Search

Purpose: The substantial variability in the antiplatelet efficacy of clopidogrel has raised major concerns. Molecular epidemiological research suggests that ABCB1 C3435T polymorphism may be associated with clopidogrel response, but results remain controversial. To derive a more precise evaluation of the associations between ABCB1 C3435T polymorphism and the clinical efficacy of clopidogrel, we have conducted a PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis. Methods: The PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for eligible studies up to 25 October 2016. The odds ratio (OR), the standard mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were applied to assess the strength of the relationship. Results: Overall, 28 related studies involving 23,243 patients were analyzed. No association was found between the ABCB1 polymorphisms and the primary outcome. In the subgroup analysis, the C3435T mutation significantly reduced platelet activity as tested by the LTA assay in the dominant (SMD −0.140, 95% CI −0.272 to −0.009, P = 0.036) and heterozygous (SMD −0.154, 95% CI −0.290 to −0.017, P = 0.027) models, but the result lacked robustness in the sensitivity analysis. A significant association between the C3435T polymorphism and bleeding risk was also observed with low heterogeneity in the dominant (OR 1.805, 95% CI1.124-2.900, P =0.015, I = 0%), homozygous (OR 1.952, 95% CI 1.055-3.611, P = 0.033, I = 13.2%) and heterozygous (OR 1.793, 95% CI 1.091-2.946, P = 0.021, I = 0%) models in Asian patients. Conclusions: The results of the meta-analysis suggest that ABCB1 C3435T polymorphism may increase the risk of bleeding in Asian patients treated with clopidogrel. The implied relationship needs to be verified in future basic genetic pharmacology studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The optimal therapy involving linezolid or vancomycin for suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nosocomial pneumonia (NP) remains controversial. This study compared the efficacy and safety of linezolid and vancomycin therapies in patients with NP. Methods: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials with meta-analyses performed by searching PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We screened for relevant randomized controlled studies in which patients with NP were enrolled and linezolid and vancomycin therapies were compared. Results: Nine trials involving 2618 pneumonia patients were reviewed. Linezolid was not found to be superior to vancomycin for clinical cure when categories of pathogen were not considered and in a subgroup of NP patients with MRSA infection [relative risk (RR) = 1.16, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 0.95-1.43, P = 0.15]. Compared with vancomycin, linezolid has no difference in the overall microbiological eradication rate (RR = 1.12, 95 % CI = 0.96-1.30, P = 0.15) and specific MRSA eradication rate (RR = 1.16, 95 % CI = 0.93-1.45, P = 0.19) in NP patients. In addition, nephrotoxicity was more frequent with vancomycin (RR = 0.50, 95 % CI = 0.31-0.81, P = 0.005), but no differences between the treatments were found for all-cause mortality, thrombocytopenia, gastrointestinal effects, and drug discontinuation due to adverse events. Conclusion: These results suggest that linezolid is not superior to vancomycin with respect to both clinical and microbiological cure rates in patients with MRSA NP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]