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.13–0.58). A lower risk of mortality rate was also noted in the stratified group of >14 days follow-up period (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.13–0.58) compared to ≤14 days follow-up period group that conversely showed an increased mortality rate (OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.41–3.10). Conclusion: Our results indicated that HCQ-AZI combination treatment increased mortality rate in patients with COVID-19, but it also showed benefits associated with viral clearance in patients. HCQ-alone used for treatment has revealed benefits in decreasing the mortality rate among severely infected COVID-19 group and showed potential to be used for COVID-19 treatment in long-term follow-up period group. Accordingly, more rigorous, large-scale, and long follow-up period studies in patients with COVID-19 are needed.
Background An optimal antithrombotic strategy for patients aged 80 years or older with atrial fibrillation (AF) remains elusive. Objective Using a systematic review with traditional and network meta-analysis, we investigated outcomes in AF patients ≥80 years treated with different antithrombotic strategies. Methods We searched eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases from inception to 16 December 2021. Research comparing treatment outcomes of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs), aspirin, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or no oral anticoagulant/placebo therapy in patients ≥80 years with AF were included. Outcomes were stroke or systemic embolism (SSE), major bleeding, all-cause mortality, intracranial bleeding (ICH) and gastrointestinal bleeding. Traditional and network meta-analyses were performed. Net clinical benefit integrating SSE and major bleeding was calculated. Results Fifty-three studies were identified for analysis. In the meta-analysis of RCTs, risk of SSE (risk ratio [RR]: 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73–0.99) and ICH (RR: 0.38; 95% CI: 0.28–0.52) was significantly reduced when NOACs were compared with VKAs. Network meta-analysis of RCTs demonstrated that edoxaban (P-score: 0.8976) and apixaban (P-score: 0.8528) outperformed other antithrombotic therapies by showing a lower major bleeding risk and better net clinical benefit. Both traditional and network meta-analyses from RCTs combining with observational studies showed consistent results. Conclusions In patients aged 80 years or older with AF, NOACs have better outcomes than VKAs regarding efficacy and safety profiles. Edoxaban and apixaban may be preferred treatment options since they are safer than other antithrombotic strategies.
Background The effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and advanced kidney disease (AKD) has not been fully established. Objectives To determine the effectiveness and safety related to pooled or specific DOACs to that with warfarin in patients with AF and AKD. Methods Patients with AF and AKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min) who received DOAC or warfarin from July 2011 to December 2020 were retrospectively identified in a medical center in Taiwan. Primary outcomes were hospitalized for stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included any ischemia and any bleeding. Results A total of 1,011 patients were recruited, of whom 809 (80.0%) were in the DOACs group (15.3% dabigatran, 25.4% rivaroxaban, 25.2% apixaban, and 14.1% edoxaban), and 202 (20.0%) in the warfarin group. DOACs had considerably lower risks of stroke/systemic embolism (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09–0.97) and any ischemia (aHR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.22–0.79), but had comparable risks of major bleeding (aHR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.34–2.92) and any bleeding (aHR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.50–1.09) than warfarin. Apixaban was linked to considerably lower risks of any ischemia (aHR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04–0.48) and any bleeding (aHR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.28–0.99) than warfarin. Conclusion Among patients with AF and AKD, DOACs were linked to a lower risk of ischemic events, and apixaban was linked to a lower risk of any ischemia and any bleeding than warfarin.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.