RESUMO

ABSTRACT Introduction Chemotherapy and radiation therapy are considered standard treatments for stage II seminoma patients; however, these therapies are associated with long-term toxicities. Recently, retroperitoneal lymph node dissection has emerged as an alternative strategy, and the first three phase II trials were published in 2023 with promising results. The present study conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate this surgery as an alternative treatment for stage IIA/B seminoma patients. Purpose Seminomas are the most common testicular tumors, often affecting young adult males. Standard treatments for stage II seminomas include chemotherapy and radiation therapy, but these therapies are associated with long-term toxicities. Thus, identifying alternative strategies is paramount. Herein, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to appraise the efficacy and safety of retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) for treating this condition. Methods We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for studies evaluating RPLND as a primary treatment for stage II A/B seminomas. Using a random-effects model, single proportion and means and pooled 2-year recurrence-free survival rates with hazard rates and 95% CI were calculated. Results Seven studies were included, comprising 331 males with stage II seminomas. In the pooled analysis, the recurrence rate was 17.69% (95% CI 12.31-24.75), and the 2-year RFS rate was 81% (95% CI 0.77-0.86). The complication rate was 9.16% (95% CI 6.16-13.42), the Clavien-Dindo > 2 complication rate was 8.83% (95% CI 5.76-13.31), and the retrograde ejaculation rate was 7.01% (95% CI 3.54-13.40). The median operative time was 174.68 min (95% CI 122.17-249.76 min), median blood loss was 105.91 mL (95% CI 46.89-239.22 mL), and patients with no evidence of lymph node involvement ranged from 0-16%. Conclusions Primary RPLNDs for treating stage IIA/B seminomas have favorable RFS rates, with low complication and recurrence rates. These findings provide evidence that this surgery is a viable alternative therapy for these patients.

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are the recommended first-line treatment for left ventricular thrombus (LVT); however, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been considered an alternative therapy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of DOACs compared with VKAs therapy in patients with LVT. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were systematically searched for randomized clinical trials or cohort studies that compared DOACs versus VKAs for LVT. Risk ratios (RRs) were computed for binary endpoints, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Statistical significance was defined as p value < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 4 randomized clinical trials and 29 cohort studies were included, with 4,450 patients assigned to either DOACs or VKAs. There was no significant difference between groups for stroke or systemic embolic (SSE) events (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.07; p = 0.157), stroke (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.11; p = 0.140), systemic embolic (SE) events (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.40 to 1.17; p = 0.166), thrombus resolution (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.11; p = 0.077), any bleeding (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.00; p = 0.054), clinically relevant bleeding (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.03; p = 0.066), minor bleeding (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.23; p = 0.234), major bleeding (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.80; p = 0.705), and all-cause mortality (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.39; p = 0.752). Compared with VKAs, rivaroxaban significantly reduced SSE events (RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.91; p = 0.029) and SE events (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.95; p = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: DOACs had a similar rate of thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events, as well as thrombus resolution, compared to VKAs in the treatment of LVTs. Rivaroxaban therapy had a significant reduction in thromboembolic events, compared to VKAs.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Resumo Fundamento Os antagonistas da vitamina K (AVKs) são o tratamento de primeira linha recomendado para trombo ventricular esquerdo (TVE); entretanto, os anticoagulantes orais diretos (AODs) têm sido considerados uma terapia alternativa. Objetivos Avaliar a eficácia e a segurança dos AODs em comparação com a terapia com AVKs em pacientes com TVE. Métodos PubMed, Embase e Cochrane foram sistematicamente pesquisados em busca de ensaios clínicos randomizados ou estudos de coorte que comparassem AODs versus AVKs para TVE. As razões de risco (RR) foram calculadas para desfechos binários, com intervalos de confiança (IC) de 95%. A significância estatística foi definida como valor de p < 0,05. Resultados Foram incluídos um total de 4 ensaios clínicos randomizados e 29 estudos de coorte, com 4.450 pacientes designados para AODs ou AVKs. Não houve diferença significativa entre os grupos para acidente vascular cerebral ou eventos embólicos sistêmicos (AVC/EES) (RR 0,84; IC 95% 0,65 a 1,07; p = 0,157), acidente vascular cerebral (RR 0,73; IC 95% 0,48 a 1,11; p = 0,140), eventos embólicos sistêmicos (EES) (RR 0,69; IC 95% 0,40 a 1,17; p = 0,166), resolução do trombo (RR 1,05; IC 95% 0,99 a 1,11; p = 0,077), qualquer sangramento (RR 0,78; IC 95% 0,60 a 1,00; p = 0,054), sangramento clinicamente relevante (RR 0,69; IC 95% 0,46 a 1,03; p = 0,066), sangramento menor (RR 0,73; IC 95% 0,43 a 1,23; p = 0,234), sangramento maior (RR 0,87; IC 95% 0,42 a 1,80; p = 0,705) e mortalidade por todas as causas (RR 1,05; IC 95% 0,79 a 1,39; p = 0,752). Em comparação com AVKs, a rivaroxabana reduziu significativamente AVC/EES (RR 0,35; IC 95% 0,16 a 0,91; p = 0,029) e EES (RR 0,39; IC 95% 0,16 a 0,95; p = 0,037). Conclusões Os AODs tiveram uma taxa semelhante de eventos tromboembólicos e hemorrágicos, bem como de resolução do trombo, em comparação com os AVKs no tratamento de TVE. A terapia com rivaroxabana teve uma redução significativa nos eventos tromboembólicos, em comparação com os AVKs.

