Comparative efficacy of intravenous and oral iron supplements for the treatment of iron deficiency in patients with heart failure: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Pharmacological research. 2022;182:106345
OBJECTIVE We aimed at comparing the efficacy of intravenous and oral iron supplementations for the treatment of iron deficiency (ID) in patients with heart failure (HF). METHODS We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases from inception to January 15, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials enrolling patients with HF who were treated for ID with intravenous iron supplements, oral iron supplements, or placebo. The primary outcomes were all-cause death, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization for heart failure. The secondary outcomes were evaluated through the six-minute walking test (6MWT) and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). RESULTS The network meta-analysis included sixteen studies. Compared to placebo/control groups, intravenous iron supplements did not decrease all-cause death (0.69, 0.39-1.23) or cardiovascular mortality (0.89, 0.66-1.20). After 12 weeks, a reduced hospitalization for heart failure was associated with the administration of intravenous iron supplementations (0.58, 0.34-0.97). The most significant improvements regarding 6MWT (44.44, 6.10-82.79) and KCCQ (5.96, 3.19-8.73) were observed with intravenous iron supplements. Oral iron supplements reduced hospitalization for heart failure (0.36, 0.14-0.96) and all-cause death (0.34, 0.12-0.95), but did not influence the 6MWT (29.74, -47.36 to 106.83) and KCCQ (0.10, -10.95 to 11.15). CONCLUSIONS Administering intravenous iron supplements for ID in patients with HF improves their exercise capacity and quality of life. In order to reduce hospitalizations for heart failure, the supplementation should be administered for more than 12 weeks. Although oral iron supplements did not improve exercise capacity and quality of life, they could reduce all-cause death and hospitalizations for heart failure.
The impact of anti-tumor approaches on the outcomes of cancer patients with COVID-19: a meta-analysis based on 52 cohorts incorporating 9231 participants
BMC cancer. 2022;22(1):241
BACKGROUND This study was designed to investigate the impact of anti-tumor approaches (including chemotherapy, targeted therapy, endocrine therapy, immunotherapy, surgery and radiotherapy) on the outcomes of cancer patients with COVID-19. METHODS Electronic databases were searched to identify relevant trials. The primary endpoints were severe disease and death of cancer patients treated with anti-tumor therapy before COVID-19 diagnosis. In addition, stratified analyses were implemented towards various types of anti-tumor therapy and other prognostic factors. Furthermore, odds ratios (ORs) were hereby adopted to measure the outcomes with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS As indicated in the study consisting of 9231 individuals from 52 cohorts in total, anti-tumor therapy before COVID-19 diagnosis could elevate the risk of death in cancer patients (OR: 1.21, 95%CI: 1.07-1.36, P = 0.0026) and the incidence of severe COVID-19 (OR: 1.19, 95%CI: 1.01-1.40, P = 0.0412). Among various anti-tumor approaches, chemotherapy distinguished to increase the incidence of death (OR = 1.22, 95%CI: 1.08-1.38, P = 0.0013) and severe COVID-19 (OR = 1.10, 95%CI: 1.02-1.18, P = 0.0165) as to cancer patients with COVID-19. Moreover, for cancer patients with COVID-19, surgery and targeted therapy could add to the risk of death (OR = 1.27, 95%CI: 1.00-1.61, P = 0.0472), and the incidence of severe COVID-19 (OR = 1.14, 95%CI: 1.01-1.30, P = 0.0357) respectively. In the subgroup analysis, the incidence of death (OR = 1.17, 95%CI: 1.03-1.34, P = 0.0158) raised in case of chemotherapy adopted for solid tumor with COVID-19. Besides, age, gender, hypertension, COPD, smoking and lung cancer all served as potential prognostic factors for both death and severe disease of cancer patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS Anti-tumor therapy, especially chemotherapy, augmented the risk of severe disease and death for cancer patients with COVID-19, so did surgery for the risk of death and targeted therapy for the incidence of severe COVID-19.
Safety and efficacy of herbal medicine for acute intracerebral hemorrhage (CRRICH): a multicentre randomised controlled trial
BMJ open. 2019;9(5):e024932
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the safety and efficacy of removing blood stasis (RBS) herbal medicine for the treatment of acute intracerebral haemorrhage (AICH) within a 6-hour time window. STUDY DESIGN A randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled study performed in 14 hospitals in China. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS Patients with AICH were randomly assigned to receive a placebo, the ICH-1 (Intracerebral Haemorrhage) formula (eight herbs, including the RBS herbs hirudo and tabanus) or the ICH-2 formula (six herbs without the RBS herbs hirudo and tabanus) within 6 hours of ICH onset. OUTCOMES The primary safety outcome was the incidence of haematoma enlargement at 24 hours and at 10 days after treatment. The secondary outcome was the incidence of poor prognosis (mortality or modified Rankin Scale score ≥5) assessed at 90 days after symptom onset. RESULTS A total of 324 subjects were randomised between October 2013 and May 2016: 105 patients received placebo; 108 patients received the ICH-1 formula; and 111 patients received the ICH-2 formula. The incidence of haematoma enlargement at 24 hours was 7.8% in the placebo group, 12.3% in the ICH-1 group and 7.5% in the ICH-2 group; the incidence of haematoma enlargement on day 10 was 1.1% in the placebo group, 1.1% in the ICH-1 group, and 3.1% in the ICH-2 group, with no significant differences among the groups (P>0.05). The mortality rates were 3.8% in the placebo group, 2.8% in the ICH-1 group, and 0.9% in the ICH-2 group; the incidences of poor prognosis were 7.1% in the placebo group, 6.0% in the ICH-1 group and 4.8% in the ICH-2 group at 3 months, with no significant differences among the groups (p>0.05). However, the overall frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events in the ICH-1 group (12.1%) was higher among the three groups (5.8% and 2.8%, respectively, p<0.05). All three cases of serious adverse events were in the ICH-1 group. CONCLUSIONS Ultra-early administration of ICH-1 formula for AICH patients did not exert significant beneficial effects on clinical outcomes but increased the risk of bleeding, which probably resulted from the inclusion of RBS herbal medicines in ICH-1. TRIALREGISTRATION NUMBER NCT01918722.