853 resultados para Meta-Analysis


Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Other

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Funding Sources The NNUH Stroke and TIA Register is maintained by the NNUH NHS Foundation Trust Stroke Services and data management for this study is supported by the NNUH Research and Development Department through Research Capability Funds.

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

CSK and RH are funded by National Institute for Health Research Academic Clinical Fellowships. This study was supported by a grant from the North Staffs Heart Committee.

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

CSK and RH are funded by National Institute for Health Research Academic Clinical Fellowships. This study was supported by a grant from the North Staffs Heart Committee.

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Peer reviewed

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

INTRODUCTION: Statin use inadvertently during pregnancy and proposed use of statins for the treatment of preeclampsia, led us to question the evidence behind their current contraindicated status. Several studies have evaluated the relationship between statin use in pregnancy with fetal outcome but their results have not been quantitatively assessed by meta-analysis. Our objective was to undertake a systematic review of all published clinical evidence to assess the effects of statin use in pregnancy on subsequent fetal wellbeing. METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy was performed of all electronic databases and the Merck reporting database for studies published from 1966 to 2014. Two reviewers independently screened citations and undertook study quality assessment and data extraction. We obtained summary estimates of adverse fetal events that were classified as potentially fatal, clinically significant morbidity or minor adverse event. We identified 602 titles and reviewed 30 articles for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was performed on seven studies (3 cohort, 3 case-series and 1 case-control). RESULTS: Of the 922 cases of statin exposure in pregnancy, 27 exposures were associated with lethal or clinically significant fetal morbidity and 10 with minor adverse events. Statin exposure was limited to the first trimester in all but two cases. The pooled rate of lethal or clinically significant fetal abnormalities in pregnant women exposed to statins was 0.01 (95% CI 0.00-0.04), less than the European rate of 0.026 (95% CI 2.54- 2.57)EUROCAT. The rate of fetal abnormality for simvastatin was 0.03 (95% CI 0.00-0.08), atorvostatin 0.11 (95% CI 0.00-0.52), pravastatin 0.01 (95% CI 0.00-0.2) and lovastatin use 0.04 (95% CI 0.00-0.28). Systems based anomalies were also calculated, congenital heart disease was 0.8 (95% CI 0.02-0.12) compared with the background rate of 0.79 (95% CI 0.78- 0.80). CONCLUSIONS: The published data suggests that statins may not be teratogenic when given inadvertently during pregnancy and prospective studies such as The StAmP Trial may provide more data

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Background: Statin therapy reduces the risk of occlusive vascular events, but uncertainty remains about potential effects on cancer. We sought to provide a detailed assessment of any effects on cancer of lowering LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) with a statin using individual patient records from 175,000 patients in 27 large-scale statin trials. Methods and Findings: Individual records of 134,537 participants in 22 randomised trials of statin versus control (median duration 4.8 years) and 39,612 participants in 5 trials of more intensive versus less intensive statin therapy (median duration 5.1 years) were obtained. Reducing LDL-C with a statin for about 5 years had no effect on newly diagnosed cancer or on death from such cancers in either the trials of statin versus control (cancer incidence: 3755 [1.4% per year [py]] versus 3738 [1.4% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.96-1.05]; cancer mortality: 1365 [0.5% py] versus 1358 [0.5% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.93-1.08]) or in the trials of more versus less statin (cancer incidence: 1466 [1.6% py] vs 1472 [1.6% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.93-1.07]; cancer mortality: 447 [0.5% py] versus 481 [0.5% py], RR 0.93 [95% CI 0.82-1.06]). Moreover, there was no evidence of any effect of reducing LDL-C with statin therapy on cancer incidence or mortality at any of 23 individual categories of sites, with increasing years of treatment, for any individual statin, or in any given subgroup. In particular, among individuals with low baseline LDL-C (<2 mmol/L), there was no evidence that further LDL-C reduction (from about 1.7 to 1.3 mmol/L) increased cancer risk (381 [1.6% py] versus 408 [1.7% py]; RR 0.92 [99% CI 0.76-1.10]). Conclusions: In 27 randomised trials, a median of five years of statin therapy had no effect on the incidence of, or mortality from, any type of cancer (or the aggregate of all cancer).

