Search

Purpose: This study intends to assess the reference range of lamotrigine concentration for treating childhood epilepsy. Methods: PubMed, Ovid-Embase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang data and VIP databases were searched from database inception to January 2022. RCT, cohort study, case–control study, cross-sectional study that estimated the reference range of lamotrigine for children epilepsy treatment were included. The data extracted included basic information, statistical methods, data type, and results of reference range. Descriptive analysis was performed for them. Results: 8 studies were included and estimated the reference range, and all of them were calculated based on efficacy data and/or concentration data. Statistical methods including ROC curve, concentration-effect curve, mean ± standard deviation, 95% confidence interval and percentile interval were utilized. For lamotrigine monotherapy, the lower limits ranged from 2.06 mg/L to 3.99 mg/L, and the upper limits ranged from 8.43 mg/L to 9.08 mg/L, showing basic consistency. However, for lamotrigine concomitant with valproate, the lower limits ranged from 2.00 mg/L to 8.00 mg/L, and the upper limit was 11.50 mg/L, for lamotrigine concomitant with other antiepileptics, the lower limits ranged from 1.00 mg/L to 3.09 mg/L, and the upper limits varied from 5.90 mg/L to 16.24 mg/L, indicating inconsistency. Conclusion: Several studies have estimated the reference range of lamotrigine for childhood epilepsy, while controversy exist and no studies have determined the upper limit of the range based on safety data. To establish the optimal reference range, further high-quality studies are necessary that consider both efficacy and safety data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) greatly affects postoperative lives of afflicted aged patients. This study aimed to determine whether preoperative high hs-CRP/HDL ratio (CHR) was associated with an increased risk of postoperative SIRS in the elderly population. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included data on patients aged ≥ 65 years who underwent general anesthesia surgery at two clinical centers between January 2015 and September 2020. The primary exposure was preoperative CHR which was divided into two groups (≤ 12.82 and > 12.82) based on its normal range in our hospital, and the primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative SIRS. Targeted maximum likelihood estimation analyses were used to model the exposure–outcome relationship. Results: The analysis included 5595 elderly patients, of whom 1410 (25.20%) developed SIRS within three postoperative days. Targeted maximum likelihood estimation analysis revealed that elderly patients with CHR > 12.82 vs. CHR ≤ 12.82 was associated with increased risk of postoperative SIRS (aOR = 1.40, 95% CI [1.33, 1.48], P < 0.001). Those results were consistent both in subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses. Compared with patients with CHR ≤ 12.82, patients with CHR > 12.82 had a higher prevalence of postoperative SIRS (49.06% vs. 22.70%), postoperative in-hospital mortality (3.40% vs. 0.65%), a longer hospital stay after surgery [10 (IQR, 6–16) vs. 8 (IQR, 5–11) days] and higher direct medical cost [10070 (IQR, 6878–15577) vs. 7117 (IQR, 4079–10314) euros, all P < 0.001]. Conclusions: In elderly patients, preoperative CHR > 12.82 was significantly associated with a higher risk of postoperative SIRS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To explore the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), heart failure (HF) and sinus rhythm (SR). Methods: Comprehensive literature searches were conducted using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI and Wanfang databases from inception to February 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulant (NOAC) therapy in CAD and HF patients in SR were eligible. Statistical analyses were performed using R Programming Language. Results: Three RCTs included 10,658 adult patients treated with antiplatelet drugs with or without rivaroxaban were ultimately analysed. The average follow-up period was 20.4–24 months. Rivaroxaban had a favourable point estimate in myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke (MI rivaroxaban group (3.83%, 203/5306) vs. APT group (4.52%, 214/4731), RR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.65–0.94, P < 0.01, I2 = 0%), (stroke: rivaroxaban group (1.60%, 85/5306) vs. APT group (2.52%, 119/4731), RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.49–0.85, P < 0.01, I2 = 12%) compared with the placebo. Rivaroxaban was comparable to the placebo for all-cause death and major bleeding (all-cause death: rivaroxaban group (12.27%, 688/5606) vs. APT group (14.59%, 737/5052), RR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.49–1.06, P > 0.05, I2 = 87%), (major bleeding: rivaroxaban group (1.52%, 85/5586) vs. APT group (1.37%, 69/5043), RR = 1.18, 95% CI 0.86–1.62, P > 0.05, I2 = 0%). Conclusions: In SR patients with CAD and HF, the rates of MI and stroke associated with rivaroxaban combined with APT were lower than those associated with APT alone, and the two treatments had similar rates of all-cause death and major bleeding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]