Objective To evaluate sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes at varying cardiovascular and renal risk. Design Network meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to 11 August 2020. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials comparing SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists with placebo, standard care, or other glucose lowering treatment in adults with type 2 diabetes with follow up of 24 weeks or longer. Studies were screened independently by two reviewers for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Main outcome measures Frequentist random effects network meta-analysis was carried out and GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) used to assess evidence certainty. Results included estimated absolute effects of treatment per 1000 patients treated for five years for patients at very low risk (no cardiovascular risk factors), low risk (three or more cardiovascular risk factors), moderate risk (cardiovascular disease), high risk (chronic kidney disease), and very high risk (cardiovascular disease and kidney disease). A guideline panel provided oversight of the systematic review. Results 764 trials including 421 346 patients proved eligible. All results refer to the addition of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists to existing diabetes treatment. Both classes of drugs lowered all cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and kidney failure (high certainty evidence). Notable differences were found between the two agents: SGLT-2 inhibitors reduced mortality and admission to hospital for heart failure more than GLP-1 receptor agonists, and GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced non-fatal stroke more than SGLT-2 inhibitors (which appeared to have no effect). SGLT-2 inhibitors caused genital infection (high certainty), whereas GLP-1 receptor agonists might cause severe gastrointestinal events (low certainty). Low certainty evidence suggested that SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists might lower body weight. Little or no evidence was found for the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists on limb amputation, blindness, eye disease, neuropathic pain, or health related quality of life. The absolute benefits of these drugs vary substantially across patients from low to very high risk of cardiovascular and renal outcomes (eg, SGLT-2 inhibitors resulted in 5 to 48 fewer deaths in 1000 patients over five years; see interactive decision support tool ( https://magicevidence.org/match-it/200820dist/#!/ ) for all outcomes. Conclusions In patients with type 2 diabetes, SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, with notable differences in benefits and harms. Absolute benefits are determined by individual risk profiles of patients, with clear implications for clinical practice, as reflected in the BMJ Rapid Recommendations directly informed by this systematic review. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019153180.

No abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT‐A) on patient-important reproductive outcomes after in vitro fertilization (IVF). Methods: Randomized and non-randomized studies have been sought in Ovid, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials since each database’s inception through May 2021. Main keywords used for the search strategy included "Embryo transfer", "In vitro fertilization", "DNA sequencing", and "Comparative genome hybridization". Studies were screened independently and in duplicate. Results: Ten studies were finally analyzed, representing a total of 2630 embryo transfers. The pooled OR for live birth rates were 1.45 (95%CI 0.24-8.78, I2 96%) and 1.66 (95%PI 0.15-18.01, 95%CI 0.98-2.83, I2 81%) derived from the NRSIs and the RCTs, respectively, in which the miscarriage rate were 1.25 (95%CI 0.19-8.33, I2 70%) and 0.57 (95%PI 0.06-5.34, 95%CI 0.27-1.21, I2 53%), and clinical pregnancy rates were 3.08 (95%CI 2.22-4.29, I2 0%) and 1.43 (95%PI 0.38-5.42, 95%CI 0.96-2.13, I2 68%). Influence analyses showed a greater treatment effect when excluding studies without patients at advanced maternal age. Conclusion: There seems to be no significant difference in reproductive outcomes when using PGT-A in the general population; however, the procedure seems advantageous for patients at advanced maternal age. Nevertheless, this warrants caution when recommending the procedure to all couples seeking ART, as the current possible benefits may not justify the additional costs for all groups of patients.

TO THE EDITORS: We read with interest the recent article by Picón-César et al 1 concerning patients with gestational diabetes mellitus. The authors reported that metformin was not inferior to insulin therapy in controlling glycemia and reducing the risk of hypoglycemia and showed no difference in terms of obstetrical and perinatal outcomes. Although the results are interesting, there are several concerns that we would like to highlight.Per strict criteria, gestational diabetes mellitus is only diagnosed between 24 and 28 weeks of gestation; however, some patients were diagnosed before this time frame and consequently correspond to the category of diabetes mellitus and pregnancy in which the management and prognosis are quite different. We understand that local guidelines or protocols might be different; however, making a subgroup analysis of patients meeting this criterion would have been valuable for the applicability of the results and would have reduced the risk of misclassification bias.In addition, the sample size was calculated on the basis of a noninferiority margin of the estimated difference in the incidence of macrosomia in newborns. Herein, using an outcome unrelated to glycemic control for this calculation may have limited the statistical power of the analysis.Regarding the data analysis, the need of initiating insulin in patients unable to achieve glycemic control with metformin alone may have overestimated the benefits of this intervention. Thus, the addition of a per-protocol analysis, 2 giving more conservative estimates of effect, could have been useful in exploring the influence of the dual therapy on the results.

We assessed the available evidence regarding adverse effects on surrogate and patient-important health outcomes of third- and fourth-generation combined oral contraceptives among premenopausal women. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis including randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing third- and fourth-generation combined oral contraceptives with other generation contraceptives or placebo. Studies that enrolled women aged 15 to 50 years, with at least three cycles of intervention and 6 months of follow-up were included. A total of 33 studies comprising 629,783 women were included. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were significantly lower in fourth-generation oral contraceptives (mean differences (MD): −0.24 mmol/L; [95% CI −0.39 to −0.08]), while total cholesterol was significantly increased in levonorgestrel users when compared to third-generation oral contraceptives (MD: 0.27 mmol/L; [95% CI 0.04 to 0.50]). A decreased arterial thrombosis incidence was shown in fourth-generation oral contraceptive users, as compared to levonorgestrel (incidence rate ratio (IRR): 0.41; [95% CI 0.19 to 0.86]). No difference was found in the occurrence of deep venous thrombosis between fourth-generation oral contraceptives and levonorgestrel users (IRR: 0.91; [95% CI 0.66 to 1.27]; p = 0.60; I2 = 0%). Regarding the remaining outcomes, data were heterogeneous and showed no clear difference. In premenopausal women, the use of third- and fourth-generation oral contraceptives is associated with an improved lipid profile and lower risk of arterial thrombosis. Data were inconclusive regarding the rest of outcomes assessed. This review was registered in PROSPERO with CRD42020211133.