Objective: To assess the association between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) and risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD).Methods: Embase, Pubmed, and Web of Science were searched until June 2019. Standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was estimated using random-effects models.Results: Our meta-analysis of 26 studies revealed higher levels of LDL-c in AD than that of non-dementia controls (SMD = 0.35, 95% CI 0.12-0.58, p < 0.01). The meta-regression analysis on confounders showed that age (p < 0.01, Adj R-squared = 92.41%) and cardiovascular disease (p = 0.01, Adj R-squared = 85.21%), but not the body mass index, education, smoking, hypertension and diabetes mellitus, exerted an impact on the relationship between LDL-c and risk of ICH. Further subgroup analysis of age showed LDL-c levels in AD patients aged 60-70 were higher than that of non-dementia (60 ≤ age < 70: SMD = 0.80, 95% CI 0.23-1.37, p < 0.01); but no association between the SMD of AD in LDL-c and age over 70 was noted across the studies (70 ≤ age < 77: SMD = −0.02, 95% CI −0.39∼0.34, p = 9.0; 77 ≤ age < 80: SMD = 0.15, 95% CI −0.17∼0.47, p = 0.35; ≥80: SMD = 0.53, 95% CI −0.04∼1.11, p = 0.07). The concentrations of LDL-c during the quintile interval of 3∼4 were positively associated with AD (121 ≤ concentration < 137: SMD = 0.98, 95% CI 0.13∼1.82, p = 0.02; ≥137: SMD = 0.62, 95% CI 0.18∼1.06, p < 0.01); whereas there was no correlation between AD and LDL-c within the quintile interval of 1∼2 (103.9 ≤ concentration < 112: SMD = 0.08, 95% CI −0.20∼0.35, p = 0.59; 112 ≤ concentration < 121: SMD = −0.26, 95% CI −0.58∼0.06, p = 0.11). Conclusions: Elevated concentration of LDL-c (>121 mg/dl) may be a potential risk factor for AD. This association is strong in patients aged 60-70 years, but vanishes with advancing age.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to create a rank order of the comparative efficacy and acceptability (risk of all-cause discontinuation) of antidepressant treatment in poststroke depression (PSD) by integrating direct and indirect evidence.DesignMultiple-treatments meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.ParticipantsPatients with depression following stroke.Interventions10 antidepressants and placebo in the acute treatment of PSD.Outcome measuresThe primary outcomes were the overall efficacy, defined as the mean change of the total depression score. The secondary outcome was the acceptability, defined as risk of all-cause discontinuation. These estimates as standardised mean differences or ORs with 95% CIs.ResultsWe identified 12 suitable trials, with data from 707 participants. All drugs were significantly more effective than placebo apart from sertraline, nefiracetam and fluoxetine. Most of the comparisons for acceptability revealed no significant differences except that paroxetine had significantly lower all-cause discontinuation than doxepin, citalopram and fluoxetine. Standardised mean differences compared with placebo for efficacy varied from −6.54 for the best drug (reboxetine) to 0.51 for the worst drug (nefiracetam). ORs compared with placebo for acceptability ranged from 0.09 for the best drug (paroxetine) to 3.42 for the worst drug (citalopram). For the efficacy rank, reboxetine, paroxetine, doxepin and duloxetine were among the most efficacious treatments, the cumulative probabilities of which were 100%, 85.7%, 83.2%, 62.4%, respectively. With respect to the acceptability rank, paroxetine, placebo, sertraline and nortriptyline were among the most acceptable treatments, the cumulative probabilities of which were 92.4%, 63.5%, 57.3%, 56.3%.ConclusionAfter weighing the efficacy and acceptability, we conclude that paroxetine might be the best choice when starting acute treatment for PSD, and fluoxetine might be the worst choice.Trial registration numberThis systematic review has been registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Review Protocols (PROSPERO) public database (CRD42017054741; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).

Background: Although thrombolysis is considered to be the first-line treatment for ischemic stroke, there remains an ongoing controversy on the safety and efficacy of thrombolysis in cervical artery dissection (CAD). The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess observational data related to the safety and efficacy of thrombolysis in CAD-related ischemic stroke. Methods: We performed a systematic search of the efficacy of thrombolysis treatment in CAD-related ischemic stroke with appropriate observational studies identified for the study. The meta-analysis models in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V2 software were applied to calculate the merged rates of favorable outcome (modified Rankin Scale, mRS 0-2), excellent outcome (mRS 0-1), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), symptomatic ICH (SICH), mortality and recurrent stroke between thrombolysis and non-thrombolysis in CAD-related stroke. The difference of outcomes and adverse events between the 2 groups was compared by analyzing the pooled OR value and chi-square test using the software SPSS. Results: A total of 846 patients were identified from 10 studies (174 with thrombolysis; 672 with non-thrombolysis). The meta-analysis detected no significant statistical difference in the proportion of CAD-related stroke patients enjoying a favorable outcome at the 3 months' follow-up between the thrombolysis and non-thrombolysis groups (53.7 vs. 58.2%, OR 0.782, χ² = 0.594, p > 0.05); non-thrombolysis was slightly superior than thrombolysis in terms of excellent outcome (52.4 vs. 34.4%, OR 0.489, χ² = 9.143, p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in SICH, mortality and recurrent stroke rates between the 2 groups (all p > 0.05). ICH rate was higher in the thrombolysis group of CAD-related stroke patients compared to that in the non-thrombolysis group (12.3 vs. 7.4%, OR 2.647, χ² = 4.127, p = 0.042). Conclusion: Thrombolysis seems to be equally safe and will achieve an efficacy similar to the efficacy of non-thrombolysis in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to CAD. It is also as effective as thrombolysis in stroke from miscellaneous causes. Therefore, CAD patients experiencing a stroke should not be denied thrombolysis therapy. However, this will need to be confirmed in large-scale randomized studies, especially involving intravenous thrombolysis treatment.

Objectives Investigation of mechanism related to excessive invasion of trophoblast cells in placenta accreta spectrum disorders (PAS) provides more strategies and ideas for clinical diagnosis and treatment. Materials and Methods Blood and placental samples were collected from included patients. The distribution and expression of CXCL12, CXCR4 and CXCR7 proteins in the paraffin of placental tissue in the included cases were analysed, and we analyse the downstream pathways or key proteins involved in cell invasion. Results Firstly, our results determined that CXCL12 and CXCR4/CXCR7 were increased in extravillous trophoblastic cell (CXCL12: P < .001; CXCR4: P < .001; CXCR7: P < .001), and the expression levels were closely related to the invasion depth of trophoblastic cells. Secondly, CXCL12 has the potential to become a biochemical indicator of PAS since the high expression of placental trophoblast CXCL12 may be an important source of blood CXCL12. Using lentivirus‐mediated RNA interference and overexpression assay, it was found that both chemokine CXCL12 and receptor CXCR4/CXCR7 are associated with regulation of trophoblast cell proliferation, migration and invasion. Further results proved that through the activating the phosphorylation and increasing the expression of MLC and AKT proteins in the Rho/rock, PI3K/AKT signalling pathway, CXCL12, CXCR4 and CXCR7 could up‐regulate the expression of RhoA, Rac1 and Cdc42 proteins to promote the migration and invasion of extravillous trophoblastic cell and ultimately formate the placenta accrete compare to the normal placenta. Conclusions Our research proved that trophoblasts may contribute to a PAS‐associated increase in CXCL12 levels in maternal blood. CXCL12 is not only associated with biological roles of PAS, but may also be potential for prediction of PAS.

No abstract