Quantitative myocardial contrast echocardiography during pharmacological stress for diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies

Aims We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of quantitative stress myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE) in coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods and results Database search was performed through January 2008. We included studies evaluating accuracy of quantitative stress MCE for detection of CAD compared with coronary angiography or single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and measuring reserve parameters of A, beta, and A beta. Data from studies were verified and supplemented by the authors of each study. Using random effects meta-analysis, we estimated weighted mean difference (WMD), likelihood ratios (LRs), diagnostic odds ratios (DORs), and summary area under curve (AUC), all with 95% confidence interval (0). Of 1443 studies, 13 including 627 patients (age range, 38-75 years) and comparing MCE with angiography (n = 10), SPECT (n = 1), or both (n = 2) were eligible. WMD (95% CI) were significantly less in CAD group than no-CAD group: 0.12 (0.06-0.18) (P < 0.001), 1.38 (1.28-1.52) (P < 0.001), and 1.47 (1.18-1.76) (P < 0.001) for A, beta, and A beta reserves, respectively. Pooled LRs for positive test were 1.33 (1.13-1.57), 3.76 (2.43-5.80), and 3.64 (2.87-4.78) and LRs for negative test were 0.68 (0.55-0.83), 0.30 (0.24-0.38), and 0.27 (0.22-0.34) for A, beta, and A beta reserves, respectively. Pooled DORs were 2.09 (1.42-3.07), 15.11 (7.90-28.91), and 14.73 (9.61-22.57) and AUCs were 0.637 (0.594-0.677), 0.851 (0.828-0.872), and 0.859 (0.842-0.750) for A, beta, and A beta reserves, respectively. Conclusion Evidence supports the use of quantitative MCE as a non-invasive test for detection of CAD. Standardizing MCE quantification analysis and adherence to reporting standards for diagnostic tests could enhance the quality of evidence in this field.

To treat or not to treat? A meta-analysis of the use of cholinesterase inhibitors in mild cognitive impairment for delaying progression to Alzheimer`s disease

Individual randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) aiming to delay the progression from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer`s disease (AD) have not found significant benefit of their use for this purpose. The objective of this study is to meta-analyze the RCTs conducted with ChEIs in order to assess whether pooled analysis could show the benefit of these drugs in delaying the progression from MCI to AD. We searched for references of published and unpublished studies on electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Clinical Trial Database Registry, particularly the Clinicaltrials.gov-http://www.clinicaltrials.gov). We retrieved 173 references, which yielded three references for data extraction. A total of 3.574 subjects from four RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Among 1,784 subjects allocated in the ChEI-treatment group, 275 (15.4%) progressed to AD/dementia, as opposed to 366 (20.4%) out of 1,790 subjects in the placebo group. The relative risk (RR) for progression to AD/dementia in the ChEI-treated group was 0.75 [CI(95%) 0.66-0.87], z = -3.89, P < 0.001. The patients on the ChEI group had a significantly higher all-cause dropout risk than the patients on the placebo group (RR = 1.36 CI(95%) [1.24-1.49]; z = 6.59, P < 0.001). The RR for serious adverse events (SAE) in the ChEI-treated group showed no significantly statistical difference from the placebo group (RR = 0.95 [CI(95%) 0.83-1.09], z = -0.72, P = 0.47). The subjects in the ChEI-treated group had a marginally, non-significant, higher risk of death due to any cause than those in the placebo-treated group (RR = 1.04, CI(95%) 0.63-1.70, z = 0.16, P = 0.86). The long-term use of ChEIs in subjects with MCI may attenuate the risk of progression to AD/dementia. This finding may have a significant impact on public health and pharmaco-economic policies.

Sexually Dimorphic Effect of the Val66Met Polymorphism of BDNF on Susceptibility to Alzheimer`s Disease: New Data and Meta-Analysis

Conflicting results have been reported as to whether genetic variations (Val66Met and C270T) of the brain-derived neurotrophic factor gene (RDNF) confer susceptibility to Alzheimer`s disease (AD). We genotyped these polymorphisms in a Japanese sample of 657 patients with AD and 525 controls, and obtained weak evidence of association for Val66Met (P = 0.063), but not for C270T. After stratification by sex, we found a significant allelic association between Val66Met and AD in women (P = 0.017), but not in men. To confirm these observations, we collected genotyping data for each sex from 16 research centers worldwide (4,711 patients and 4,537 controls in total). The meta-analysis revealed that there was a clear sex difference in the allelic association; the Met66 allele confers susceptibility to AD in women (odds ratio = 1.14, 95% CI 1.05-1.24, P = 0.002), but not in men. Our results provide evidence that the Met66 allele of BDNF has a sexually dimorphic effect on susceptibility to AD. (C) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Structural requirement for PPAR gamma binding revealed by a meta analysis of holo-crystal structures

PPAR gamma is a ligand regulated transcriptional factor that modulates the transcription of several genes involved in fat and sugar metabolism. Due to its easy bacterial expression and crystallization, several crystal structures of holo-PPAR gamma have been reported and deposited in the Protein Data Bank. Here, we investigated the three-dimensional electrostatic properties of 55 PPAR gamma ligands and used this information for clustering them through principal component analysis. We found out that, according to their electrostatic potential, these ligands can be separated in three groups, with different binding features. We also observed that non-selective and selective ligands show different 3D electrostatic properties and are separated in different clusters. The relevance of this analysis for the development of new binders is discussed. (C) 2010 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.