Effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on kidney and cardiovascular disease outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

GLP-1 receptor agonists reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and can also have kidney benefits. However, whether GLP-1 receptor agonists improve clinically important kidney outcomes remains uncertain. We aimed to comprehensively assess the effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on kidney and cardiovascular disease outcomes by performing a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. For this meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomised controlled trials that included at least 500 participants with type 2 diabetes, compared a GLP-1 receptor agonist with placebo with at least 12 months of follow-up, and reported a primary clinical kidney or cardiovascular outcome, from database inception to March 26, 2024. Post hoc, we included the SELECT trial (NCT03574597), which enrolled participants with cardiovascular disease and a BMI of 27 kg/m2 or more without diabetes. Study-level summary data were extracted independently by two authors for inclusion in this random-effects analysis. The main kidney outcome was a composite outcome, consisting of kidney failure (kidney replacement therapy or a persistent estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] <15 mL/min per 1·73 m2), a sustained reduction in eGFR by at least 50% or the nearest equivalent, or death from kidney failure. The main cardiovascular outcome was MACE, consisting of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42024528864. Of the 5140 records identified through the literature search, 11 trials, involving 85 373 participants (29 386 female, 55 987 male), were included in the meta-analysis. In participants with type 2 diabetes (67 769), GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced the composite kidney outcome by 18% compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·82, 95% CI 0·73-0·93; I2 =26·41%), kidney failure by 16% (HR 0·84, 0·72-0·99; I2 =0%), MACE by 13% (HR 0·87, 0·81-0·93; I2 =49·75%), and all-cause death by 12% (HR 0·88, 0·83-0·93; I2 =0%). The effect on the composite kidney outcome (HR 0·81, 95% CI 0·72-0·92; I2 =23·11%), kidney failure (HR 0·84, 0·72-0·98; I2 =0%), MACE (HR 0·86, 0·80-0·92; I2 =48·9%), and all-cause death (HR 0·87, 0·82-0·91; I2 =0%) was similar when the SELECT trial was included, with no evidence of heterogeneity between this trial and those including participants with type 2 diabetes (pheterogeneity >0·05). There was no difference in the risk of serious adverse events, including acute pancreatitis and severe hypoglycaemia, between the GLP-1 receptor agonist and placebo groups (risk ratio [RR] 0·95, 95% CI 0·90-1·01; I2 =88·5%). However, treatment discontinuation due to adverse events occurred more frequently in the GLP-1 receptor agonist groups (RR 1·51, 95% CI 1·18-1·94; I2 =96·3%). We found evidence that GLP-1 receptor agonists significantly reduce clinically important kidney events, kidney failure, and cardiovascular events. None.

Badve SV ，Bilal A ，Lee MMY ，Sattar N ，Gerstein HC ，Ruff CT ，McMurray JJV ，Rossing P ，Bakris G ，Mahaffey KW ，Mann JFE ，Colhoun HM ，Tuttle KR ，Pratley RE ，Perkovic V ... -  《-》

Antioxidants for female subfertility.

