Statins represent the first-line therapy for cholesterol management. However, for patients prone to statin side effects, unable to tolerate higher doses, or requiring additional low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction, ezetimibe alone or in combination with statins is recommended. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of combining lowor moderate-intensity statins with ezetimibe compared to high-intensity statin monotherapy, yielding reliable evidence to guide clinical decision-making and personalize treatment strategies. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were systematically searched from inception until May 2023. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a high-intensity statin with a low/ moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe were included. The outcomes of interest comprised changes in concentrations of lipids—LDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), and triglycerides (TGs)—and apolipoprotein (Apo) A1, Apo B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), along with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). All data were analyzed using Review Manager version 5.4. p-values less than 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance. Overall, 20 RCTs, with 5,412 participants, were included. A low/moderate-intensity statin combined with ezetimibe yielded a significantly greater reduction in LDL-C levels than high-intensity statin monotherapy (mean difference [MD], −6.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], −10.95, −2.24; p=0.003; I 2 =84%). No significant differences were observed between combination and high-intensity statin monotherapy regarding TC, TG, or HDL-C levels. However, hs-CRP levels were significantly higher with combination therapy (MD, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.01, 0.64; p=0.04; I 2 =0%). Combination therapy involving a low/moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe was significantly associated with lower LDL-C levels than high-intensity statin monotherapy. No significant differences were observed for TC, TGs, HDL-C, alanine transaminase, or MACE. However, creatine phosphokinase levels significantly increased with monotherapy.

Statins represent the first-line therapy for cholesterol management. However, for patients prone to statin side effects, unable to tolerate higher doses, or requiring additional low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction, ezetimibe alone or in combination with statins is recommended. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of combining lowor moderate-intensity statins with ezetimibe compared to high-intensity statin monotherapy, yielding reliable evidence to guide clinical decision-making and personalize treatment strategies. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were systematically searched from inception until May 2023. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a high-intensity statin with a low/ moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe were included. The outcomes of interest comprised changes in concentrations of lipids—LDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), and triglycerides (TGs)—and apolipoprotein (Apo) A1, Apo B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), along with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). All data were analyzed using Review Manager version 5.4. p-values less than 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance. Overall, 20 RCTs, with 5,412 participants, were included. A low/moderate-intensity statin combined with ezetimibe yielded a significantly greater reduction in LDL-C levels than high-intensity statin monotherapy (mean difference [MD], −6.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], −10.95, −2.24; p=0.003; I 2 =84%). No significant differences were observed between combination and high-intensity statin monotherapy regarding TC, TG, or HDL-C levels. However, hs-CRP levels were significantly higher with combination therapy (MD, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.01, 0.64; p=0.04; I 2 =0%). Combination therapy involving a low/moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe was significantly associated with lower LDL-C levels than high-intensity statin monotherapy. No significant differences were observed for TC, TGs, HDL-C, alanine transaminase, or MACE. However, creatine phosphokinase levels significantly increased with monotherapy.

Statins represent the first-line therapy for cholesterol management. However, for patients prone to statin side effects, unable to tolerate higher doses, or requiring additional low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction, ezetimibe alone or in combination with statins is recommended. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of combining lowor moderate-intensity statins with ezetimibe compared to high-intensity statin monotherapy, yielding reliable evidence to guide clinical decision-making and personalize treatment strategies. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were systematically searched from inception until May 2023. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a high-intensity statin with a low/ moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe were included. The outcomes of interest comprised changes in concentrations of lipids—LDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), and triglycerides (TGs)—and apolipoprotein (Apo) A1, Apo B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), along with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). All data were analyzed using Review Manager version 5.4. p-values less than 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance. Overall, 20 RCTs, with 5,412 participants, were included. A low/moderate-intensity statin combined with ezetimibe yielded a significantly greater reduction in LDL-C levels than high-intensity statin monotherapy (mean difference [MD], −6.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], −10.95, −2.24; p=0.003; I 2 =84%). No significant differences were observed between combination and high-intensity statin monotherapy regarding TC, TG, or HDL-C levels. However, hs-CRP levels were significantly higher with combination therapy (MD, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.01, 0.64; p=0.04; I 2 =0%). Combination therapy involving a low/moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe was significantly associated with lower LDL-C levels than high-intensity statin monotherapy. No significant differences were observed for TC, TGs, HDL-C, alanine transaminase, or MACE. However, creatine phosphokinase levels significantly increased with monotherapy.

