Background: In this systematic review, we aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of adding low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin to low-dose aspirin (LDA) started ≤16 weeks'gestation in the prevention of preeclampsia (PE) in high-risk women.Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched from their inception to April 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that to determine whether the combined treatment of LMWH and LDA is better than single anticoagulant drugs in preventing PE and improving live birth rate of fetus in high-risk women with pregnancy ≤16 weeks. We also searched Embase, OVID MEDLINE and OVID MEDLINE in-process using the OVID platform.Results: 14 RCTs involving 1,966 women were found. The LMWH (or unfractionated heparin) and LDA groups included 1,165 wemen, and the LDA group included 960 women. The meta-analysis showed that the addition of LMWH to LDA reduced the risk of PE (RR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.44-0.79, P < 0.05), small-for-gestational age (SGA, RR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.52-0.97, P = 0.03), fetal and neonatal death (RR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.23-0.88, P = 0.02) and gestational hypertension (RR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.25-0.90, P = 0.02). It is worth emphasizing that LMWH (or unfractionated heparin) combined with LDA did not increase the risk of bleeding.Conclusions: LMWH combined with LDA can effectively improve the pregnancy outcome of women with high risk factors for PE and its complications. Although this study showed that combined medication also did not increase the risk of bleeding, but such results lack the support of large sample size studies. The clinical safety analysis of LMWH combined with LDA in patients with PE should be more carried out.

Background: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a common hereditary cardiomyopathy. Mavacamten, a first-in-class cardiac myosin inhibitor, is considered to be a specific drug for the treatment of HCM. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of mavacamten in patients with HCM. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Clinical Trials.gov databases were searched from inception to February 6, 2024 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the efficacy and safety between mavacamten and placebo in treating HCM. Results: Six RCTs involving 732 patients were included in this meta-analysis. This meta-analysis showed that mavacamten improved the New York Heart Association (NYHA) function class [risk ratios (RR): 2.21, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.48 to 3.30, p = 0.00001], Clinical Summary Score of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ-CSS) scores [mean difference (MD): 9.33, 95% CI: 7.09 to 11.57, p < 0.00001] and composite functional end point (RR: 1.86, 95% CI: 1.25 to 2.78, p = 0.002). Meanwhile, mavacamten decreased N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) (MD: –492.28, 95% CI: –611.55 to –373.02, p < 0.00001), cardiac troponin I (cTnI) (MD: –14.58, 95% CI: –26.98 to –2.17, p = 0.02) and Valsalva left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) gradient (MD: –57.96, 95% CI: –82.15 to –33.78, p < 0.00001). The results for the incidence of ≥1 total emergent adverse event (TEAE) and ≥1 serious adverse event (SAE) showed that there was no significant difference between both groups (RR: 1.9, 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.24, p = 0.16) (RR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.46 to 2.44, p = 0.90). Conclusions: Mavacamten has great efficacy for the treatment of HCM. Meanwhile, mavacamten did not increase the incidence of adverse events or serious adverse events.

Objectives. To systematically evaluate the differences in effect and safety of LCZ696 and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in the treatment of hypertension. Methods. We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Ovid, collected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the effect and safety of LCZ696 and ARBs in hypertensive patients, extracted relevant data and evaluated the quality of the included literature according to the RCT quality evaluation standard recommended by Cochrane Reviewer’s Handbook, using RevMan 5.3, and performed meta-analysis. Results. Eight RCTs studies were included, with a total of 4313 patients. Compared with ARBs, LCZ696 can better reduce systolic blood pressure (msSBP) (WMD −4.29 mmHg; 95% CI: −5.37 to −3.21;$P$ < 0.001), diastolic blood pressure (msDBP) (WMD −1.87 mmHg; 95% CI:−2.38 to −1.36;$P$ < 0.01), ambulatory systolic blood pressure (maSBP) (WMD −3.37 mmHg; 95% CI:−4.26 to −2.47;$P$ < 0.01), and ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (maDBP) (WMD −1.47 mmHg; 95% CI: −1.97 to −0.97;$P$ < 0.01). In terms of safety, LCZ696 is basically the same as ARBs, but LCZ696 is more likely to cause cough than ARBs (OR = 2.38; 95% CI: 1.27 to 4.47;$P$ < 0.01). Conclusion. LCZ696 can significantly reduce the blood pressure level of patients with hypertension, but it is necessary to pay attention to whether the patient will experience coughing after taking the drug.

Background: A plethora of monkeypox papers have been published; however, pinpointing key and pivotal studies can be challenging amongst the ever-expanding literature. Bibliometric analyses are helpful in identifying the most influential articles and their impact pertinent to this field, which has helped mould the recognition and management of monkeypox. Methods: The Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) was searched on 27 October 2022. The top 100 most-cited articles on monkeypox were identified and evaluated by author, country, institution, type of articles, theme, journal of publication, keywords, and citations. Results: The top 100 most-cited studies were published between 1997 and 2022, and the 5-year period with the largest number of articles was 2007–2011. The median number of citations among the top 100 most-cited articles was 78.23. Of the top 100 most-cited studies, 91 were original articles, and nine were reviews, the median of annual citations was significantly higher in the review group than the original group, 7.86 (4.20–13.80) versus 4.50 (3.07–7.59; P=0.023). The 100 articles were classified into different research theme, with the top three being Immunology (31%), Infectious Diseases (30%), and Virology (26%), respectively. The keywords with the highest co-occurrence frequency were “monkeypox”, “smallpox,” and “smallpox virus.” The largest number of articles in the top 100 were published in Emerging Infectious Diseases (n=13), followed by Journal of Virology (n=11), Journal of Infectious Diseases (n=5), and PLoS One (n=5). The authors identified 711 different authors from 195 institutions and 28 countries in the top 100 most-cited articles, with the majority based in the USA. Conclusion: The top 100 most-cited studies provide an important insight into the historical developments of monkeypox. The authors should strengthen the recognition and management of monkeypox worldwide and strengthen research cooperation among scholars in order to better respond to the ongoing or future outbreak.