Testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) has been used to treat hypogonadal males with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) for a long time, despite variable results. This meta-analysis examines TRT’s role in hypogonadal males with T2DM. The databases PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant RCTs and observational studies. Estimated pooled mean differences (MDs) and relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were used to measure the effects of TRT (CIs). When compared to the placebo, TRT improves glycemic management by significantly reducing glycated hemoglobin (HBA1c) levels (WMD = −0.29 [−0.57, −0.02] p = 0.04; I2 = 89.8%). Additionally, it reduces the homeostatic model assessment levels of insulin resistance (WMD = −1.47 [−3.14, 0.19]; p = 0.08; I2 = 56.3%), fasting glucose (WMD = −0.30 [−0.75, 0.15]; p = 0.19; I2 = 84.4%), and fasting insulin (WMD = −2.95 [−8.64, 2.74]; however, these results are non-significant. On the other hand, HBA1c levels are significantly reduced with TRT; in addition, total testosterone levels significantly increase with testosterone replacement therapy (WMD = 4.51 [2.40, 6.61] p = 0.0001; I2 = 96.3%). Based on our results, we hypothesize that TRT can improve glycemic control and hormone levels, as well as lower total cholesterol, triglyceride, and LDL cholesterol levels while raising HDL cholesterol in hypogonadal type 2 diabetes patients. To this end, we recommend TRT for these patients in addition to standard diabetes care.

A flare-up in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases threatens the health of people, and though there is no proven pharmacological treatment, many analytical studies have suggested that interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels are elevated in cases of severe COVID-19 and that the anti-IL-6 biologic agent tocilizumab may be beneficial. This is a critical review of studies aiming to assess the safety and efficacy of tocilizumab as compared to the standard regimen in patients with COVID-19. Online databases (PubMed and Cochrane) were searched until June 29, 2020, for original articles investigating the immunological response in COVID-19 and its treatment with tocilizumab. Data on multiple baseline characteristics and pre-specified endpoints were extracted and pooled using a random effect model. We used Review Manager version 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014, Denmark) and Stata 11.0 (Stata Corporation LP, College Station, TX) for all analyses. Risk ratios (RR) and the weighted mean difference (WMD) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. From a total of 1,246 identified articles, 13 studies were included after duplicate removal and narrowing based on title and Of the 13 included studies, seven case-control studies were shortlisted for meta-analysis (quantitative) and six-single arm studies were used in the discussion (qualitative). These studies had 766 patients (351 in the tocilizumab arm and 414 in the control arm). Their pooled analysis demonstrated that mortality was significantly lower in the tocilizumab group (RR=0.56 [0.34, 0.92]; p=0.02; I²=76%), as was the need for artificial invasive ventilation (RR=0.34 [0.12, 0.99]; p=0.05; I²=0%) as compared to the control group. No significant differences were observed between tocilizumab and control group in intensive care unit admissions (RR=0.73 [0.15, 3.59]; p=0.70; I²=60%) and risks of post-drug infection (RR=1.29 [0.41, 4.04]; p=0.66; I²=88%). In terms of efficacy outcome, improved oxygen saturation (RR=1.13 [1.04, 1.65]; p=0.02; I²=0%) was reported to be markedly significant in tocilizumab patients when compared with the standard care group. Our results based on pooled studies show tocilizumab to be safe and efficacious in reducing mortality among critically ill COVID-19 patients. However, due to the limited number of observational studies, the positive findings should be viewed cautiously and warrant further investigation.