Statins represent the first-line therapy for cholesterol management. However, for patients prone to statin side effects, unable to tolerate higher doses, or requiring additional low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction, ezetimibe alone or in combination with statins is recommended. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of combining lowor moderate-intensity statins with ezetimibe compared to high-intensity statin monotherapy, yielding reliable evidence to guide clinical decision-making and personalize treatment strategies. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were systematically searched from inception until May 2023. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a high-intensity statin with a low/ moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe were included. The outcomes of interest comprised changes in concentrations of lipids—LDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), and triglycerides (TGs)—and apolipoprotein (Apo) A1, Apo B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), along with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). All data were analyzed using Review Manager version 5.4. p-values less than 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance. Overall, 20 RCTs, with 5,412 participants, were included. A low/moderate-intensity statin combined with ezetimibe yielded a significantly greater reduction in LDL-C levels than high-intensity statin monotherapy (mean difference [MD], −6.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], −10.95, −2.24; p=0.003; I 2 =84%). No significant differences were observed between combination and high-intensity statin monotherapy regarding TC, TG, or HDL-C levels. However, hs-CRP levels were significantly higher with combination therapy (MD, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.01, 0.64; p=0.04; I 2 =0%). Combination therapy involving a low/moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe was significantly associated with lower LDL-C levels than high-intensity statin monotherapy. No significant differences were observed for TC, TGs, HDL-C, alanine transaminase, or MACE. However, creatine phosphokinase levels significantly increased with monotherapy.

Background: Tirzepatide is a novel dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP)-glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist being evaluated for the treatment of various metabolic disorders. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized data on the effects of tirzepatide on serum lipid levels. Methods: We systematically searched the PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for relevant data from randomized controlled clinical trials. All articles were screened, reviewed, and extracted by at least two independent authors, with conflicts resolved by consensus. Four hundred and thirty-three records were identified in the initial literature search; 18 of them were identified for full-text review, and 14 of those were systematically reviewed and included in the analysis. The meta-analysis was performed using an inverse variance random-effects model. Results: Fourteen articles that reported data from 13 randomized controlled clinical trials were included in the review. Nine trials had a low risk of bias, two had a moderate risk, and two had a high risk of bias. The pooled analysis showed that tirzepatide was efficacious at improving all lipid markers, including cholesterol and triglycerides.Moreover, a clear dose response trend was visible across results from groups taking 5, 10, and 15 mg of tirzepatide. Conclusion There is growing evidence to support the use of tirzepatide in patients with metabolic diseases such as type 2 diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, and obesity. Our results demonstrate that tirzepatide significantly improves all aspects of patient metabolism and might be superior in this regard to conventional agents such as insulin formulations or traditional GLP-1 agonists.

Background: Tirzepatide is a novel dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP)-glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist being evaluated for the treatment of various metabolic disorders. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized data on the effects of tirzepatide on serum lipid levels. Methods: We systematically searched the PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for relevant data from randomized controlled clinical trials. All articles were screened, reviewed, and extracted by at least two independent authors, with conflicts resolved by consensus. Four hundred and thirty-three records were identified in the initial literature search; 18 of them were identified for full-text review, and 14 of those were systematically reviewed and included in the analysis. The meta-analysis was performed using an inverse variance random-effects model. Results: Fourteen articles that reported data from 13 randomized controlled clinical trials were included in the review. Nine trials had a low risk of bias, two had a moderate risk, and two had a high risk of bias. The pooled analysis showed that tirzepatide was efficacious at improving all lipid markers, including cholesterol and triglycerides.Moreover, a clear dose response trend was visible across results from groups taking 5, 10, and 15 mg of tirzepatide. Conclusion There is growing evidence to support the use of tirzepatide in patients with metabolic diseases such as type 2 diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, and obesity. Our results demonstrate that tirzepatide significantly improves all aspects of patient metabolism and might be superior in this regard to conventional agents such as insulin formulations or traditional GLP-1 agonists.

Background: Tirzepatide is a novel dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP)-glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist being evaluated for the treatment of various metabolic disorders. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized data on the effects of tirzepatide on serum lipid levels. Methods: We systematically searched the PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for relevant data from randomized controlled clinical trials. All articles were screened, reviewed, and extracted by at least two independent authors, with conflicts resolved by consensus. Four hundred and thirty-three records were identified in the initial literature search; 18 of them were identified for full-text review, and 14 of those were systematically reviewed and included in the analysis. The meta-analysis was performed using an inverse variance random-effects model. Results: Fourteen articles that reported data from 13 randomized controlled clinical trials were included in the review. Nine trials had a low risk of bias, two had a moderate risk, and two had a high risk of bias. The pooled analysis showed that tirzepatide was efficacious at improving all lipid markers, including cholesterol and triglycerides.Moreover, a clear dose response trend was visible across results from groups taking 5, 10, and 15 mg of tirzepatide. Conclusion There is growing evidence to support the use of tirzepatide in patients with metabolic diseases such as type 2 diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, and obesity. Our results demonstrate that tirzepatide significantly improves all aspects of patient metabolism and might be superior in this regard to conventional agents such as insulin formulations or traditional GLP-1 agonists.