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Objective: To assess the effects of selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX 2) inhibitors and traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on the risk of vascular events. Design: Meta-analysis of published and unpublished tabular data from randomised trials, with indirect estimation of the effects of traditional NSAIDs. Data sources: Medline and Embase (January 1966 to April 2005); Food and Drug Administration records; and data on file from Novartis, Pfizer, and Merck. Review methods: Eligible studies were randomised trials that included a comparison of a selective COX 2 inhibitor versus placebo or a selective COX 2 inhibitor versus a traditional NSAID, of at least four weeks' duration, with information on serious vascular events (defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, or vascular death). Individual investigators and manufacturers provided information on the number of patients randomised, numbers of vascular events, and the person time of follow-up for each randomised group. Results: In placebo comparisons, allocation to a selective COX 2 inhibitor was associated with a 42% relative increase in the incidence of serious vascular events (1.2%/year v 0.9%/year; rate ratio 1.42, 95% confidence interval 1.13 to 1.78; P = 0.003), with no significant heterogeneity among the different selective COX 2 inhibitors. This was chiefly attributable to an increased risk of myocardial infarction (0.6%/year v 0.3%/year; 1.86, 1.33 to 2.59; P = 0.0003), with little apparent difference in other vascular outcomes. Among trials of at least one year's duration (mean 2.7 years), the rate ratio for vascular events was 1.45 (1.12 to 1.89; P = 0.005). Overall, the incidence of serious vascular events was similar between a selective COX 2 inhibitor and any traditional NSAID (1.0%/year v 0.9/%year; 1.16, 0.97 to 1.38; P = 0.1). However, statistical heterogeneity (P = 0.001) was found between trials of a selective COX 2 inhibitor versus naproxen (1.57, 1.21 to 2.03) and of a selective COX 2 inhibitor versus non-naproxen NSAIDs (0.88, 0.69 to 1.12). The summary rate ratio for vascular events, compared with placebo, was 0.92 (0.67 to 1.26) for naproxen, 1.51 (0.96 to 2.37) for ibuprofen, and 1.63 (1.12 to 2.37) for diclofenac. Conclusions: Selective COX 2 inhibitors are associated with a moderate increase in the risk of vascular events, as are high dose regimens of ibuprofen and diclofenac, but high dose naproxen is not associated with such an excess.

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

BACKGROUND: The American College of Cardiology guidelines recommend 3 months of anticoagulation after replacement of the aortic valve with a bioprosthesis. However, there remains great variability in the current clinical practice and conflicting results from clinical studies. To assist clinical decision making, we pooled the existing evidence to assess whether anticoagulation in the setting of a new bioprosthesis was associated with improved outcomes or greater risk of bleeding. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched the PubMed database from the inception of these databases until April 2015 to identify original studies (observational studies or clinical trials) that assessed anticoagulation with warfarin in comparison with either aspirin or no antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. We included the studies if their outcomes included thromboembolism or stroke/transient ischemic attacks and bleeding events. Quality assessment was performed in accordance with the Newland Ottawa Scale, and random effects analysis was used to pool the data from the available studies. I(2) testing was done to assess the heterogeneity of the included studies. After screening through 170 articles, a total of 13 studies (cases=6431; controls=18210) were included in the final analyses. The use of warfarin was associated with a significantly increased risk of overall bleeding (odds ratio, 1.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-3.08; P<0.0001) or bleeding risk at 3 months (odds ratio, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-3.34; P<0.0001) compared with aspirin or placebo. With regard to composite primary outcome variables (risk of venous thromboembolism, stroke, or transient ischemic attack) at 3 months, no significant difference was seen with warfarin (odds ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.56; P=0.67). Moreover, anticoagulation was also not shown to improve outcomes at time interval >3 months (odds ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.58; P=0.79). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to the current guidelines, a meta-analysis of previous studies suggests that anticoagulation in the setting of an aortic bioprosthesis significantly increases bleeding risk without a favorable effect on thromboembolic events. Larger, randomized controlled studies should be performed to further guide this clinical practice.