This study aims to assess differences in severity of short-term (7.0 mmol/L or with an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) level of >11.1 mmol/L at least on two separate occasions. Adverse CV outcomes were assessed in insulin-treated and non-insulin-treated DM after the PCI procedure considered for the analyses were mortality, MACE, TLR, TVR, MI, stent thrombosis, target lesion failure (TLF), and need for-post PCI CABG. Data were pooled and analyzed using Review Manager 5.3, and risk ratios (RR) with respective 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.The statistical analyses were carried out by Review Manager v.5.3, and the data were pooled using a random-effects model. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported along with forest plots. The chi-square test was performed to assess for differences between the subgroups. Heterogeneity across studies was evaluated using Higgins I² statistics. Visual inspection of the funnel plot and Begg's regression test were used to assess publication bias. A total of 40,527 patients (11742 in the Insulin-treated diabetes mellitus group and 28785 in the non-insulin-treated DM group) who underwent PCI were included. The pooled analysis of short-term follow up outcomes preceding PCI demonstrated a significantly higher risk of mortality (RR = 1.75 [1.24,2.47]; p = 0.002), MI (RR = 1.81[1.14,2.87]; p = 0.01], stent thrombosis (RR = 1.63[1.13, 2.35]; p = 0.009) and target lesion revascularization (TLR) (RR = 1.29[1.02,1.63]; p = 0.03) in insulin-treated DM patients. Similarly, analysis of long-term follow-up studies depicted a significantly higher risk mortality (RR = 1.55 [1.22, 1.97]; p = 0.0003), MI (RR = 1.63 [1.35, 1.97]; p=<0.00001), MACE (R = 1.47 [1.31, 1.65]; p=<0.00001), stent thrombosis (RR = 1.54 [1.19,1.99]; p = 0.001), TLR (RR = 1.40 [1.18, 1.66]; p = 0.0001), target vessel revascularization (TVR) (RR = 1.35 [1.11, 1.64]; p = 0.003) in insulin-treated DM group after PCI versus non-insulin-treated DM patients. Despite a tremendous technical success rate of multi-vessel stenting, people living with diabetes who were being treated with insulin had higher long-term, and short-term mortality rates, MI, TLR, TVR, and stroke compared to people living with diabetes who were being treated with means other than insulin and are more prone to detrimental cardiovascular outcomes.

The emergence of genetically-modified human proteins and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have presented a promising strategy for effectively managing diabetes. Due to the scarcity of clinical trials focusing on the safety and efficacy of semaglutide as an adjunctive treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes who had inadequate glycemic control with metformin, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. This was necessary to fill the gap and provide a comprehensive assessment of semaglutide compared to sitagliptin, a commonly prescribed DPP-4 inhibitor, in this patient population. A comprehensive and systematic search was carried out on reputable databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Elsevier’s ScienceDirect to identify relevant studies that compared the efficacy of once-weekly Semaglutide with once-daily Sitagliptin in individuals diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The analysis of the gathered data was performed utilizing the random-effects model, which considers both within-study and between-study variations. The meta-analysis incorporated three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), encompassing 2401 participants, with a balanced distribution across the treatment groups. The primary focus of the study revolved around evaluating changes in HbA1C, blood pressure, pulse rate, body weight, waist circumference, and BMI. The findings revealed that once-weekly Semaglutide showed substantially improved HbA1C (WMD: −0.98; 95% CI: −1.28, −0.69, p-value: < 0.0001; I2: 100%), systolic (WMD: −3.73; 95% CI: −5.42, −2.04, p-value: <0.0001; I2: 100%) and diastolic blood pressures (WMD: −0.66; 95% CI: −1.02, −0.29, p-value: 0.0005; I2: 100%), and body weight (WMD: −3.17; 95% CI: −3.84, −2.49, p-value: <0.00001; I2: 100%) compared to once-daily Sitagliptin. However, there was an observed increase in pulse rate (WMD: 3.33; 95% CI: 1.61, 5.06, p-value: <0.00001; I2: 100%) associated with Semaglutide treatment. Regarding secondary outcomes, there was an elevated risk of total adverse events and premature treatment discontinuation with Semaglutide. The risk of serious, severe, moderate, and mild adverse events did not significantly differ between the two treatments. In conclusion, the administration of once-weekly Semaglutide exhibited a substantial reduction in HbA1c, average systolic blood pressure (SBP), mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP), body weight, waist circumference, body mass index (BMI), and a rise in pulse rate, as opposed to the once-daily administration of Sitagliptin.