Search

Purpose To perform a systematic umbrella review with meta-analysis to evaluate the certainty of evidence on mortality risk associated with digoxin use in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) with or without heart failure (HF). Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases from inception to 19 October 2021. We included systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies investigating digoxin effects on mortality of adult patients with AF and/or HF. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcome was cardiovascular mortality. Certainty of evidence was evaluated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool and the quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses by the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) tool. Results Eleven studies accounting for 12 meta-analyses were included with a total of 4,586,515 patients. AMSTAR2 analysis showed a high quality in 1, moderate in 5, low in 2, and critically low in 3 studies. Digoxin was associated with an increased all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.19, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.14–1.25) with moderate certainty of evidence and with an increased cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.19, 95%CI 1.06–1.33) with moderate certainty of evidence. Subgroup analysis showed that digoxin was associated with all-cause mortality both in patients with AF alone (HR 1.23, 95%CI 1.19–1.28) and in those with AF and HF (HR 1.14, 95%CI 1.12–1.16). Conclusion Data from this umbrella review suggests that digoxin use is associated with a moderate increased risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in AF patients regardless of the presence of HF. Trial registration This review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022325321).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS Acute infections cause relevant activation of innate immunity and inflammatory cascade. An excessive response against pathogens has been proved to trigger the pathophysiological process of thrombo-inflammation. Nevertheless, an association between the use of antithrombotic agents and the outcome of critically ill patients with infectious diseases is lacking. The aim of this meta-analysis is to determine the impact of antithrombotic treatment on survival of patients with acute infective disease. METHODS MEDLINE, Embase, Cinahl, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were systematically searched from inception to March 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any antithrombotic agent in patients with infectious diseases other than COVID-19. Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and risk of bias evaluation. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Summary estimates for mortality were calculated using the inverse-variance random-effects method. RESULTS A total of 16,588 patients participating in 18 RCTs were included, of whom 2141 died. Four trials evaluated therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, 1 trial prophylactic-dose anticoagulation, 4 trials aspirin, and 9 trials other antithrombotic agents. Overall, the use of antithrombotic agents was not associated with all-cause mortality (relative risk 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.03). CONCLUSIONS The use of antithrombotics is not associated with all-cause mortality in patients with infectious disease other than COVID-19. Complex pathophysiological interplays between inflammatory and thrombotic pathways may explain these results and need further investigation. REGISTRATION PROSPERO, CRD42021241182.

Aims Statin liver safety in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) patients is not well defined. We analysed differences in liver function tests, including alanine transaminase aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate transaminase (AST) and gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT) in NAFLD patients treated or not treated with statins. Methods We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE via PubMed and EMBASE databases and metanalysis of clinical studies investigating levels of ALT, AST and GGT in NAFLD according to statin treatment. Mean difference (MD) and percentage MD were calculated between the two groups. Results We included 22 studies with 2345 NAFLD patients. Overall, 16 were before-after interventional, five were cross-sectional and one was combined cross-sectional/interventional study. In all interventional studies, except one, patients had raised ALT, AST and GGT at baseline. Interventional studies showed reduced ALT values with an MD reduction of -27.2 U/L (95% CI -35.25/-19.15) and a percentage MD reduction of -35.41% (95% CI -44.78/-26.04). Also, AST values were reduced after statin treatment in interventional studies with an MD of -18.82 U/L (95% CI -25.63/-12.02) (percentage -31.78%, 95% CI -41.45/-22.11). Similarly, GGT levels were reduced after statin treatment with an MD of -19.93 U/L (95% CI -27.10/-12.77) (percentage -25.57%, 95% CI -35.18/-15.97). Cross-sectional studies showed no difference in AST and GGT values between patients treated with and without statins. Conclusion In interventional studies, ALT, AST and GGT were reduced after statin treatment with a percentage mean difference of -35.41%, -31.78% and -25.57%, respectively, while observational studies showed a null effect, suggesting liver safety of statins in NAFLD patients.

