METHODS: A systematic review was performed through Pubmed, Scopus, Embase and Google Scholar scientific databases. Studies pertaining to KAP of PV and ADR reporting by Indian health professionals between January 2011 and July 2015 were included in a meta-analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 28 studies were included in the systematic review and 18 of them were selected for meta-analysis. Overall, 55.6% (95% CI 44.4-66.9; p<0.001) of the population studied were not aware of the existence of the Pharmacovigilance Programme in India (PvPI), and 31.9% (95% CI 16.3-47.4; p<0.001) thought that "all drugs available in the market are safe". Furthermore, 28.7% (95% CI 16.4-40.9; p<0.001) of them were not interested in reporting ADRs and 74.5%, (95% CI 67.9-81.9; p<0.001) never reported any ADR to PV centers.
CONCLUSION: There was an enormous gap of KAP towards PV and ADR reporting, particularly PV practice in India. There is therefore an urgent need for educational awareness, simplification of the ADR reporting process, and implementation of imperative measures to practice PV among healthcare professionals. In order to understand the PV status, PvPI should procedurally assess the KAP of health professionals PV activities in India.
METHODS: In this study, a comprehensive and interpretable analysis of MCVAs are presented and their impacts are discussed. A novel system framework prototype based on artificial intelligence for MCVA is presented. Architectural workflow of potential applications of functionalities of MCVAs are detailed. A novel MCVA relevance survey analysis was undertaken during March-April 2023 at Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India to understand the current position of MCVA in society.
RESULTS: Outcome of the survey delivered constructive results. Majority of people associated with healthcare showed their inclination towards MCVA. The curiosity for MCVA in Urban zone was more than in rural areas. Also, elderly citizens preferred using MCVA more as compared to youths. Medical decision support emerged as the most preferred application of MCVA.
CONCLUSION: The article established and validated the relevance of MCVA in modern healthcare. The study showed that MCVA is likely to grow in future and can prove to be an effective assistance to medical experts in coming days.
OBJECTIVE: We have conducted a systematic review of two major (FIGHT and LIVE) placebo-controlled trials of liraglutide and its clinical effect on the ejection fraction of subjects with heart failure.
METHODS: Medline data was retrieved for trials involving liraglutide from 2012 to 2020. The inclusion criteria for trials were: subjects with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), subjects with heart failure with rLVEF, major trials (phase II or III) on liraglutide, trials included liraglutide with defined efficacy primary outcome of patients with heart failure with rLVEF. The search was limited to the English language, whereby two trials [FIGHT and LIVE] had been included and two trials were excluded due to different primary outcomes. Participants (541) had been randomized for either liraglutide or placebo for 24 weeks.
RESULTS: In the FIGHT trial the primary intention-to-treat, sensitivity, and diabetes subgroup analyses have shown no significant between-group difference in the global rank scores (mean rank of 146 in the liraglutide group versus 156 in the placebo group; Wilcoxon rank-sum P=.31), number of deaths, re-hospitalizations for heart failure, or the composite of death or change in NT-pro BNP level (P= .94). In the LIVE trial, the change in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from baseline to week 24 was not significantly different between treatment groups. The overall discontinuation rate of liraglutide was high in the FIGHT trial (29%, 86) as compared to that in the LIVE trial (11.6%, 28).
CONCLUSION: FIGHT and LIVE trials have demonstrated that liraglutide use in subjects with heart failure and rLVEF was implicated with an increased adverse risk of heart failure-related outcomes.