M.G. Showell, R. Mackenzie‐Proctor, V. Jordan, and R.J. Hart, “Antioxidants for Female Subfertility,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 8 (2020): CD007807, https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007807.pub4 This Editorial Note is for the above article, published online on August 27, 2020, in Cochrane Library (cochranelibrary.com), and has been issued by the Publisher, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, in agreement with Cochrane. The Editorial note has been agreed due to concerns discovered by the Cochrane managing editor regarding the retraction of six studies in the Review (Badawy et al. 2006, 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.02.097; El Refaeey et al. 2014, 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.03.011; El Sharkwy & Abd El Aziz 2019a, https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12902; Gerli et al. 2007, https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202309_33752, full text: https://europepmc.org/article/MED/18074942; Ismail et al. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.06.008; Hashemi et al. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1372413). In addition, expressions of concern have been published for two studies (Jamilian et al. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-017-1236-3; Zadeh Modarres 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-017-1148-2). The retracted studies will be moved to the Excluded Studies table, and their impact on the review findings will be investigated and acted on accordingly in a future update. Initial checks indicate that removal of the six retracted studies did not make an appreciable difference to the results. Likewise, the studies for which Expressions of Concern were issued will be moved to the Awaiting classification table; they did not report any review outcomes, so removal will have no impact on the review findings. A couple may be considered to have fertility problems if they have been trying to conceive for over a year with no success. This may affect up to a quarter of all couples planning a child. It is estimated that for 40% to 50% of couples, subfertility may result from factors affecting women. Antioxidants are thought to reduce the oxidative stress brought on by these conditions. Currently, limited evidence suggests that antioxidants improve fertility, and trials have explored this area with varied results. This review assesses the evidence for the effectiveness of different antioxidants in female subfertility. To determine whether supplementary oral antioxidants compared with placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant improve fertility outcomes for subfertile women. We searched the following databases (from their inception to September 2019), with no language or date restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED. We checked reference lists of relevant studies and searched the trial registers. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment or treatment with another antioxidant, among women attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded trials comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and trials that only included fertile women attending a fertility clinic because of male partner infertility. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates and adverse events. We included 63 trials involving 7760 women. Investigators compared oral antioxidants, including: combinations of antioxidants, N-acetylcysteine, melatonin, L-arginine, myo-inositol, carnitine, selenium, vitamin E, vitamin B complex, vitamin C, vitamin D+calcium, CoQ10, and omega-3-polyunsaturated fatty acids versus placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant. Only 27 of the 63 included trials reported funding sources. Due to the very low-quality of the evidence we are uncertain whether antioxidants improve live birth rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (odds ratio (OR) 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 2.43; P < 0.001, I2 = 29%; 13 RCTs, 1227 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live birth rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 24% and 36%. Low-quality evidence suggests that antioxidants may improve clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.89; P < 0.001, I2 = 63%; 35 RCTs, 5165 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 25% and 30%. Heterogeneity was moderately high. Overall 28 trials reported on various adverse events in the meta-analysis. The evidence suggests that the use of antioxidants makes no difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.55; P = 0.46, I2 = 0%; 24 RCTs, 3229 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of multiple pregnancy (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.56; P = 0.99, I2 = 0%; 9 RCTs, 1886 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of gastrointestinal disturbances (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.10; P = 0.47, I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, 343 women; low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence showed that there was also no difference between the groups in rates of ectopic pregnancy (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.27 to 7.20; P = 0.69, I2 = 0%; 4 RCTs, 404 women). In the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison, low-quality evidence shows no difference in a lower dose of melatonin being associated with an increased live-birth rate compared with higher-dose melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live-birth rate of 24%, the rate among women using a lower dose of melatonin compared to a higher dose would be between 12% and 40%. Similarly with clinical pregnancy, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates between a lower and a higher dose of melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). Three trials reported on miscarriage in the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison (two used doses of melatonin and one compared N-acetylcysteine versus L-carnitine). There were no miscarriages in either melatonin trial. Multiple pregnancy and gastrointestinal disturbances were not reported, and ectopic pregnancy was reported by only one trial, with no events. The study comparing N-acetylcysteine with L-carnitine did not report live birth rate. Very low-quality evidence shows no evidence of a difference in clinical pregnancy (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.00; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). Low quality evidence shows no difference in miscarriage (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.67; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). The study did not report multiple pregnancy, gastrointestinal disturbances or ectopic pregnancy. The overall quality of evidence was limited by serious risk of bias associated with poor reporting of methods, imprecision and inconsistency. In this review, there was low- to very low-quality evidence to show that taking an antioxidant may benefit subfertile women. Overall, there is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, multiple births, gastrointestinal effects or ectopic pregnancies, but evidence was of very low quality. At this time, there is limited evidence in support of supplemental oral antioxidants for subfertile women.

Showell MG ，Mackenzie-Proctor R ，Jordan V ，Hart RJ ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Cardiovascular, Kidney, and Safety Outcomes With GLP-1 Receptor Agonists Alone and in Combination With SGLT2 Inhibitors in Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Neuen BL ，Fletcher RA ，Heath L ，Perkovic A ，Vaduganathan M ，Badve SV ，Tuttle KR ，Pratley R ，Gerstein HC ，Perkovic V ，Heerspink HJL ... -  《-》

HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) for people with chronic kidney disease not requiring dialysis.

