RationaleCOPD has been perceived as being a disease of older men. However, >7 million women are estimated to live with COPD in the USA alone. Despite a growing body of literature suggesting an increasing burden of COPD in women, the evidence is limited.ObjectivesTo assess and synthesize the available evidence among population-based epidemiologic studies and calculate the global prevalence of COPD in men and women.Materials and methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis reporting gender-specific prevalence of COPD was undertaken. Gender-specific prevalence estimates were abstracted from relevant studies. Associated patient characteristics as well as custom variables pertaining to the diagnostic method and other important epidemiologic covariates were also collected. A Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis was performed investigating gender-specific prevalence of COPD stratified by age, geography, calendar time, study setting, diagnostic method, and disease severity.Measurements and main resultsAmong 194 eligible studies, summary prevalence was 9.23% (95% credible interval [CrI]: 8.16%–10.36%) in men and 6.16% (95% CrI: 5.41%–6.95%) in women. Gender prevalences varied widely by the World Health Organization Global Burden of Disease subregions, with the highest female prevalence found in North America (8.07% vs 7.30%) and in participants in urban settings (13.03% vs 8.34%). Meta-regression indicated that age ≥40 and bronchodilator testing contributed most significantly to heterogeneity of prevalence estimates across studies.ConclusionWe conducted the largest ever systematic review and meta-analysis of global prevalence of COPD and the first large gender-specific review. These results will increase awareness of COPD as a critical woman’s health issue.
Introduction: International guidelines support the use of low molecular weight heparins for the treatment of thromboembolism and thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy. However, evidence of the benefit and harm associated with specific low molecular weight heparins such as enoxaparin is dated. No current systematic review and meta-analysis describing the safety and efficacy of enoxaparin for thromboembolism and thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy exists. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched on August 17, 2018 for clinical trials or observational studies in pregnant women receiving enoxaparin; patients with a prosthetic heart valve were excluded. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model, and heterogeneity was measured using the I 2 statistic.Enhanced Digital Features To view enhanced digital features for this article go to https://doi.org/10.6084/ m9.figshare.9933413.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of single or 1–3 weekly injections of hylan G-F 20 at 1 year following the first injection for knee osteoarthritis (OA). Searches were conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL and included relevant conference proceedings (January 1, 1995–August 17, 2020). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized trials, and observational studies investigating 1-year efficacy and safety of 1–3 weekly injections or single hylan G-F 20 injection for knee OA were included. Primary outcomes were WOMAC pain, physical function, and stiffness. Meta-analyses of RCTs and non-randomized studies were conducted separately. Our search identified 24 eligible studies. Hylan G-F 20, in the meta-analyses of RCTs, showed statistically significant improvement in WOMAC pain (SMCC − 0.98, 95% CI − 1.50, − 0.46), physical function (SMCC − 1.05, 95% CI − 1.28, − 0.83), and stiffness (SMCC − 1.07, 95% CI −1.28, −0.86). Improvement was also seen for VAS pain, SF-36 MCS (mental component summary), and SF-36 PCS (physical component summary). Analyses of non-randomized studies showed similar efficacy estimates. There were no significant differences in efficacy based on injection schedule, nor between RCT and non-randomized studies. Rates of adverse events (AEs) were low for most types of AEs. Hylan G-F 20 (either as single or 1–3 weekly injections) showed improvement in 1-year efficacy outcomes in comparison to baseline and was generally well tolerated. While further research will inform the medical field regarding viscosupplementation treatment options for knee OA, these findings show that hylan G-F 20 at both frequencies/dosages are efficacious and generally well tolerated for long-term use.
Background: Clopidogrel monotherapy is guideline-recommended in symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD). The advent of new antithrombotic strategies prompts an updated analysis of available evidence on antiplatelet therapy for PAD. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL through January 2019 for randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing antiplatelet therapies as monotherapy, dual therapy, or combination with anticoagulants. Efficacy (major adverse cardiovascular events, acute or chronic limb ischaemia, vascular amputation, peripheral revascularisation) and safety (all-cause mortality and overall bleeding) outcomes were evaluated via Bayesian network meta-analyses. Results: We analysed 26 randomised controlled trials. Clopidogrel (hazard ratio, HR, 0.78; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.65- 0.93) and ticagrelor (HR 0.80; 95%CrI 0.65-0.98) significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events risk compared with aspirin. No significant difference was observed for dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin. Vorapaxar significantly reduced limb ischaemia and revascularisation compared with placebo, while dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin showed a trend for reduced risk of amputation compared with aspirin (risk ratio 0.68; 95%CrI 0.43- 1.04). For all-cause mortality, picotamide, vorapaxar, dipyridamole with aspirin, and ticlopidine showed significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality vs aspirin. Clopidogrel and ticagrelor showed similar overall bleeding risk vs aspirin, while dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin significantly increased bleeding risk. Conclusion: This updated network meta-analysis confirms that clopidogrel significantly decreases the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with aspirin, without increasing bleeding risk. Clopidogrel should remain a mainstay of PAD treatment, at least in patients at higher bleeding risk.
Patients who have experienced an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are at very high risk of recurrent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. Dyslipidaemia, a major risk factor for CVD, is poorly controlled post ACS in countries outside Western Europe and North America, despite the availability of effective lipid-modifying therapies (LMTs) and guidelines governing their use. Recent guideline updates recommend that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), the primary target for dyslipidaemia therapy, be reduced by C 50% and to \ 1.4 mmol/L (55 mg/dL) in patients at very high risk of CVD, including those with ACS. The high prevalence of CVD risk factors in some regions outside Western Europe and North America confers a higher risk of CVD on patients in these countries. ACS onset is often earlier in these patients, and they may be more challenging to treat. Other barriers to effective dyslipidaemia control include low awareness of the value of intensive lipid lowering in patients with ACS, physician non-adherence to guideline recommendations, and lack of efficacy of currently used LMTs. Lack of appropriate pathways to guide follow-up of patients with ACS post discharge and poor access to intensive medications are important factors limiting Digital Features To view digital features for this article go to
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.