Chronic low-degree inflammation is a hallmark of atherosclerotic cardiovascular (CV) disease. To assess the effect of lipid-lowering therapies on C-reactive protein (CRP), a biomarker of inflammation, we conducted a meta-analysis according to the PRISMA guidelines. Databases were searched from inception to July 2023. Inclusion criteria were: (i) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in human, Phase II, III, or IV; (ii) English language; (iii) comparing the effect of lipid-lowering drugs vs. placebo; (iv) reporting the effects on CRP levels; (v) with intervention duration of more than 3 weeks; (vi) and sample size (for both intervention and control group) over than 100 subjects. The between-group (treatment-placebo) CRP absolute mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each drug class separately. A total of 171 668 subjects from 53 RCTs were included. CRP levels (mg/L) were significantly decreased by statins [−0.65 (−0.87 to −0.43), bempedoic acid; −0.43 (−0.67 to −0.20), ezetimibe; −0.28 (−0.48 to −0.08)], and omega-3 fatty acids [omega3FAs, −0.27 (−0.52 to −0.01)]. CRP was reduced by −0.40 (−1.17 to 0.38) with fibrates, although not statistically significant. A slight increase of CRP concentration was observed for proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors [0.11 (0.07–0.14)] and cholesteryl-ester transfer protein inhibitors [0.10 (0.00–0.21)], the latter being not statistically significant. Meta-regression analysis did not show a significant correlation between changes in CRP and LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) or triglycerides. Statins, bempedoic acid, ezetimibe, and omega3FAs significantly reduce serum CRP concentration, independently of LDL-C reductions. The impact of this anti-inflammatory effect in terms of CV prevention needs further investigation.

The spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused a sudden and significant disruption in healthcare services, especially for patients suffering from chronic diseases. We aimed at evaluating the impact of the pandemic on adherence to chronic therapies through a systematic review of available studies. PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched since inception to June 2022. Inclusion criteria were: (1) observational studies or surveys; (2) studies on patients with chronic diseases; (3) reporting the effects of COVID-19 pandemic on adherence to chronic pharmacological treatment, as a comparison of adherence during the pandemic period vs. pre-pandemic period (primary outcome) or as rate of treatment discontinuation/delay specifically due to factors linked to COVID-19 (secondary outcome). Findings from 12 (primary outcome) and 24 (secondary outcome) studies showed that many chronic treatments were interrupted or affected by a reduced adherence in the pandemic period, and that fear of infection, difficulty in reaching physicians or healthcare facilities, and unavailability of medication were often reported as reasons for discontinuation or modification of chronic therapies. For other therapies where the patient was not required to attend the clinic, continuity of treatment was sometimes ensured through the use of telemedicine, and the adherence was guaranteed with drug stockpiling. While the effects of the possible worsening of chronic disease management need to be monitored over time, positive strategies should be acknowledged, such as the implementation of e-health tools and the expanded role of community pharmacists, and may play an important role in preserving continuity of care for people with chronic diseases.

Background: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are some of the most frequently prescribed medications, but they are often used inappropriately, either being prescribed without a clear indication or continued for longer than necessary. In such cases, deprescribing is recommended. However, despite its proven effectiveness, the implementation of deprescribing in clinical practice remains inconsistent and varied, making it challenging to identify the most effective strategies. The goal is to provide a comprehensive outline of deprescribing interventions for PPI therapy implemented across various settings and by different healthcare professionals. Methods: The study is designed to be a systematic review of the published literature. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched from 1 January 1989 (the first PPI on the market) to 30 September 2024 for articles assessing PPI deprescribing in adult patients, focusing on the implementation rate (primary outcome) or effects on symptoms (secondary outcome). Results: After screening, 66 studies were included, predominantly pragmatic trials (N = 32) or randomized controlled trials (N = 25). We found a variety of interventions promoting PPI deprescription. Collaborative efforts involving multiple healthcare professionals, the use of algorithms for clinical decision-making, and patient involvement have proven to be key elements in the most effective strategies. Discontinuing therapy may not be advisable in cases of recurrent symptoms, suggesting that on-demand therapy could be a recommended approach. Deprescribing is particularly relevant for individuals with mild illnesses and symptoms, where tapering can effectively mitigate the rebound symptoms often associated with abrupt discontinuation. Conclusions: Given the current prevalence of inappropriate PPI prescribing, it is imperative to raise awareness among both physicians and patients about the importance of the deprescribing process, which should be tailored to the specific needs of each patient, considering his/her medical history, current health status, and personal preferences.