Abstract Background Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are the recommended first-line treatment for left ventricular thrombus (LVT); however, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been considered an alternative therapy. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and safety of DOACs compared with VKAs therapy in patients with LVT. Methods PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were systematically searched for randomized clinical trials or cohort studies that compared DOACs versus VKAs for LVT. Risk ratios (RRs) were computed for binary endpoints, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Statistical significance was defined as p value < 0.05. Results A total of 4 randomized clinical trials and 29 cohort studies were included, with 4,450 patients assigned to either DOACs or VKAs. There was no significant difference between groups for stroke or systemic embolic (SSE) events (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.07; p = 0.157), stroke (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.11; p = 0.140), systemic embolic (SE) events (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.40 to 1.17; p = 0.166), thrombus resolution (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.11; p = 0.077), any bleeding (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.00; p = 0.054), clinically relevant bleeding (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.03; p = 0.066), minor bleeding (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.23; p = 0.234), major bleeding (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.80; p = 0.705), and all-cause mortality (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.39; p = 0.752). Compared with VKAs, rivaroxaban significantly reduced SSE events (RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.91; p = 0.029) and SE events (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.95; p = 0.037). Conclusions DOACs had a similar rate of thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events, as well as thrombus resolution, compared to VKAs in the treatment of LVTs. Rivaroxaban therapy had a significant reduction in thromboembolic events, compared to VKAs.

RESUMO

The efficacy and safety of hybrid ablation (HA) for patients with non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) remain unclear. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HA (endo-epicardial ablation) versus endocardial ablation (EA) for patients with persistent/long-standing persistent AF. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled. Our meta-analysis included 3 RCTs comprising 358 patients, of whom 233 (65.1%) were randomized to HA. Compared with EA, HA reduced the recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.41-0.69; p < 0.01) but had no subgroup interaction according to AF type (p = 0.90). There was no significant difference in major adverse events (RR 1.22; 95% CI 0.46-3.25; p = 0.68). Trial sequential analysis indicates that the observed effects can be deemed conclusive. In conclusion, in patients with persistent/long-standing persistent AF, HA substantially reduced the recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias. Notably, patients with long-standing persistent AF may benefit more from this ablation strategy.

