Ibrahim, Ahmed Abdelmoniem

ABSTRACTBackground and ObjectiveSeladelpar is an oral, once‐daily medication that improves cholestasis through its selective peroxisome proliferator‐activated receptor (PPAR‐δ) agonism. It shows promising efficacy in treating primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) patients.MethodsA systematic review and meta‐analysis synthesizing evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) obtained from PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and WOS until July 19th, 2025. Dichotomous outcomes were reported using risk ratio (RR) and continuous outcomes using mean difference (MD), with a 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsThree RCTs with 499 patients were included. Seladelpar was significantly associated with an increased ALP normalization (RR: 21.12 with 95% CI [4.14, 107.58], p < 0.01), biochemical response (RR: 3.06 with 95% CI [2.00, 4.70], p < 0.01), and decreased pruritus NRS score change (MD: −1.47 with 95% CI [−2.73, −0.21], p = 0.02). Seladelpar was also significantly associated with a decreased incidence of pruritus (RR: 0.54 with 95% CI [0.31, 0.94], p = 0.03) but with an increased incidence of headache (RR: 3.37 with 95% CI [1.11, 10.23], p = 0.03). However, there was no significant difference between seladelpar and placebo regarding the incidence of any adverse events (RR: 0.96 with 95% CI [0.87, 1.06], p = 0.43).ConclusionSeladelpar improved liver biomarkers of cholestasis and reduced pruritus in patients with PBC without significantly increasing the adverse effects. This makes seladelpar a promising addition to the treatments available for PBC.Trial Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42024521208

Abstract Background Since pulsed-field ablation (PFA) specifically targets myocardial tissue, it has become a cutting-edge substitute for radiofrequency (RF) and cryoablation. Purpose We aim to compare the safety and efficacy of PFA vs thermal ablation for AF ablation. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational comparative studies, which were retrieved by systematically searching: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Cochrane through September 2023. RevMan version 5.4 software was used to pool dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and continuous data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Results Seventeen studies with a total of 2,255 patients were included. PFA was significantly associated with a decreased AF recurrence (RR: 0.65, 95% CI [0.51, 0.84], P= 0.0010) but not any arrhythmia recurrence (RR: 0.87, 95% CI [0.69, 1.09], P= 0.22). Also, PFA was significantly associated with decreased total procedure time (MD: -15.15, 95% CI [-20.23, -10.07], P&lt; 0.00001) and heart rate (MD: -7.56, 95% CI [-12.78, -2.34], P= 0.005); however, there was no significant difference between PFA and thermal ablation in fluoroscopy time (MD: 2.83, 95% CI [-0.38, 6.04], P= 0.08). PFA decreased phrenic nerve palsy (RR: 0.38, 95% CI [0.15, 0.98], P= 0.05) and esophageal lesions (RR: 0.09, 95% CI [0.01, 0.69], P= 0.02); however, PFA was significantly associated with increased pericardial tamponade (RR: 6.14 with 95% CI [1.43, 26.33], P= 0.01). Conclusion PFA was significantly associated with decreased AF recurrence, heart rate, total procedure time, phrenic nerve palsy, esophageal lesion, and increased incidence of pericardial tamponade compared with thermal ablation. However, current evidence is mainly weighted by observational studies, requiring further large-scale randomized trials.Figure