Dyslipidemia remains a central contributor to residual cardiovascular risk despite the widespread use of statins. Obicetrapib, a selective cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor, has shown potential as an adjunctive lipid-lowering therapy by favorably modifying key lipid parameters. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the lipid-lowering efficacy of obicetrapib based on current evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A comprehensive literature search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify RCTs assessing the lipid-lowering effects of obicetrapib. Mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs were calculated using a random-effects model. Nine RCTs (n = 3706) were included. Patients treated with obicetrapib exhibited significant reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (MD: -36.5% [95% CI: -41.1 to -31.9]), apolipoprotein B (Apo-B) (MD: -23.8% [95% CI: -28.2 to -19.3]), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) (MD: -30.9% [95% CI: -34.6 to -27.1]), and lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] (MD: -36.1% [95% CI: -44.4 to -27.8]) compared to placebo. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels significantly increased (MD: 142.6% [95% CI: 128.6-156.6]). Triglyceride levels did not differ significantly (MD: 0.13% [95% CI: -7.01 to 7.26]). Moreover, combination therapy with ezetimibe led to greater reductions in LDL-C by 17.8% (95% CI: 12.05-23.6), Apo-B by 9.7% (95% CI: 5.8-13.7), and non-HDL-C by 17.5% (95% CI: 12.3-22.8), compared to monotherapy. Obicetrapib significantly improves key lipid parameters, including LDL-C, Apo-B, non-HDL-C, HDL-C, and Lp(a), with enhanced efficacy in lowering LDL-C, Apo-B, and non-HDL-C when combined with ezetimibe. These findings support its potential role in comprehensive lipid management strategies.

Background: Obesity represents a major global health challenge, contributing substantially to cardiovascular disease and metabolic complications. Orforglipron, a novel oral non‐peptide GLP‐1 receptor agonist, has emerged as a promising therapeutic option for weight management and glycemic control. This meta‐analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of orforglipron in obese patients with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to October 2025 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating orforglipron in obese patients. Mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random‐effects models. Results: Five RCTs comprising 4410 participants were included. Orforglipron demonstrated dose‐dependent reductions in body weight from 2.48% at 3 mg to 9.8% at 45 mg, BMI from 0.89 to 3.62 kg/m ² , waist circumference from 1.57 to 6.9 cm, and HbA1c from 0.76% to 1.04% compared with placebo. Favourable lipid changes included reductions in total cholesterol (MD: −4.51% [95% CI: −6.91 to −2.11]), LDL‐C (MD: −5.34% [95% CI: −7.10 to −3.58]), and triglycerides (MD: −10.07% [95% CI: −12.33 to −7.80]), with increased HDL‐C (MD: 2.94% [95% CI: 1.38 to 4.49]). However, gastrointestinal adverse events were significantly more frequent at doses of 12 mg or higher and treatment discontinuation rates were highest at 24 mg (RR:4.61 [95% CI:1.6 to 13.33]) and 36 mg (RR:3.68 [95% CI:2.48 to 5.44]) doses. Serious adverse events and mortality rates were comparable to those with placebo. Conclusion: Orforglipron significantly improved glycemic and lipid parameters in patients with obesity, demonstrating dose‐dependent efficacy with maximal benefits at higher doses. While gastrointestinal tolerability remains a clinically important limitation requiring mitigation strategies, orforglipron represents a promising oral therapeutic option for comprehensive obesity and metabolic management.

Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an antifibrinolytic agent effective in reducing extensive blood loss and mortality. However, it lacks significant clinical evidence in peri-ocular procedures, including dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR). This study aims to assess the effectiveness of TXA in reducing intraoperative hemorrhage and improving surgical outcomes. We searched PubMed, Medline, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library, along with grey literature sources from the year 2000 onwards for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We used the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0) to assess quality. RevMan 5.4 was used to conduct all statistical analyses using a random-effects model. A meta-analysis was performed on 448 patients from 5 RCTs. Between TXA and placebo group, a statistically significant reduction in intraoperative bleeding, a statistically non-significant reduction in total surgical time and recovery time, a statistically significant increase in surgeon satisfaction, and no statistically significant difference in anesthesia time were observed. A comparison of topical TXA with placebo in one study showed a statistically significant reduction in intraoperative bleeding and total surgical time. Between TXA and the other interventions, including remifentanil and hydralazine, no statistically significant differences in intraoperative bleeding, total surgical time, recovery time, surgeon satisfaction, and anesthesia time were observed. Evidence shows the superiority of TXA in reducing intraoperative bleeding and increasing surgeon satisfaction in patients undergoing DCR, improving surgical outcomes and recovery time. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of TXA in ocular procedures.

Purpose: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) remain the standard treatment option for erosive esophagitis (EE) but have notable limitations due to side effects associated with long‐term use. Tegoprazan, a novel potassium‐competitive acid suppressant (P‐CAB), may provide an alternative treatment option. In this study, we aim to evaluate the healing rates of EE using tegoprazan versus PPIs, along with their respective safety profiles. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to March 2025. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. Pooled estimates were calculated using random‐effects models in Review Manager 5.4. Results: Three RCTs encompassing a total of 766 patients were included in the analysis. Tegoprazan demonstrated comparable healing rates to PPIs at both 4 weeks (risk ratio [RR] 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.99–1.11; p = 0.12) and 8 weeks (RR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.98–1.06; p = 0.35). Subgroup analyses by dose (50 and 100 mg) showed no significant differences. While overall adverse event rates were similar between groups, the incidence of headache was numerically lower in the tegoprazan group (1.3% vs. 4.2%; RR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.08–2.00; p = 0.26), though this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Tegoprazan shows comparable efficacy and safety to standard PPIs for treating EE. While healing rates were slightly higher, particularly with the 100 mg dose, the differences were not statistically significant. Tegoprazan may be a suitable alternative for patients intolerant to PPIs, though larger, long‐term, multiethnic studies are warranted to confirm these findings and assess patient‐centered outcomes.

Was not provided for this article.