Postgraduate medical journal
-
Review Meta Analysis
Efficacy and safety of low dose ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Our aim was to examine clinical trials, provide guidance to practitioners and estimate the efficacy and safety of two agents by comparing low dose ticagrelor with standard dose clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome. We systematically looked through Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Wanfang data and CNKI for trials comparing low dose ticagrelor with standard dose clopidogrel for the treatment of patients with ACS since the database was created. The primary endpoint for efficacy was the rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). ⋯ Platelet reaction units for low dose ticagrelor were much lower than those for standard dose clopidogrel (SMD -2.46, 95% CI -2.85 to -2.07) (p<0.01). In comparison with standard dose clopidogrel, low dose ticagrelor significantly lowered the incidence of MACEs, improved left ventricular ejection fraction, decreased left ventricular end diastolic dimension and did not expand the risk of major bleeding events or minor or minimal bleeding events in ACS patients with a considerable safety and efficacy profile. In addition, low dose ticagrelor was associated with dramatically lower platelet aggregation compared with standard dose clopidogrel.
-
In the summer of 2019, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) declared an emergency of electronic cigarettes and/or vaping (vaping)-associated lung injury (EVALI) in the USA. The outbreak abated by January 2020, which the CDC attributed to heightened public awareness, 'user actions to reduce risk' and potentially the removal of vitamin E acetate (VEA) from vaping products (VEA is an oily chemical cutting agent, strongly associated with the disease). Even though the EVALI outbreak appears to be over, numerous epidemiological and medical questions are left still open. ⋯ Aetiology/epidemiology focused research is needed to investigate/interpret the broader context to explain the outbreak. Third, could any socioeconomic/environmental factors have influenced the course of the outbreak? Finally, what should we expect in the years to come? Was EVALI a serious but reversible emergency medicine condition or is vaping as detrimental to long-term health as smoking? Besides the complex legislative, regulatory, ethical aspects of EVALI, biomedical research is also difficult: in-vitro experiments have limited inferential value to real real-life vaping due to its complexity; user habits are self-reported and under-researched; there is an active black market pouring unknown quality counterfeit products and, in the USA, federal restrictions limit cannabis research. Vaping is a toxicological, multidimensional conundrum; therefore, stringent quality control, transparent legal/ethical boundaries, meticulous international research and user education are paramount to prevent potential future outbreaks and determine the parameters safe vaping (if these exist).