OBJECTIVE: To estimate the association between administration of IL-6 antagonists compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality and other outcomes.
DATA SOURCES: Trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases between October 2020 and January 2021. Searches were not restricted by trial status or language. Additional trials were identified through contact with experts.
STUDY SELECTION: Eligible trials randomly assigned patients hospitalized for COVID-19 to a group in whom IL-6 antagonists were administered and to a group in whom neither IL-6 antagonists nor any other immunomodulators except corticosteroids were administered. Among 72 potentially eligible trials, 27 (37.5%) met study selection criteria.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: In this prospective meta-analysis, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for 28-day all-cause mortality.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. There were 9 secondary outcomes including progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death and risk of secondary infection by 28 days.
RESULTS: A total of 10 930 patients (median age, 61 years [range of medians, 52-68 years]; 3560 [33%] were women) participating in 27 trials were included. By 28 days, there were 1407 deaths among 6449 patients randomized to IL-6 antagonists and 1158 deaths among 4481 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.95]; P = .003 based on a fixed-effects meta-analysis). This corresponds to an absolute mortality risk of 22% for IL-6 antagonists compared with an assumed mortality risk of 25% for usual care or placebo. The corresponding summary ORs were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.92; P
METHODS: A total of 220 T2DM patients from the University of Malaya Medical Centre, Malaysia, who had at least one CV complication and who had been taking at least one antidiabetic drug for at least 3 months, were included. The associations of antidiabetics, cardiovascular diseases, laboratory parameters, concurrent medications, comorbidities, demographics, and clinical characteristics with glycemic control were investigated.
RESULTS: Sulfonylureas in combination (P=0.002) and sulfonylurea monotherapy (P<0.001) were found to be associated with good glycemic control, whereas insulin in combination (P=0.051), and combination biguanides and insulin therapy (P=0.012) were found to be associated with poor glycemic control. Stroke (P=0.044) was the only type of CVD that seemed to be significantly associated with good glycemic control. Other factors such as benign prostatic hyperplasia (P=0.026), elderly patients (P=0.018), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (P=0.021), and fasting plasma glucose (P<0.001) were found to be significantly correlated with good glycemic control.
CONCLUSION: Individualized treatment in T2DM patients with CVDs can be supported through a better understanding of the association between glycemic control and CV profiles in T2DM patients.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical characteristics, including 24-hour ocular perfusion pressure and risk of progression in patients with baseline central VF defect, as compared with those with peripheral VF defect in NTG.
DESIGN: This was a prospective, longitudinal study.
METHODS: A total of 65 NTG patients who completed 5 years of follow-up were included in this study. All the enrolled patients underwent baseline 24-hour intraocular pressure and blood pressure monitoring via 2-hourly measurements in their habitual position and had ≥5 reliable VF tests during the 5-year follow-up. Patients were assigned to two groups on the basis of VF defect locations at baseline, the central 10 degrees, and the peripheral 10- to 24-degree area. Modified Anderson criteria were used to assess global VF progression over 5 years. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to compare the elapsed time of confirmed VF progression in the two groups. Hazard ratios for the association between clinical risk factors and VF progression were obtained by using Cox proportional hazards models.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the patients with baseline central and peripheral VF defects in terms of demography, clinical, ocular and systemic hemodynamic factors. Eyes with baseline defects involving the central fields progressed faster (difference: βcentral=-0.78 dB/y, 95% confidence interval=-0.22 to -1.33, P=0.007) and have 3.56 times higher hazard of progressing (95% confidence interval=1.17-10.82, P=0.025) than those with only peripheral defects.
CONCLUSION: NTG patients with baseline central VF involvement are at increased risk of progression compared with those with peripheral VF defect.
METHODS: Analyses were conducted post hoc of this 24-month, phase III, double-blind study, in which RRMS patients were randomized (1:1:1) to once daily oral fingolimod 0.5 mg, 1.25 mg or placebo. The key outcomes were the association between baseline RNFLT and baseline clinical characteristics and clinical/imaging outcomes up to 24 months. Change of RNFLT with fingolimod versus placebo within 24 months and time to retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thinning were evaluated.
RESULTS: Altogether 885 patients were included. At baseline, lower RNFLT was correlated with higher Expanded Disability Status Scale score (r = -1.085, p = 0.018), lower brain volume (r = 0.025, p = 0.006) and deep gray matter volume (r = 0.731, p
METHODS: A Markov model of a Malaysian hypothetical cohort aged ≥30 years (N = 14,589,900) was used to estimate the total and per-member-per-month (PMPM) costs of RAS uptake. This involved an incidence and prevalence rate of 9.0% and 10.53% of patients with diabetes and hypertension respectively. Transition probabilities of health stages and costs were adapted from published data.
RESULTS: An increasing uptake of RAS drugs would incur a projected total treatment cost ranged from MYR 4.89 billion (PMPM of MYR 27.95) at Year 1 to MYR 16.26 billion (PMPM of MYR 92.89) at Year 5. This would represent a range of incremental costs between PMPM of MYR 0.20 at Year 1 and PMPM of MYR 1.62 at Year 5. Over the same period, the care costs showed a downward trend but drug acquisition costs were increasing. Sensitivity analyses showed the model was minimally affected by the changes in the input parameters.
CONCLUSION: Mild impact to the overall healthcare budget has been reported with an increased utilization of RAS. The long-term positive health consequences of RAS treatment would reduce the cost of care in preventing deterioration of kidney function, thus offsetting the rising costs of purchasing RAS drugs. Optimizing and increasing use of RAS drugs would be considered an affordable and rational strategy to reduce the overall healthcare costs in Malaysia.