OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and nonarteritic ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched during August 2025. Odds ratios (ORs) and absolute risk for NAION values were pooled using random-effects Peto and inverse-variance models. Any ocular event was a secondary outcome. RESULTS: Fifteen longitudinal studies (8 trials; >1.5 million patients) were included. GLP-1 RA use was associated with higher NAION risk (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.23–2.36), consistent across randomized (2.36; 0.85–6.53) and nonrandomized studies (1.64; 1.15–2.35) (P = 0.51, for heterogeneity). Absolute NAION risk in the GLP-1 RA group was 0.09%, corresponding to a 0.037% risk difference (number needed to harm ∼2,700). There was no association with overall ocular events (OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.86–1.05). CONCLUSIONS: GLP-1 RA use was associated with a modest increase in NAION risk but not overall ocular adverse events. Findings underscore the need for long-term postmarketing safety studies and should be interpreted against their well-established mortality and cardio-kidney-metabolic benefits.

Resumo A furosemida é o diurético mais utilizado para o tratamento de sintomas de sobrecarga de volume em pacientes com insuficiência cardíaca. Dados recentes sugerem que a torsemida pode ser superior à furosemida neste contexto. No entanto, ainda não é claro se isso se traduz em melhores resultados clínicos nesta população. Avaliar se a torsemida é superior à furosemida no contexto da insuficiência cardíaca. Realizamos uma revisão sistemática e metanálise de estudos clínicos randomizados (ECRs) comparando a eficácia da torsemida em comparação com a furosemida em pacientes com insuficiência cardíaca. PubMed, Embase e Web of Science foram as bases de dados pesquisadas em busca de estudos elegíveis. Os desfechos de interesse foram internações por todas as causas, internações por insuficiência cardíaca (IIC), internações por todas as causas cardiovasculares, mortalidade por todas as causas, e melhoria de classe da NYHA. Parâmetros ecocardiográficos também foram avaliados. Foi aplicado um modelo de efeitos aleatórios para calcular as razões de risco (RR) e as diferenças médias (DM) com intervalos de confiança (IC) de 95% e nível de significância de 0,05. Foram incluídos 12 ECRs, envolvendo 4.115 pacientes. A torsemida reduziu significativamente a IIC (RR de 0,60; IC de 95%, 0,43-0,83; p=0,002; I2=0%), internação por causas cardiovasculares (RR de 0,72; IC de 95%, 0,60-0,88; p=0,0009; I2=0%), e melhora da fração de ejeção do ventrículo esquerdo (FEVE) (DM de 4,51%; IC de 95%, 2,94 a 6,07; p<0,0001; I2=0%) em comparação com a furosemida. Não houve diferença significativa no número de internações por todas as causas (RR de 0,93; IC de 95%, 0,86-1,00; p=0,04; I2=0%), mortalidade por todas as causas (RR de 0,98; IC de 95%, 0,87-1,10; p=0,73; I2=0%), melhora da classe NYHA (RR de 1,25; IC de 95%, 0,92-1,68; p=0,15; I2=0%), ou mudança de classe NYHA (DM de -0,04; IC de 95%, -0,24 a 0,16; p=0,70; I2=15%) entre os grupos. A torsemida reduziu significativamente as internações por insuficiência cardíaca e causas cardiovasculares, melhorando também a FEVE.

Background: Rheumatic heart disease (RHD) is the leading cause of cardiac death in children, with over 300,000 annual fatalities. Immunological, genetic, and environmental factors contribute to an increased risk of RHD. It remains unclear whether first-degree relatives have a higher RHD prevalence than the regional average. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of echocardiographic screening studies reporting the prevalence of RHD in family members of individuals with RHD or acute rheumatic fever. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Lilacs databases were searched. Finding Forrester RHD was classified as per the 2012 World Heart Federation criteria. Random-effects models assessed definite RHD prevalence in study groups. Results: Four of the 1160 studies were included, with 776 first-degree relatives screened. Two studies were from Africa, one from South America, and one from Oceania. In the first-degree relatives of index cases, the prevalence of RHD was 7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.7-13). The control group, individuals screened with no known RHD cases in their family, had a lower prevalence than first-degree relatives (risk ratio [RR] 0.44, 95% CI 0.26-0.75). There was no difference in the prevalence of RHD among siblings and parents of cases. Conclusion: RHD prevalence in first-degree relatives of index cases was more significant than the There is an overall prevalence of non-relatives from the respective region, which suggests that genetic predisposition may play a role. In future studies of RHD, the systematic screening of first-degree relatives should be considered with a better control group—socioeconomic, region, age, and sex-matched.