Cardiovascular disease is the most frequent cause of death in people with early stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD), and the absolute risk of cardiovascular events is similar to people with coronary artery disease. This is an update of a review first published in 2009 and updated in 2014, which included 50 studies (45,285 participants). To evaluate the benefits and harms of statins compared with placebo, no treatment, standard care or another statin in adults with CKD not requiring dialysis. We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 4 October 2023. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. An updated search will be undertaken every three months. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared the effects of statins with placebo, no treatment, standard care, or other statins, on death, cardiovascular events, kidney function, toxicity, and lipid levels in adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 90 to 15 mL/min/1.73 m2) were included. Two or more authors independently extracted data and assessed the study risk of bias. Treatment effects were expressed as mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous benefits and harms with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We included 63 studies (50,725 randomised participants); of these, 53 studies (42,752 participants) compared statins with placebo or no treatment. The median duration of follow-up was 12 months (range 2 to 64.8 months), the median dosage of statin was equivalent to 20 mg/day of simvastatin, and participants had a median eGFR of 55 mL/min/1.73 m2. Ten studies (7973 participants) compared two different statin regimens. We were able to meta-analyse 43 studies (41,273 participants). Most studies had limited reporting and hence exhibited unclear risk of bias in most domains. Compared with placebo or standard of care, statins prevent major cardiovascular events (14 studies, 36,156 participants: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.79; I2 = 39%; high certainty evidence), death (13 studies, 34,978 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96; I² = 53%; high certainty evidence), cardiovascular death (8 studies, 19,112 participants: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.87; I² = 0%; high certainty evidence) and myocardial infarction (10 studies, 9475 participants: RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.73; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). There were too few events to determine if statins made a difference in hospitalisation due to heart failure. Statins probably make little or no difference to stroke (7 studies, 9115 participants: RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.08; I² = 39%; moderate certainty evidence) and kidney failure (3 studies, 6704 participants: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.05; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence) in people with CKD not requiring dialysis. Potential harms from statins were limited by a lack of systematic reporting. Statins compared to placebo may have little or no effect on elevated liver enzymes (7 studies, 7991 participants: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.50; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence), withdrawal due to adverse events (13 studies, 4219 participants: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.60; I² = 37%; low certainty evidence), and cancer (2 studies, 5581 participants: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). However, few studies reported rhabdomyolysis or elevated creatinine kinase; hence, we are unable to determine the effect due to very low certainty evidence. Statins reduce the risk of death, major cardiovascular events, and myocardial infarction in people with CKD who did not have cardiovascular disease at baseline (primary prevention). There was insufficient data to determine the benefits and harms of the type of statin therapy. Statins reduce death and major cardiovascular events by about 20% and probably make no difference to stroke or kidney failure in people with CKD not requiring dialysis. However, due to limited reporting, the effect of statins on elevated creatinine kinase or rhabdomyolysis is unclear. Statins have an important role in the primary prevention of cardiovascular events and death in people who have CKD and do not require dialysis. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. We will search for new evidence every three months and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Tunnicliffe DJ ，Palmer SC ，Cashmore BA ，Saglimbene VM ，Krishnasamy R ，Lambert K ，Johnson DW ，Craig JC ，Strippoli GF ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Cell salvage for the management of postpartum haemorrhage.

Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), defined as a blood loss of 500 mL or more within 24 hours of birth, is the leading global cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. Allogenic blood transfusions are a critical component of PPH management, yet are often unfeasible, particularly in resource-poor settings where maternal morbidity is highest. Autologous cell salvage in the management of PPH has been proposed to combat limitations in access to allogenic blood and potential transfusion-related risks. This review examines the benefits and harms of using cell salvage for pregnant women during birth. To assess the benefits and harms of cell salvage when used during birth. We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and Global Index Medicus databases and the ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers. We also carried out reference checking and citation searching, and contacted study authors to identify all relevant studies. The latest search date was 8 February 2024. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in pregnant women (24 weeks or more gestation) comparing use of cell salvage following caesarean or vaginal birth with routine care (defined as no cell salvage). We did not place any restrictions on mode of birth, ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, education level, or place of residence. Critical outcomes for this review were risk of allogenic blood transfusion, risk of transfusion-related adverse reactions, risk of haemorrhage, transfer to higher level of care, length of hospitalisation, length of operation, and risk of sepsis. Important outcomes were estimated blood loss, blood loss ≥ 500 mL, blood loss ≥ 1000 mL, use of additional uterotonics or tranexamic acid, maternal death, postpartum haemoglobin concentration, change in haemoglobin, major surgery including hysterectomy, future major surgery, end-organ dysfunction or failure, amniotic fluid embolism, side effects, clotting abnormalities, maternal experience/satisfaction, maternal well-being, and breastfeeding. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 1) for each critical outcome from each RCT. We conducted a meta-analysis for each outcome where data were available from more than one study using a random-effects model. If data could not be analysed using meta-analysis, we synthesised results narratively using the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidance. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. We included six RCTs with 3476 participants. All trials involved pregnant women having a caesarean birth. Three trials were conducted in high-income countries, and three were conducted in an upper-middle-income country. Allogenic blood transfusion Intraoperative cell salvage at caesarean birth may reduce the need for allogenic transfusions received by participants, although the 95% confidence interval (CI) includes the possibility of an increase in effect. Low-certainty evidence from three studies found the risk of donor transfusions was possibly lower in participants with cell salvage (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.33; P = 0.15, I2 = 33%; 3 RCTs, 3115 women; low-certainty evidence). The absolute risk of transfusion was very low in the studies (4% in women not treated with cell salvage and 2% in women treated with cell salvage). Transfusion-related adverse reactions The evidence is very uncertain about the risk of transfusion-related adverse reactions in participants with intraoperative cell salvage (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.62; P = 0.39; 4 RCTs, 3304 women; very low-certainty evidence). Haemorrhage Two studies reported risk of haemorrhage and found that there was probably no difference between arms (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.15; P = 0.36, I² = 0%; 2 RCTs, 3077 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Length of hospitalisation The evidence is very uncertain about whether interoperative cell salvage at caesarean birth affects length of hospitalisation. Three studies reported length of hospitalisation (MD -2.02 days, 95% CI -4.73 to 0.70; P = 0.15, I2 = 100%; 3 RCTs, 3174 women; very low-certainty evidence). Length of operation Two studies reported on length of operation. However, meta-analysis was not possible due to statistical heterogeneity and divergence of study findings; the direction of effect could not be determined. We evaluated the evidence as very low certainty. Sepsis One study reported risk of sepsis, finding that there was possibly no difference between arms (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.29; P = 0.99; 1 RCT, 2990 women; low-certainty evidence). Estimated blood loss Cell salvage at caesarean birth may reduce blood loss. Two studies reported that estimated blood loss was possibly lower in women who had cell salvage compared to those who did not (MD -113.59 mL, 95% CI -130.41 to -96.77; P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 246 women; low-certainty evidence). Postpartum haemoglobin concentration Cell salvage at caesarean birth may increase day one postpartum haemoglobin. Three studies reported day one postpartum haemoglobin levels (MD 6.14 g/L, 95% CI 1.62 to 10.65; P = 0.008, I2 = 97%; 3 RCTs, 3070 women; low-certainty evidence). Amniotic fluid embolism Three trials reported risk of amniotic fluid embolism and no cases were observed (n = 3226 women). Cell salvage may reduce the need for allogenic blood transfusion, may reduce blood loss, and may increase day one postpartum haemoglobin in pregnant women having caesarean birth (low certainty). Cell salvage may make little to no difference to the risk of sepsis (low certainty) and probably makes little to no difference to the risk of haemorrhage (moderate certainty). The effect of cell salvage on risk of transfusion-related adverse reactions is very uncertain. The effect of cell salvage on the length of hospital stay was both clinically and statistically heterogenous, with a very low certainty of evidence. The effect of cell salvage on length of operation is divergent and meta-analysis was not possible due to significant statistical heterogeneity; the evidence is of very low certainty. No cases of amniotic fluid embolism were reported among the included trials. Studies in low- and middle-income settings are needed. This review had no dedicated funding. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024554204).

Dey T ，Brown D ，Cole MG ，Hill RA ，Chaplin M ，Huffstetler HE ，Curtis F ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》