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy and radiation therapy are considered standard treatments for stage II seminoma patients; however, these therapies are associated with long-term toxicities. Recently, retroperitoneal lymph node dissection has emerged as an alternative strategy, and the first three phase II trials were published in 2023 with promising results. The present study conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate this surgery as an alternative treatment for stage IIA/B seminoma patients. PURPOSE: Seminomas are the most common testicular tumors, often affecting young adult males. Standard treatments for stage II seminomas include chemotherapy and radiation therapy, but these therapies are associated with long-term toxicities. Thus, identifying alternative strategies is paramount. Herein, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to appraise the efficacy and safety of retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) for treating this condition. METHODS: We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for studies evaluating RPLND as a primary treatment for stage II A/B seminomas. Using a random-effects model, single proportion and means and pooled 2-year recurrence-free survival rates with hazard rates and 95% CI were calculated. RESULTS: Seven studies were included, comprising 331 males with stage II seminomas. In the pooled analysis, the recurrence rate was 17.69% (95% CI 12.31-24.75), and the 2-year RFS rate was 81% (95% CI 0.77-0.86). The complication rate was 9.16% (95% CI 6.16-13.42), the Clavien-Dindo > 2 complication rate was 8.83% (95% CI 5.76-13.31), and the retrograde ejaculation rate was 7.01% (95% CI 3.54-13.40). The median operative time was 174.68 min (95% CI 122.17-249.76 min), median blood loss was 105.91 mL (95% CI 46.89-239.22 mL), and patients with no evidence of lymph node involvement ranged from 0-16%. CONCLUSIONS: Primary RPLNDs for treating stage IIA/B seminomas have favorable RFS rates, with low complication and recurrence rates. These findings provide evidence that this surgery is a viable alternative therapy for these patients.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with hypercoagulability. It remains uncertain whether ongoing anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients who later contract COVID-19 improves clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To compare chronic oral anticoagulation with no previous anticoagulation in patients with AF who contracted a COVID-19 infection concerning the outcomes of all-cause mortality, COVID-19 mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and hospitalization. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for eligible studies from inception to December 2022. We included studies comparing COVID-19 outcomes in patients with versus without prior chronic anticoagulation for AF. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled with a random-effects model. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. Quality assessment and risk of bias were performed according to Cochrane recommendations. RESULTS: Ten studies comprising 1,177,858 patients with COVID-19 and AF were identified, of whom 893,772 (75.9%) were on prior chronic anticoagulation for AF. In patients with COVID-19, being on chronic anticoagulation for AF significantly reduced all-cause mortality (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.99; p = 0.048; I2 = 89%) and COVID-19-related mortality (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.79; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%) when compared with no prior anticoagulation. In contrast, there was no difference between groups regarding hospitalization (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.41; p = 0.587; I2 = 95%) or ICU admission (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; p = 0.216; I2 = 69%). CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, chronic anticoagulation for patients with AF who contracted COVID-19 was associated with significantly lower rates of all-cause mortality and COVID-19-related mortality as compared with no previous anticoagulation.

FUNDAMENTO: A doença por coronavírus 2019 (COVID-19) está associada à hipercoagulabilidade. Permanece incerto se a anticoagulação contínua para fibrilação atrial (FA) em pacientes que posteriormente contraem COVID-19 melhora os desfechos clínicos. OBJETIVOS: Comparar a anticoagulação oral crônica com ausência de anticoagulação prévia em pacientes com FA que contraíram uma infecção por COVID-19 em relação aos desfechos de mortalidade por todas as causas, mortalidade por COVID-19, admissão em unidade de terapia intensiva (UTI) e hospitalização. MÉTODOS: Buscamos sistematicamente no PubMed, Embase e Cochrane Library estudos elegíveis desde o início até dezembro de 2022. Incluímos estudos que compararam desfechos de COVID-19 em pacientes com e sem anticoagulação crônica prévia para FA. Foram agrupadas razões de risco (RR) com intervalos de confiança (IC) de 95% por meio de um modelo de efeitos aleatórios. O nível de significância foi estabelecido em p < 0,05. As avaliações da qualidade e do risco de viés foram realizadas de acordo com as recomendações da Cochrane. RESULTADOS: Foram identificados 10 estudos abrangendo 1.177.858 pacientes com COVID-19 e FA, dos quais 893.772 (75,9%) estavam em anticoagulação crônica prévia para FA. Em pacientes com COVID-19, a anticoagulação crônica para FA reduziu significativamente a mortalidade por todas as causas (RR 0,75; IC 95% 0,57 a 0,99; p = 0,048; I2 = 89%) e a mortalidade relacionada à COVID-19 (RR 0,76; IC 95% 0,72 a 0,79; p < 0,001; I2 = 0%) quando comparada com a ausência de anticoagulação prévia. Em contrapartida, não houve diferença entre os grupos em relação à hospitalização (RR 1,08; IC 95% 0,82 a 1,41; p = 0,587; I2 = 95%) ou internação em UTI (RR 0,86; IC 95% 0,68 a 1,09; p = 0,216; I2 = 69%). CONCLUSÕES: Nesta metanálise, a anticoagulação crônica para pacientes com FA que contraíram COVID-19 foi associada a taxas significativamente mais baixas de mortalidade por todas as causas e mortalidade relacionada à COVID-19 em comparação com a ausência de anticoagulação anterior.