Objective: The study examined the efficacy of various generations of cephalosporins against biofilms developed by pathogenic S. aureus and E. coli. Methods: The development of biofilms by both bacteria was assessed using petri-plate and microplate methods. Biofilm hydrolysis and inhibition were tested using first to fourth generations of cephalosporins, and the effects were analyzed by crystal violet staining and phase contrast microscopy. Results: Both bacterial strains exhibited well-developed biofilms in petri-plate and microplate assays. Cefradine (first generation) showed 76.78% hydrolysis of S. aureus biofilm, while significant hydrolysis (59.86%) of E. coli biofilm was observed by cefipime (fourth generation). Similarly, cefuroxime, cefadroxil, cefepime, and cefradine caused 78.8%, 71.63%, 70.63%, and 70.51% inhibition of the S. aureus biofilms, respectively. In the case of E. coli, maximum biofilm inhibition (66.47%) was again shown by cefepime. All generations of cephalosporins were more effective against S. aureus than E. coli, which was confirmed by phase contrast microscopy. Conclusions and Relevance: Cephalosporins exhibit dual capabilities of hydrolyzing and inhibiting S. aureus and E. coli biofilms. First-generation cephalosporins exhibited the highest inhibitory activity against S. aureus, while the third and fourth generations significantly inhibited E. coli biofilms. This study highlights the importance of tailored antibiotic strategies based on the biofilm characteristics of specific bacterial strains.

Eggshell (ES) is a waste material that cannot be consumed with low economic value. ES mainly contains calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and an organic matrix in the form of proteins, glycoproteins, and proteoglycans. Meanwhile, the eggshell membrane (ESM) contains osteopontin collagen, fibronectin, keratin, histones, avian beta defensins, ovocalyxin-36, apolipoproteins, protocadherin, chondroitin sulfate, ovotransferrin, hyaluronic acid, and sialic acid as well as various amino acids. Recently, ES has been widely used in industry, agriculture, food, and medical fields. The potential of ES in the medical field is interesting to discuss, especially in relation to tissue repair. Efforts to reduce the prevalence of wounds that generally originate from acute wounds but become chronic due to various factors that are neglected in their management. In particular, this review will describe the benefits of ES content in repairing body tissues. ES-derived active ingredients such as CaCO3, brushite, and hydroxyapatite exhibit osteoconductive properties that promote bone regeneration. Calcium ions can increase insulin and leptin sensitivity in the liver and can induce repair of acute kidney injury. Meanwhile, ESM contributes positively to neural tissue repair and plays an important role in wound healing, response to external stimuli, defense response, inflammatory response, cell-substrate adhesion, promoting cell growth, migration, differentiation, and tissue remodeling.

Introduction: Precise pupillometry is crucial to determine ablation optical zone (OZ) size selection in LASIK. Significant difference in the selection induces unwanted postoperative night visual disturbance. Placido-disc topographer and Hartmann-Shack aberrometer are commonly used in LASIK preoperative assessment. However, little is known on the precision and agreement of these devices in pupillometry. Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the precision (repeatability and reproducibility) and inter-device agreement of a Placido-disc topographer and Hartmann-Shack aberrometer in measuring mesopic pupil size in pre-LASIK patients. Methods: Mesopic pupillometry on 38 pre-LASIK patients were performed using both devices by two masked operators, on two separate sessions. Intra-session repeatability, inter-operator reproducibility and inter-device agreement were analysed. A disagreement value of ±0.5 mm and 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were determined. Results: Hartmann-Shack aberrometer demonstrated higher repeatability and reproducibility than Placido-disc topographer in mesopic pupillometry. Ninety-seven percent and all of Hartmann-Shack wavefront aberrometer pupillometry were within ±0.5 mm in repeated sessions and between the operators, respectively. The mesopic pupil size obtained from Placido-disc topographer was significantly larger than Hartmann-Shack aberrometer results (P = 0.02). The agreement between devices was low (LoA > ±1 mm) and only 53% of Placido-disc topographer pupillometry were within ±0.5 mm of Hartmann-Shack aberrometer pupillometry. Conclusion: Hartmann-Shack aberrometer has higher precision within sessions and between operators, and it provides smaller mesopic pupillometry than Placido-disc topographer. Precise mesopic pupillometry could assist refractive surgeons in choosing a correct ablation OZ size during LASIK surgery to improve postoperative outcome.