Purpose Oat supplementation interventions (OSIs) may have a beneficial effect on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. However, dietary background can modulate such effect. This systematic review assesses the effects of OSIs on CVD risk markers among adults, accounting for different dietary backgrounds or control arms. Methods We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that assessed the effect of oat, oat beta-glucan-rich extracts or avenanthramides on CVD risk markers. Results Seventy-four RCTs, including 4937 predominantly hypercholesterolemic, obese subjects, with mild metabolic disturbances, were included in the systematic review. Of these, 59 RCTs contributed to the meta-analyses. Subjects receiving an OSI, compared to control arms without oats, had improved levels of total cholesterol (TC) [weighted mean difference and (95% CI) − 0.42 mmol/L, (− 0.61; − 0.22)], LDL cholesterol [− 0.29 mmol/L, (− 0.37; − 0.20)], glucose [− 0.25 nmol/L, (− 0.36; − 0.14)], body mass index [− 0.13 kg/m2, (− 0.26; − 0.01)], weight [− 0.94 kg, (− 1.84: − 0.05)], and waist circumference [− 1.06 cm, (− 1.85; − 0.27)]. RCTs on inflammation and/or oxidative stress markers were scarce and with inconsistent findings. RCTs comparing an OSI to heterogeneous interventions (e.g., wheat, eggs, rice, etc.), showed lowered levels of glycated haemoglobin, diastolic blood pressure, HDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B. The majority of included RCTs (81.1%) had some concerns for risk of bias. Conclusion Dietary OSIs resulted in lowered levels of blood lipids and improvements in anthropometric parameters among participants with predominantly mild metabolic disturbances, regardless of dietary background or control. Further high-quality trials are warranted to establish the role of OSIs on blood pressure, glucose homeostasis and inflammation markers.

Current evidence on COVID-19 prognostic models is inconsistent and clinical applicability remains controversial. We performed a systematic review to summarize and critically appraise the available studies that have developed, assessed and/or validated prognostic models of COVID-19 predicting health outcomes. We searched six bibliographic databases to identify published articles that investigated univariable and multivariable prognostic models predicting adverse outcomes in adult COVID-19 patients, including intensive care unit (ICU) admission, intubation, high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and mortality. We identified and assessed 314 eligible articles from more than 40 countries, with 152 of these studies presenting mortality, 66 progression to severe or critical illness, 35 mortality and ICU admission combined, 17 ICU admission only, while the remaining 44 studies reported prediction models for mechanical ventilation (MV) or a combination of multiple outcomes. The sample size of included studies varied from 11 to 7,704,171 participants, with a mean age ranging from 18 to 93 years. There were 353 prognostic models investigated, with area under the curve (AUC) ranging from 0.44 to 0.99. A great proportion of studies (61.5%, 193 out of 314) performed internal or external validation or replication. In 312 (99.4%) studies, prognostic models were reported to be at high risk of bias due to uncertainties and challenges surrounding methodological rigor, sampling, handling of missing data, failure to deal with overfitting and heterogeneous definitions of COVID-19 and severity outcomes. While several clinical prognostic models for COVID-19 have been described in the literature, they are limited in generalizability and/or applicability due to deficiencies in addressing fundamental statistical and methodological concerns. Future large, multi-centric and well-designed prognostic prospective studies are needed to clarify remaining uncertainties.

Aims Optimal endovascular management of intermittent claudication (IC) remains disputed. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares efficacy and safety outcomes for balloon angioplasty (BA), bare-metal stents (BMS), drug-coated balloons (DCB), drug-eluting stents (DES), covered stents, and atherectomy. Methods and results Electronic databases were searched for randomized, controlled trials (RCT) from inception through November 2021. Efficacy outcomes were primary patency, target-lesion revascularization (TLR), and quality-of-life (QoL). Safety endpoints were all-cause mortality and major amputation. Outcomes were evaluated at short-term (<1 year), mid-term (1–2 years), and long-term (≥2 years) follow-up. The study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021292639). Fifty-one RCTs enrolling 8430 patients/lesions were included. In femoropopliteal disease of low-to-intermediate complexity, DCBs were associated with higher likelihood of primary patency [short-term: odds ratio (OR) 3.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.44–4.24; long-term: OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.93–3.16], lower TLR (short-term: OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.22–0.49; long-term: OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.29–0.60) and similar all-cause mortality risk, compared with BA. Primary stenting using BMS was associated with improved short-to-mid-term patency and TLR, but similar long-term efficacy compared with provisional stenting. Mid-term patency (OR 1.64, 95% CI 0.89–3.03) and TLR (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22–1.11) estimates were comparable for DES vs. BMS. Atherectomy, used independently or adjunctively, was not associated with efficacy benefits compared with drug-coated and uncoated angioplasty, or stenting approaches. Paucity and heterogeneity of data precluded pooled analysis for aortoiliac disease and QoL endpoints. Conclusion Certain devices may provide benefits in femoropopliteal disease, but comparative data in aortoiliac arteries is lacking. Gaps in evidence quantity and quality impede identification of the optimal endovascular approach to IC.