Objective: To summarize the evidence on the efficacy and safety of vancomycin compared with those of alternative treatments in adult patients with methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection.Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched up to December 15, 2023, for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses comparing vancomycin with alternative MRSA treatments. Primary outcomes included clinical cure and microbiological eradication rates. Organ‐specific safety outcomes were assessed. Summary estimates were recalculated using a random‐effects model. Evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022340359).Results: This umbrella review included 19 studies and 71 meta‐analyses (46 efficacy and 25 safety) comparing vancomycin with 10 alternative treatments across different MRSA infection types and populations. GRADE assessment showed that 29.58% of the meta‐analyses were of high quality. Linezolid and daptomycin showed higher efficacy in MRSA‐induced skin and soft tissue infections and pneumonia (moderate evidence quality) and bacteremia (very low evidence quality), respectively, compared with that of vancomycin. Cephalosporins had a higher risk of nausea, whereas linezolid had a higher risk of nausea, diarrhea, and thrombocytopenia than that of vancomycin. Vancomycin posed a higher risk of rash, pruritus, red man syndrome, and nephrotoxicity than that of alternatives.Conclusions: The quality of evidence supporting the higher efficacy of alternative treatment over vancomycin for MRSA infection was not high. Given varying safety profiles and advancements in therapeutic monitoring, careful consideration of patient‐specific factors and pharmacokinetics is crucial when selecting treatment alternatives to vancomycin.

Background: Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disease that imposes economic and societal burden. Biomarkers have played a crucial role in the recent approval of aducanumab and lecanemab as disease-modifying therapies which marked a significant milestone for the treatment of AD. The inclusion of biomarkers in AD trials facilitates precise diagnosis, monitors safety, demonstrates target engagement, and supports disease modification. Objective: This study analyzed the utilization state and trends of biomarkers as endpoints in AD trials. Methods: In this retrospective study, trials were collected by searching clinicaltrials.gov using the term “Alzheimer”. Primary and secondary outcomes were analyzed separately for each phase. Results: Among the 1,048 analyzed trials, 313 (29.87%) adopted biomarkers as primary endpoints and 364 (34.73%) as secondary endpoints, mainly in phases 1 and 2. The top three biomarkers adopted as primary endpoints in phases 1, 2, and 3 were amyloid-PET, tau-PET, and MRI. The top three biomarkers adopted as secondary endpoints, in phase 1, were cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid-β (Aβ), blood Aβ and amyloid-PET; in phase 2, they were MRI, CSF Aβ, and CSF phospho-tau; and in phase 3, they were amyloid PET, MRI, and blood Aβ. There was a statistically significant increase in the adoption of biomarkers as primary endpoints in phase 2 trials ( p = 0.001) and secondary endpoints in phase 3 trials ( p = 0.001). Conclusions: The growing recognition of the importance of biomarkers in AD trial’ design and drug development is evident by the significant steady increase in biomarkers’ utilization in phases 2 and 3.

While hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is commonly used to monitor therapy response in type 2 diabetes (T2D), GV is emerging as an essential additional metric for optimizing glycemic control. Our goal was to learn more about the impact of hypoglycemic agents on HbA1c levels and GV in patients with T2D. A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials were performed to assess the effects of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT)-2 inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors, sulfonylurea and thiazolidinediones on Mean Amplitude of Glycemic Excursions (MAGE) and HbA1c. Searches were performed using PubMed and EMBASE. A random-effect model was used in the NMA, and the surface under the cumulative ranking was used to rank comparisons. All studies were checked for quality according to their design and also for heterogeneity before inclusion in this NMA. The highest reduction in MAGE was achieved by GLP-1 RAs (SUCRA 0.83), followed by DPP-4 inhibitors (SUCRA: 0.72), and thiazolidinediones (SUCRA: 0.69). In terms of HbA1c reduction, GLP-1 RAs were the most effective (SUCRA 0.81), followed by DPP-4 inhibitors (SUCRA 0.72) and sulfonylurea (SUCRA 0.65). Our findings indicated that GLP-1 RAs have relatively high efficacy in terms of HbA1c and MAGE reduction when compared with other hypoglycemic agents and can thus have clinical application. Future studies with a larger sample size and appropriate subgroup analyses are warranted to completely understand the glycemic effects of these agents in various patients with T2D. The protocol for this systematic review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021256363).