Patients diagnosed with cancer often experience an abnormal occurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and its related complications. In order to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of both treatment approaches, we conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis within the realm of cancer-associated thromboembolism. A thorough search was conducted across PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase databases to find studies comparing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) with low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) for the treatment of VTE in patients with malignancy. The analyses utilized the random-effects model. This meta-analysis included 11 studies. The results showed that DOACs were associated with a significantly reduced risk of VTE recurrence (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.55, 0.81, p<0.0001; I2: 0%) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (RR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.46, 0.86, p<0.0001; I2: 0%) compared to LMWHs. However, there was no significant difference in the risk of pulmonary embolism (PE) (RR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.54, 1.06, p=0.11; I2: 11%) between the two groups. The use of DOACs was also associated with a nonsignificant increase in the risk of major bleeding events (RR: 1.

Background and Aims: Finerenone, a nonsteroidal MR antagonist (MRA), enhances renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Finerenone’s safety and effectiveness in renal function are debatable. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of treatments for patients with diabetic kidney disease. Methods: To find relevant RCTs, the databases PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched. Finerenone’s effects were quantified using estimated pooled mean differences (MDs) and relative risks with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: This meta-analysis combines seven double-blind trials involving patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes who were randomly assigned to finerenone or placebo. The primary efficacy time-to-event outcomes were cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, heart failure hospitalization, kidney failure, a sustained 57% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline over 4 weeks, or renal death. In this meta-analysis of 39,995 patients, treatment with Finerenone was associated with a lower risk of death due to cardiovascular and renal outcomes than placebo (RR = 0.86 [0.80, 0.93] p=0.0002; I2= 0%) and (RR = 0.56 [0.17, 1.82] p=0.34; I2= 0%), respectively. Finerenone treatment was also associated with a marginally lower risk of serious adverse events (RR = 0.95 [0.92, 0.97] p 0.0001; I2= 0%), but no overall difference in the risk of adverse events was found between the two groups (RR = 1.00 [0.99, 1.01] p=0.56; I2= 0%). Conclusion: The administration of finerenone decreases the likelihood of end-stage kidney disease, renal failure, cardiovascular death, and hospitalization. Therefore, we propose that patients with T2DM and CKD undergo finerenone therapy. Keywords: Diabetes, Chronic kidney disease, CKD, Cardiovascular disease, Finerenone, Non-steroidal Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, Meta-analysis, Systematic review

Background and Aims: Finerenone, a nonsteroidal MR antagonist (MRA), enhances renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Finerenone’s safety and effectiveness in renal function are debatable. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of treatments for patients with diabetic kidney disease. Methods: To find relevant RCTs, the databases PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched. Finerenone’s effects were quantified using estimated pooled mean differences (MDs) and relative risks with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: This meta-analysis combines seven double-blind trials involving patients with CKD and type 2 diabetes who were randomly assigned to finerenone or placebo. The primary efficacy time-to-event outcomes were cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, heart failure hospitalization, kidney failure, a sustained 57% decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline over 4 weeks, or renal death. In this meta-analysis of 39,995 patients, treatment with Finerenone was associated with a lower risk of death due to cardiovascular and renal outcomes than placebo (RR = 0.86 [0.80, 0.93] p=0.0002; I2= 0%) and (RR = 0.56 [0.17, 1.82] p=0.34; I2= 0%), respectively. Finerenone treatment was also associated with a marginally lower risk of serious adverse events (RR = 0.95 [0.92, 0.97] p 0.0001; I2= 0%), but no overall difference in the risk of adverse events was found between the two groups (RR = 1.00 [0.99, 1.01] p=0.56; I2= 0%). Conclusion: The administration of finerenone decreases the likelihood of end-stage kidney disease, renal failure, cardiovascular death, and hospitalization. Therefore, we propose that patients with T2DM and CKD undergo finerenone therapy. Keywords: Diabetes, Chronic kidney disease, CKD, Cardiovascular disease, Finerenone, Non-steroidal Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, Meta-analysis.

Aims:  This study intends to compare AZI-M/CT’s efficacy and side effect profile to the OLM/HCTZ in hypertensive patients. Materials and methods: Online databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched until January 15, 2022, for original articles exploring the effects of AZI-M/CT on pertinent outcomes among hypertensive patients in contrast to OLM/HCTZ. Data on baseline characteristics and endpoints were extracted. Review Manager version 5.4.1 and STATA 16.0 were used for analyses. Risk ratios (RR) and the weighted mean differences (WMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Results: Four studies were included having 3146 patients in total (AZI-M/CT: 1931 and OLM/HCTZ: 1215). The pooled analysis exhibited that compared to OLM-HCTZ, mean DBP was significantly lower in the AZI-M/CT group (WMD –2.64 [-2.78, -2.51]; p= <0.00001, I2= 1%), whereas no significant differences were noted in mean SBP (WMD –2.95 [-6.64,0.73]; p= 0.12, I2=100%) and achievement of target blood pressure (RR 0.95 [0.84,1.07]; p= 0.36, I2= 80%). Additionally, the risk of any TEAE (RR 1.11 [1.03, 1.20]; p= 0.007, I2= 51%) and serious adverse events RR 1.58 [1.20, 2.08]; p= 0.001, I2= 11%) was significantly higher in the AZI-M/CT group. However, no significant differences were observed in the risk of mortality between the two groups (RR 0.74 [0.14, 3.91; p = 0.72, I2= 0%). Conclusions: Our pooled analysis indicates that AZI-M/CT is more efficient at lowering blood pressure in elderly hypertensive patients than OLM/HCTZ. However, given the limited number of studies, positive results should be discretely re-evaluated and require further research. Keywords: Azilsartan-medoxomil; Meta-analysis; Chlorthalidone; AZI-M/CT; Olmesartan-medoxomil; OLM/HCTZ.

Aims:  This study intends to compare AZI-M/CT’s efficacy and side effect profile to the OLM/HCTZ in hypertensive patients. Materials and methods: Online databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched until January 15, 2022, for original articles exploring the effects of AZI-M/CT on pertinent outcomes among hypertensive patients in contrast to OLM/HCTZ. Data on baseline characteristics and endpoints were extracted. Review Manager version 5.4.1 and STATA 16.0 were used for analyses. Risk ratios (RR) and the weighted mean differences (WMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Results: Four studies were included having 3146 patients in total (AZI-M/CT: 1931 and OLM/HCTZ: 1215). The pooled analysis exhibited that compared to OLM-HCTZ, mean DBP was significantly lower in the AZI-M/CT group (WMD –2.64 [-2.78, -2.51]; p= <0.00001, I2= 1%), whereas no significant differences were noted in mean SBP (WMD –2.95 [-6.64,0.73]; p= 0.12, I2=100%) and achievement of target blood pressure (RR 0.95 [0.84,1.07]; p= 0.36, I2= 80%). Additionally, the risk of any TEAE (RR 1.11 [1.03, 1.20]; p= 0.007, I2= 51%) and serious adverse events RR 1.58 [1.20, 2.08]; p= 0.001, I2= 11%) was significantly higher in the AZI-M/CT group. However, no significant differences were observed in the risk of mortality between the two groups (RR 0.74 [0.14, 3.91; p = 0.72, I2= 0%). Conclusions: Our pooled analysis indicates that AZI-M/CT is more efficient at lowering blood pressure in elderly hypertensive patients than OLM/HCTZ. However, given the limited number of studies, positive results should be discretely re-evaluated and require further research. Keywords: Azilsartan-medoxomil; Meta-analysis; Chlorthalidone; AZI-M/CT; Olmesartan-medoxomil; Systematic review; OLM/HCTZ.