BackgroundNumerous studies have evaluated the association between the apolipoprotein E (apoE) gene polymorphisms in coronary heart disease (CHD). However, the results remain uncertain. We carried out a meta-analysis to derive a more comprehensive estimation of the association in Chinese population.MethodsCase-control studies in Chinese and English publications were identified by searching databases of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI, CBM, Wanfang, VIP and hand searching of relevant journals and the reference lists of retrieved articles. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were applied to assess the strength of the associations. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed to explore the between-study heterogeneity.ResultsWe finally identified 61 relevant studies which comprised 6634 case-patients and 6393 controls. The pooled OR for ε4 carriers was 96% higher than the ε3/3 genotype for CHD (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.70 to 2.24; P<0.001). However, there was no evidence of statistically significant association between ε2 carriers and risk of CHD (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.13; P = 0.729). In the subgroup analysis, different endpoints may partially account for the heterogeneity. No publication bias was found.ConclusionsOur meta-analysis suggests that the apoE ε4 allele may be a risk factor for CHD in the Chinese population, however, ε2 allele has no significant association.

No abstract

Colchicine significantly decreases the rate of pericarditis recurrence, regardless of prednisone use and the cause of pericarditis. Larger studies are needed to confirm this effect.

BackgroundIn-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a common life-threatening complication and some studies have shown that pioglitazone can reduce the incidence of ISR in patients with drug-eluting stents (DES) implantation. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the effect of pioglitazone in preventing ISR after DES implantation.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of pioglitazone for ISR after DES implantation were identified by systematic searches of multiple online databases and manual searches of related reference lists of identified trials through May 2014. The primary endpoint was the rate of ISR. Secondary endpoints included minimum lumen diameter, percentage stenosis of stented vessels, late loss, in-stent neointimal volume, target vessel revascularization (TVR), target lesion revascularization, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and death.ResultsFive studies, comprising 255 pioglitazone-treated patients and 245 controls, were identified in the current meta-analysis. Pioglitazone did not significantly reduce the rate of ISR (P = 0.20) with low heterogeneity (I2 = 13.3%, P = 0.32). For the secondary outcomes, pioglitazone did not substantially affect the pooled estimates of these endpoints except late loss (P = 0.01) and TVR (P = 0.04).ConclusionsThe limited evidence indicates that pioglitazone does not demonstrate markedly beneficial effect in patients subjected to coronary DES implantation. However, the results should be interpreted with care given the small sample size. Further large-scale RCTs are needed.

ObjectiveSeveral observational studies have demonstrated that increased nutritional delivery by supplemental parenteral nutrition (SPN) plus enteral nutrition (EN) reduces the rate of all-cause mortality in critically ill patients. Therefore, we aimed to compare and evaluate the effect of SPN plus EN on all-cause mortality in critically ill adults.MethodsRandomized controlled trials were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and Sinomed (up to May 2021). Adults with severe illness treated with SPN plus EN or with EN alone were enrolled. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale, and a meta-analysis was conducted using Stata software. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality and was evaluated by pooled odds ratio (OR) with the fixed-effects model. Required information size was also calculated using trial sequential analysis.ResultsWe identified 10 randomized controlled trials, with a total of 6,908 patients. No significant differences in rate of all-cause mortality (OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.84–1.09, P = 0.518), intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (OR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.75–1.07, P = 0.229), and hospital mortality (OR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.82–1.10, P = 0.482) were found between the SPN plus EN and EN alone groups. SPN plus EN support was associated with a significantly decreased risk of infection (OR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.74–0.93, P = 0.001), although the duration of mechanical ventilation [standardized mean difference (SMD) = − 0.20], length of hospital stay (SMD = 0.12), and ICU stay (SMD = − 0.57) were similar between the two groups (all P &gt; 0.05). Meta-regression analyses showed no significant correlations between all-cause mortality and baseline clinical factors, including patients’ age, the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, time of SPN initiation, and follow-up duration (all P &gt; 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed that SPN plus EN support was associated with a trend toward decreased rate of all-cause mortality in studies with follow-up &lt; 30 days (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.36–1.02, P = 0.058). Trial sequence analysis showed that the required information size for all-cause mortality was 16,972, and the cumulative Z-curve indicated no significant differences in the risk of all-cause mortality between the two groups (P &gt; 0.05).ConclusionSPN plus EN support can significantly reduce the risk of infection, although it has no significant effect on all-cause mortality among critically ill patients. More studies are warranted to confirm these findings.