Citations

Abstract Aims Randomized trials comparing percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with oral anticoagulation (OAC) for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation have yielded conflicting results across device generations and anticoagulant eras. This Bayesian meta-analysis of randomized trials aimed to compare LAAO vs. OAC for stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) and non-procedural clinically relevant bleeding (CRB). Methods and results We conducted a systematic search across five databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL) to identify randomized trials of LAAO vs. OAC. Primary outcomes of stroke or systemic embolism, non-procedural CRB and clinical benefit composite were estimated using a Bayesian hierarchical random effects model and findings confirmed across robust sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Posterior probabilities for superiority, non-inferiority and equivalence were estimated using clinically meaningful margins. Six randomized trials including 7004 participants in the intention-to-treat groups, were analysed. LAAO was not associated with lower SSE vs. OAC (pooled RR, 1.11; 95% CrI, 0.80–1.49), with a 74.6% posterior probability of favouring OAC. The posterior probability of crossing non-inferiority was P(HR < 1.4) of 89%. In contrast, LAAO reduced non-procedural CRB (pooled RR, 0.59; 95% CrI, 0.45–0.78). The net clinical benefit composite, pooling contemporary trials, demonstrated a pooled RR of 0.90 (95% CrI 0.51–1.50), with P(RR < 1) of 76%, with substantial heterogeneity for this outcome. Conclusion This Bayesian meta-analysis found no clear evidence supporting clinically meaningful non-inferiority of LAAO over OAC for stroke prevention. Despite reduced non-procedural bleeding, LAAO did not demonstrate a similar reduction in major bleeding.

Background: Vitamin C is a vital nutrient that functions as an antioxidant and is important as a co-factor and regulator of several immune system pathways. The role of vitamin C in the treatment of COVID-19 is largely debatable. We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vitamin C in the treatment of COVID-19. Methods: We searched several electronic databases from inception to March 2023 to retrieve randomized controlled trials on the use of vitamin C for COVID-19. RevMan 5.4 was used to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) along with confidence intervals (95% CI) using a random-effects model. Results: We included nine randomized controlled trials in our meta-analysis. Vitamin C did not reduce the all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 compared to the standard treatment (RR 0.92, 95% CI: 0.83–1.02; I 2 = 1%). Vitamin C was found to be associated with a similar incidence of ventilation in COVID-19 patients when compared to standard treatment (RR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.87–1.11, I 2 = 0%). There were no significant differences between both groups regarding the incidence of hospitalization (RR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.98–1.02; I 2 = 0%), incidence of recovery (RR 1.57, 95% CI: 0.45–5.50; I 2 = 52%), hospital mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI: 0.44–1.06; I 2 = 0%) and length of hospital stay (MD −0.63, 95% CI: −3.04 to 1.78; I 2 = 81%). Conclusion: Vitamin C administration did not reduce all-cause mortality in COVID-19 patients. Additional studies are required to evaluate the role of vitamin C in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 especially in ICU patients.

Vitamin C is a vital nutrient that functions as an antioxidant and is important as a co-factor and regulator of several immune system pathways. The role of vitamin C in the treatment of COVID-19 is largely debatable. We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vitamin C in the treatment of COVID-19. We searched several electronic databases from inception to March 2023 to retrieve randomized controlled trials on the use of Vitamin C for COVID-19. RevMan 5.4 was used to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and Mean Differences (MDs) along with confidence intervals (95% CI) using a random-effects model. We included 9 randomized controlled trials in our meta-analysis. Vitamin C did not reduce the all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 compared to the standard treatment [RR 0.86, 95% CI: 0.65-1.14; I 2 =66%]. Vitamin C was found to be associated with an increased incidence of ventilation in COVID-19 patients when compared to standard treatment [RR 1.37, 95% CI: 1.18-1.59; I 2 =58%]. There were no significant differences between both groups regarding the incidence of hospitalization [RR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.98-1.02; I 2 =0%], incidence of recovery [RR 1.57, 95% CI: 0.45-5.50; I 2 =52%], hospital mortality [RR 0.68, 95% CI: 0.44-1.06; I 2 =0%] and length of hospital stay [MD -0.63, 95% CI: -3.04 to 1.78; I 2 =81%]. Vitamin C administration did not reduce all-cause mortality in COVID-19 patients. Additional studies are required to evaluate the role of Vitamin C in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 especially in ICU patients.