Assuntos

RESUMO

Resumo Fundamento: A doença por coronavírus 2019 (COVID-19) está associada à hipercoagulabilidade. Permanece incerto se a anticoagulação contínua para fibrilação atrial (FA) em pacientes que posteriormente contraem COVID-19 melhora os desfechos clínicos. Objetivos: Comparar a anticoagulação oral crônica com ausência de anticoagulação prévia em pacientes com FA que contraíram uma infecção por COVID-19 em relação aos desfechos de mortalidade por todas as causas, mortalidade por COVID-19, admissão em unidade de terapia intensiva (UTI) e hospitalização. Métodos: Buscamos sistematicamente no PubMed, Embase e Cochrane Library estudos elegíveis desde o início até dezembro de 2022. Incluímos estudos que compararam desfechos de COVID-19 em pacientes com e sem anticoagulação crônica prévia para FA. Foram agrupadas razões de risco (RR) com intervalos de confiança (IC) de 95% por meio de um modelo de efeitos aleatórios. O nível de significância foi estabelecido em p < 0,05. As avaliações da qualidade e do risco de viés foram realizadas de acordo com as recomendações da Cochrane. Resultados: Foram identificados 10 estudos abrangendo 1.177.858 pacientes com COVID-19 e FA, dos quais 893.772 (75,9%) estavam em anticoagulação crônica prévia para FA. Em pacientes com COVID-19, a anticoagulação crônica para FA reduziu significativamente a mortalidade por todas as causas (RR 0,75; IC 95% 0,57 a 0,99; p = 0,048; I2 = 89%) e a mortalidade relacionada à COVID-19 (RR 0,76; IC 95% 0,72 a 0,79; p < 0,001; I2 = 0%) quando comparada com a ausência de anticoagulação prévia. Em contrapartida, não houve diferença entre os grupos em relação à hospitalização (RR 1,08; IC 95% 0,82 a 1,41; p = 0,587; I2 = 95%) ou internação em UTI (RR 0,86; IC 95% 0,68 a 1,09; p = 0,216; I2 = 69%). Conclusões: Nesta metanálise, a anticoagulação crônica para pacientes com FA que contraíram COVID-19 foi associada a taxas significativamente mais baixas de mortalidade por todas as causas e mortalidade relacionada à COVID-19 em comparação com a ausência de anticoagulação anterior.

Abstract Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with hypercoagulability. It remains uncertain whether ongoing anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients who later contract COVID-19 improves clinical outcomes. Objectives: To compare chronic oral anticoagulation with no previous anticoagulation in patients with AF who contracted a COVID-19 infection concerning the outcomes of all-cause mortality, COVID-19 mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and hospitalization. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for eligible studies from inception to December 2022. We included studies comparing COVID-19 outcomes in patients with versus without prior chronic anticoagulation for AF. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled with a random-effects model. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. Quality assessment and risk of bias were performed according to Cochrane recommendations. Results: Ten studies comprising 1,177,858 patients with COVID-19 and AF were identified, of whom 893,772 (75.9%) were on prior chronic anticoagulation for AF. In patients with COVID-19, being on chronic anticoagulation for AF significantly reduced all-cause mortality (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.99; p = 0.048; I2 = 89%) and COVID-19-related mortality (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.79; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%) when compared with no prior anticoagulation. In contrast, there was no difference between groups regarding hospitalization (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.41; p = 0.587; I2 = 95%) or ICU admission (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; p = 0.216; I2 = 69%). Conclusions: In this meta-analysis, chronic anticoagulation for patients with AF who contracted COVID-19 was associated with significantly lower rates of all-cause mortality and COVID-19-related mortality as compared with no previous anticoagulation.

