Search

Aim: This meta‐analysis was carried out to explore if a personalized antiplatelet strategy based on genotyping is superior to conventional therapy. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched from the inception of each database to 5 May 2020. Studies reporting endpoints in genotype‐guided treatment group and conventional treatment group were included. The endpoint results were presented as the risk ratio (RR), with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: A total of 10 561 patients from 16 studies (eight randomized controlled trials [RCT] and eight cohort studies) were included in the meta‐analysis. The rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), stent thrombosis and myocardial infarction (MI) were significantly lower in the genotype‐guided group than in the conventional treatment group (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44‐0.73, P <.0001; RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24‐0.67, P =.0005; RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.35‐0.58, P <.00001, respectively). A significant difference was found between the two groups in major bleeding (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55‐0.98, P =.04), which was not robust after sensitivity analysis. Conclusion: Genotype‐guided antiplatelet treatment could decrease the risk of MACE, stent thrombosis and MI in patients with coronary artery disease or undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, without increasing the risk of bleeding over a long follow‐up period. The decreased risk of efficacy outcomes was more obvious in cohort studies. Well‐organized RCTs and clinical trials are required to verify the benefit of genotype‐guided therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The aim of the present meta‐analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sapropterin dihydrochloride in phenylketonuria (PKU) patients. Methods: The following databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) regarding PKU patients treated with sapropterin dihydrochloride: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials. Two authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. The meta‐analysis was performed in RevMan 5.3 provided by the Cochrane Collaboration. Results: Four studies met the inclusion criteria. In PKU patients with low blood phenylalanine (Phe) concentration, no significant difference was indicated for the decrease of Phe level (weighted mean difference (WMD) = −7.75 μmol L−1; 95% confidence intervals (CI): −82.63 to 67.13, P = 0.84, I2 = 0%), however, the dietary Phe tolerance was significantly improved in the sapropterin group (WMD = 19.89 mg kg−1 d−1; 95% CI: 10.26 to 29.52, P < 0.0001, I2 = 0%). In PKU patients with high blood Phe level, sapropterin showed a significant lowering in blood Phe concentration (WMD = −225.31 μmol L−1; 95% CI: −312.28 to −138.34, P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%). There was no significant difference for adverse events. Conclusions: Sapropterin could bring benefit for PKU patients with high or low Phe level, due to Phe reduction in a short time or dietary Phe tolerance improvement respectively. Sapropterin has an acceptable safety profile. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of olanzapine for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Methods The literature was searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of olanzapine for the prophylaxis of CINV using PubMed, Embase, Central, as well as for unpublished studies. The endpoints of the study were the number of patients who achieved a complete response (CR; no emesis and no rescue) and no nausea in the acute, delayed and overall phases. Two authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. The included RCTs were analysed using RevMan 5.3 provided by the Cochrane Collaboration. Results Ten RCTs were identified for the meta-analysis. Compared with other antiemetic agents, olanzapine significantly improved the CR in the delayed and overall phases, but did not enhance the CR in the acute phase. For the control of CINV, olanzapine was better than and comparable with aprepitant in the acute phase and delayed phase, respectively. Compared with placebo, treatment with 5 mg and 10 mg olanzapine exhibited similar efficacy in terms of the CR in the delayed and overall phases. Conclusions Olanzapine is an excellent alternative for the prophylaxis of CINV. Olanzapine 5 mg per day should be recommended as the initial dose because of equivalent efficacy to a 10 mg dose but a lower potential risk of side effects. Further studies are needed to explore the optimal combination of medicines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]