Background: It is uncertain whether higher doses of anticoagulants than recommended for thromboprophylaxis are necessary in COVID-19 patients hospitalized in general wards. Methods: This is a multicentre, open-label, randomized trial performed in 9 Italian centres, comparing 40 mg b.i.d. versus 40 mg o.d. enoxaparin in COVID-19 patients, between April 30 2020 and April 25 2021. Primary efficacy outcome was in-hospital incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE): asymptomatic or symptomatic proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) diagnosed by serial compression ultrasonography (CUS), and/or symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosed by computed tomography angiography (CTA). Secondary endpoints included each individual component of the primary efficacy outcome and a composite of death, VTE, mechanical ventilation, stroke, myocardial infarction, admission to ICU. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. Results: The study was interrupted prematurely due to slow recruitment. We included 183 (96%) of the 189 enrolled patients in the primary analysis (91 in b.i.d., 92 in o.d.). Primary efficacy outcome occurred in 6 patients (6.5%, 0 DVT, 6 PE) in the o.d. group and 0 in the b.id. group (ARR 6.5, 95% CI: 1.5–11.6). The absence of concomitant DVT and imaging characteristics suggests that most pulmonary artery occlusions were actually caused by local thrombi rather than PE. Statistically nonsignificant differences in secondary and safety endpoints were observed, with two major bleeding events in each arm. Conclusions: No DVT developed in COVID-19 patients hospitalized in general wards, independently of enoxaparin dosing used for thromboprophylaxis. Pulmonary artery occlusions developed only in the o.d. group. Our trial is underpowered and with few events.

SummaryIt is uncertain whether higher doses of anticoagulants than recommended for thromboprophylaxis are necessary in COVID-19 patients hospitalized in general wards. This is a multicentre, open-label, randomized trial performed in 9 Italian centres, comparing 40 mg b.i.d. vs 40 mg o.d. enoxaparin in COVID-19 patients, between April 30, 2020 and April 25, 2021. Primary efficacy outcome was in-hospital incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE): asymptomatic or symptomatic proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) diagnosed by serial compression ultrasonography (CUS), and/or symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosed by computed tomography angiography (CTA). Secondary endpoints included each individual component of the primary efficacy outcome and a composite of death, VTE, mechanical ventilation, stroke, myocardial infarction, admission to ICU. Safety outcomes included major bleeding. The study was interrupted prematurely due to slow recruitment. We included 183 (96%) of the 189 enrolled patients in the primary analysis (91 in b.i.d., 92 in o.d.). Primary efficacy outcome occurred in 6 patients (6·5%, 0 DVT, 6 PE) in the o.d. group and 0 in the b.id. group (ARR 6·5, 95% CI, 1·5-11·6). Absence of concomitant DVT and imaging characteristics suggest that most pulmonary artery occlusions were actually caused by local thrombi rather than PE. Statistically non-significant differences in secondary and safety endpoints were observed, with two major bleeding events in each arm. In conclusion, no DVT developed in COVID-19 patients hospitalized in general wards, independently of enoxaparin dosing used for thromboprophylaxis. Pulmonary artery occlusions developed only in the o.d. group. Our trial is underpowered and with few events.REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04366960Ethics Commettee approvation number75/2020

Pneumatosis intestinalis (PI) is a rare condition due to the presence of gas within the bowel wall; it is mainly caused by endoscopic procedures, infections and other gastrointestinal diseases. Oncological therapies have been reported to be a cause of PI as well, but their role is not clearly defined. This systematic review investigates the concurrency of PI and antitumor therapy in cancer patients, considering both solid tumors and onco-hematological ones. We performed a literature review of PubMed, Embase and the Web of Science up to September 2021 according to the PRISMA guidelines. A total of 62 papers reporting 88 different episodes were included. PI was mainly reported with targeted therapies (sunitinib and bevacizumab above all) within the first 12 weeks of treatment. This adverse event mostly occurred in the metastatic setting, but in 10 cases, it also occurred also in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting. PI was mostly localized in the large intestine, being fatal in 11 cases, while in the remaining cases, symptoms were usually mild, or even absent. A significant risk of PI reoccurrence after drug reintroduction was also reported (6/18 patients), with no fatal outcomes. Potential pharmacological mechanisms underlying PI pathogenesis are also discussed. In conclusion, although uncommonly, PI can occur during oncological therapies and may lead to life-threatening complications; therefore, consideration of its occurrence among other adverse events is warranted in the presence of clinical suspicion.