Background: The Food and Drug Administration has approved Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin/Kexin Type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors for the treatment of dyslipidemia. However, evidence of the optimal PCSK9 agents targeting PCSK9 for secondary prevention in patients with high-risk of cardiovascular events is lacking. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate the benefit and safety of different types of PCSK9 inhibitors. Methods: Several databases including Cochrane Central, Ovid Medline, and Ovid Embase were searched from inception until March 30, 2022 without language restriction. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing administration of PCSK9 inhibitors with placebo or ezetimibe for secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with statin-background therapy were identified. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality. The primary safety outcome was serious adverse events. Results: Overall, nine trials totaling 54,311 patients were identified. Three types of PCSK9 inhibitors were evaluated. The use of alirocumab was associated with reductions in all-cause mortality compared with control (RR 0.83, 95% CrI 0.72–0.95). Moreover, evolocumab was associated with increased all-cause mortality compared with alirocumab (RR 1.26, 95% CrI 1.04–1.52). We also found alirocumab was associated with decreased risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.94, 95% CrI 0.90–0.99). Conclusions: In consideration of the fact that both PCSK9 monoclonal antibody and inclisiran enable patients to achieve recommended LDL-C target, the findings in this meta-analysis suggest that alirocumab might provide the optimal benefits regarding all-cause mortality with relatively lower SAE risks, and evolocumab might provide the optimal benefits regarding myocardial infarction for secondary prevention in patients with high-risk of cardiovascular events. Further head-to-head trials with longer follow-up and high methodologic quality are warranted to help inform subsequent guidelines for the management of these patients.

Background: The optimal monoclonal antibody against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) for adult patients with migraine has yet to be determined. Therefore, we aimed to compare the effectiveness of different monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or its receptor for adult patients with migraine through a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Methods: We systematically searched the MEDILNE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant publications from inception until October 30, 2020. Only randomized clinical trials of adults with migraine that assessed any calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody and reported clinical outcomes were included. The primary outcomes were changes in monthly migraine days and treatment-emergent adverse eventsResults: We initially retrieved 2,070 publications, and ultimately, 18 randomized clinical trials totaling 8,926 patients were included. In terms of efficacy, eptinezumab (MD −1.43, 95% CrI −2.59 to −0.36), erenumab (MD −1.61, 95% CrI −2.40 to −0.84), fremanezumab (MD −2.19, 95% CrI −3.15 to −1.25), and galcanezumab (MD −2.10, 95% CrI −2.76 to −1.45) significantly reduced MMDs compared with placebo. In terms of safety, only galcanezumab increased the incidences of TEAEs (RR 1.11, 95% CrI 1.01–1.22) and serious adverse events (RR 2.95, 95% CrI 1.41–6.87) compared with placebo.Conclusion: Most drugs performed similarly and were superior to placebo in most of our analyses. Further head-to-head research on different types of CGRP monoclonal antibodies is necessary to validate the present findings.

Background: Several pharmacological treatments have been used to treat patients with chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH), although little is known about the comparative effectiveness of different classes of medication. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare and rank the efficacy and safety of five drug regimens to determine the best treatment for this group of patients.Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Medline, clinicaltrials.gov, the Cochrane database, and Embase to identify relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing drug treatments in adult patients with CSDH. A network meta-analysis was conducted using a Bayesian framework. Random- and fixed-effects models were used to pool the network results, and the preferred model was selected by comparing the deviance information criteria (DIC). Efficacy outcomes included recurrence requiring surgery, changes in hematoma volume, and a good recovery. The safety outcomes were treatment-related adverse events and all-cause mortality.Results: In this Bayesian network meta-analysis, available data were obtained from 12 eligible trials, including 2,098 patients and 5 techniques. Compared to placebo, atorvastatin (RR: 0.45, 95% CrI: 0.24–0.81) and dexamethasone (RR: 0.38, 95% CrI: 0.22–0.63) were similarly effective in reducing recurrence requiring surgery by 55% and 62%, respectively. Dexamethasone (RR: 0.46, 95% CrI: 0.23–0.91) was more effective in reducing recurrence requiring surgery than goreisan. Additionally, atorvastatin reduced the hematoma volume to a greater extent than placebo (MD: −7.44, 95% CrI: −9.49 to −5.43) or goreisan (MD: −14.09, 95% CrI: −23.35 to −4.82). Moreover, tranexamic acid (MD: −12.07, 95% CrI: −21.68 to −2.29) reduced the hematoma volume to a greater extent than goreisan. No significant differences were detected between drugs and placebo with regard to a good recovery. In terms of safety, dexamethasone (RR: 1.96, 95% CrI: 1.20–3.28) increased the risk of mortality compared to placebo.Conclusion: These findings suggest that dexamethasone is the best treatment to reduce recurrence and atorvastatin is the best treatment to reduce hematoma volume in patients with CSDH. However, clinicians should pay close attention to the elevated risk of all-cause mortality and potential adverse events caused by dexamethasone. Future well-designed RCTs with more participants are needed to verify these findings.Clinical Trial Registration:http://osf.io/u9hqp.

Background: The radiochemotherapy regimen concomitantly employing temozolomide (TMZ) chemotherapy and radiotherapy (RT) 4 weeks after surgery, followed by 6 cycles of TMZ is a common treatment for glioblastoma (GBM). However, its median overall survival (OS) is only 14.6 months. This study was to explore the effectiveness and safety of early TMZ chemotherapy between surgery and chemoradiotherapy plus the standard concomitant radiochemotherapy regimen. Methods: A randomized, parallel group, open-label study of 99 newly diagnosed GBM patients was conducted at 10 independent Chinese neurosurgical departments from June 2008 to June 2012. Patients were treated with concomitant radiochemotherapy regimen plus early postsurgical temozolomide (early TMZ group) or standard concomitant radiochemotherapy regimen (control group). Overall response was assessed based on objective tumor assessments, administration of corticosteroid and neurological status test. Hematological, biochemical, laboratory, adverse event (AE), and neurological condition were measured for 24 months of follow-up. The primary efficacy endpoint of this study was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Results: The median OS time in the early TMZ group was 17.6 months, compared with 13.2 months in the control group (log-rank test P = 0.021). In addition, the OS rate in the early TMZ group was higher at 6, 12, and 18 months than in the control group, respectively (P < 0.05). The median PFS time was 8.7 months in the early TMZ group and 10.4 months in the control group (log-rank test P = 0.695). AEs occurred in 29 (55.8%) and 31(73.8%) patients respectively in early and control groups, including nausea (15.4% vs. 33.3%), vomiting (7.7% vs. 28.6%), fever (7.7% vs. 11.9%), and headache (3.8% vs. 23.8%). Only 30.8% and 33.3% were drug-related, respectively. Conclusions: Addition of TMZ chemotherapy in the early break of the standard concomitant radiochemotherapy regimen was well tolerated and significantly improved the OS of the GBM patients, compared with standard concomitant radiochemotherapy regimen. However, a larger randomized trial is warranted to verify these results.