Pharmacological Management of Diabetes Mellitus: A Century of Expert Opinions in Cecil Textbook of Medicine

PPAR agonists as add-on treatment with metformin in management of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The combination of metformin and the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPAR) agonists offers a promising avenue for managing type 2 diabetes (T2D) through their potential complementary mechanisms of action. The results from randomized controlled trials (RCT) assessing the efficacy of PPAR agonists plus metformin versus metformin alone in T2D are inconsistent, which prompted the conduct of the systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception (1966) to March 2023 to identify all RCTs comparing any PPAR agonists plus metformin versus metformin alone in T2D. Categorical variables were summarized as relative risk along with 95% confidence interval (CI). Twenty RCTs enrolling a total of 6058 patients met the inclusion criteria. The certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. Pooled results show that using PPAR agonist plus metformin, as compared to metformin alone, results in lower concentrations of fasting glucose [MD = - 22.07 mg/dl (95% CI - 27.17, - 16.97), HbA1c [MD = - 0.53% (95% CI - 0.67, - 0.38)], HOMA-IR [MD = - 1.26 (95% CI - 2.16, - 0.37)], and fasting insulin [MD = - 19.83 pmol/L (95% CI - 29.54, - 10.13)] without significant increase in any adverse events. Thus, synthesized evidence from RCTs demonstrates the beneficial effects of PPAR agonist add-on treatment versus metformin alone in T2D patients. In particular, novel dual PPARα/γ agonist (tesaglitazar) demonstrate efficacy in improving glycaemic and lipid concentrations, so further RCTs should be performed to elucidate the long-term outcomes and safety profile of these novel combined and personalized therapeutic strategies in the management of T2D.PROSPERO registration no. CRD42023412603.

Ivermectin under scrutiny: a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and possible sources of controversies in COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients based on current peer-reviewed RCTs and to address disputes over the existing evidence.

METHODS

MEDLINE (Pubmed), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library, Google scholar and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for RCTs assessing the efficacy of Ivermectin up to 20 February 2022. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies was performed based on the PRISMA 2020 statement criteria.

RESULTS

19 and 17 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. There was no significant difference in progression to severe disease (log OR - 0.27 [95% CI - 0.61 to 0.08], I2 = 42.29%), negative RT-PCR (log OR 0.25 [95% CI - 0.18-0.68], I2 = 58.73%), recovery (log OR 0.11 [95% CI - 0.22-0.45], I2 = 13.84%), duration of hospitalization (SMD - 0.40 [95% CI - 0.85-0.06], I2 = 88.90%), time to negative RT-PCR (SMD - 0.36 [95% CI - 0.89-0.17], I2 = 46.2%), and viral load (SMD -0.17 [95% CI -0.45 to 0.12], I^2 = 0%). It is worth noting that, based on low-certainty evidence, ivermectin may possibly reduce mortality (log OR - 0.67 [95% CI - 1.20 to - 0.13], I2 = 28.96%). However, studies with a higher risk of bias were more likely to indicate positive effects on the efficacy of this drug, according to our subgroup analyses based on study quality.

CONCLUSION

Ivermectin did not have any significant effect on outcomes of COVID-19 patients and as WHO recommends, use of ivermectin should be limited to clinical trials.

Pharmacological Management of Obesity: A Century of Expert Opinions in Cecil Textbook of Medicine

BACKGROUND

Innovations in drug therapy for obesity have had a limited impact on the body mass index, prevalence of medical complications, quality of life, and work potential of a substantial majority of affected persons.

STUDY QUESTION

What are the milestones of the changes in the expert approach to the pharmacological management of obesity in the past century?

STUDY DESIGN

To determine the changes in the experts' approach to the management of obesity, as presented in a widely used textbook in the United States.

DATA SOURCES

The primary sources were chapters describing the management of obesity in the 26 editions of Cecil Textbook of Medicine published from 1927 through 2020. Secondary sources were publications retrieved from Medline that clarified technical issues related to the development, regulatory approval, and use of the drugs mentioned in the Cecil Textbook of Medicine.

RESULTS

Pharmacological interventions aimed at increasing caloric expenditures through thermogenesis were recommended from 1927 through 1943. Thyroid extracts were prescribed even in the absence of demonstrated hypothyroidism or decreased basal metabolic rate throughout this period. Dinitrophenol was mentioned in 1937, but was banned soon thereafter. Appetite suppression with amphetamine was considered useful from 1943 through 1988, after which the drug was replaced with other centrally acting molecules, such as fenfluramine in 1988, sibutramine in 2000, and rimonabant in 2008, which were in turn withdrawn because of major adverse effects. In the past decade, obesity has been treated with the appetite suppressants phentermine-topiramate, bupropion-naltrexone, lorcaserin, and liraglutide, and with orlistat, a drug promoting fat malabsorption. The change in weight produced by these drugs is generally modest and transient.

CONCLUSIONS

The pharmacological management of obesity has remained frustratingly inefficient. The reasons for the relative lack of success may reside in the ever-growing access to dense, palatable, and relatively inexpensive food, coupled with the decrease in energy expenditure created by a sedentary lifestyle.

Pharmacological Management of Peptic Ulcer: A Century of Expert Opinions in Cecil Textbook of Medicine

Advances in drug therapy for peptic ulcer have had a significant impact on quality of life and work potential of many millions of affected persons and have contributed to a remarkable decrease in the prevalence of the disease, frequency and severity of complications, hospitalizations, and mortality.