RESUMO

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Remote monitoring (RM) is the standard of care for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), particularly pacemakers. However, the long-term outcomes of RM versus conventional monitoring (CM) of pacemakers and its effectiveness in reducing in-office (IO) visits for device reprogramming require elucidation. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the RM and CM of pacemakers over a long-term follow-up. RECENT FINDINGS: We systematically searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RM and CM of pacemakers with at least 12 months of follow-up. Binary endpoints were pooled with risk ratios (RRs), whereas continuous outcomes were computed using mean differences (MDs) or standardized MDs (SMDs). Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. Among the eight included RCTs, 2159 (48.9%) of 4063 patients underwent RM. Follow-up periods ranged from 12 to 24 months. There were no significant between-group differences in all-cause mortality (RR = 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.57; p = 0.22; I2 = 0%), stroke (RR = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.43-1.91; p = 0.79; I2 = 23%), hospitalizations for cardiovascular and/or device-related adverse events (RR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75-1.21; p = 0.70; I2 = 0%), and quality of life (SMD = - 0.06; 95% CI, - 0.22 to 0.10; p = 0.473; I2 = 0%). RM was associated with fewer IO visits/patient/year (MD = 0.98; 95% CI, - 1.64 to - 0.33; p = 0.08; I2 = 98%) and higher rates of atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATA) detection (RR = 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48; p = 0.04; I2 = 0%) than was CM. This meta-analysis suggests that RM of pacemakers leads to higher rates of ATA detection and fewer IO visits/patient/year, without compromising patient safety.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Pretreatment with oral P2Y12 inhibitors is a standard practice for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the efficacy and safety of P2Y12 inhibitors pretreatment remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the impact of P2Y12 inhibitor pretreatment on thrombotic and hemorrhagic endpoints in STEMI patients. METHODS: We searched multiple databases for studies that compared P2Y12 inhibitor pretreatment with no pretreatment in STEMI patients and reported endpoints of interest. Random effects model was used for the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Our meta-analysis included 3 randomized controlled trials and 14 observational studies, comprising 70,465 patients assigned to either P2Y12 inhibitor pretreatment (50,328 patients) or no pretreatment (20,137 patients). Compared to no pretreatment, P2Y12 inhibitor pretreatment did not result in significant reductions in all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52-1.03; p = 0.07), myocardial infarction (RR 0.75; 95% CI: 0.53-1.07; p = 0.11), or major bleeding (RR 0.80; 95% CI: 0.56-1.16; p = 0.22) at 30 days. However, our subgroup analysis revealed that P2Y12 inhibitor pretreatment administered in the pre-hospital setting was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of myocardial infarction compared to no pretreatment (RR 0.73; 95% CI: 0.56-0.91; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Our analysis suggests that pretreatment with oral P2Y12 inhibitors before PCI in patients with STEMI was not associated with reduced all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or major bleeding. However, pretreatment with P2Y12 inhibitors in the pre-hospital setting appears to be beneficial in reducing reinfarction.

Assuntos

RESUMO

AIM: To assess the efficacy of bexagliflozin in reducing glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and the occurrence of side effects in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials published up until 15 February 2023. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c. We computed weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for binary endpoints, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of six studies and 3111 patients were included, of whom 1951 were prescribed bexagliflozin. Compared with placebo, bexagliflozin significantly reduced HbA1c levels (WMD -0.53%; 95% CI -0.75, -0.31), fasting plasma glucose levels (WMD -1.45 mmol/L; 95% CI -2.32, -0.57), systolic blood pressure (WMD -4.66 mmHg; 95% CI -6.41, -2.92), diastolic blood pressure (WMD -2.12 mmHg; 95% CI -3.94, -0.30), body weight overall (WMD -1.61 kg; 95% CI -2.14, -1.07), and body weight in patients with a body mass index >25 kg/m2 (WMD -2.05 kg; 95% CI -2.78, -1.31). The proportion of patients who achieved HbA1c < 7% was higher in patients who received bexagliflozin as compared with placebo (OR 1.94; 95% CI 1.36-2.78). There were no significant differences between groups regarding side effects such as hypoglycaemia, genital mycotic infection, urinary tract infection, diarrhoea, headache, nausea, polyuria, diabetic ketoacidosis, or all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, the use of bexagliflozin was associated with improved clinical and laboratory measures in patients with T2DM compared with placebo, with a similar profile of side effects. These findings support the efficacy of bexagliflozin in the treatment of T2DM.

Assuntos