BACKGROUND: The available evidence regarding the benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on patients receiving dialysis with coronary artery disease (CAD) is limited and inconsistent. This study aimed to evaluate the association between PCI and clinical outcomes as compared with medical therapy alone in patients undergoing dialysis with CAD in China. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective study was conducted in 30 tertiary medical centers across 12 provinces in China from January 2015 to June 2021 to include patients on dialysis with CAD. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and non-fatal stroke. Secondary outcomes included all-cause death, the individual components of MACE, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria types 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the association between PCI and outcomes. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and propensity score matching (PSM) were performed to account for potential between-group differences. RESULTS: Of the 1146 patients on dialysis with significant CAD, 821 (71.6%) underwent PCI. After a median follow-up of 23.0 months, PCI was associated with a 43.0% significantly lower risk for MACE (33.9% [ n  = 278] vs . 43.7% [ n  = 142]; adjusted hazards ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.45-0.71), along with a slightly increased risk for bleeding outcomes that did not reach statistical significance (11.1% vs . 8.3%; adjusted hazards ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval, 0.82-2.11). Furthermore, PCI was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause and cardiovascular mortalities. Subgroup analysis did not modify the association of PCI with patient outcomes. These primary findings were consistent across IPTW, PSM, and competing risk analyses. CONCLUSION This study indicated that PCI in patients on dialysis with CAD was significantly associated with lower MACE and mortality when comparing with those with medical therapy alone, albeit with a slightly increased risk for bleeding events that did not reach statistical significance.
Humans ; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/methods* ; Male ; Female ; Coronary Artery Disease/drug therapy* ; Retrospective Studies ; Renal Dialysis/methods* ; Middle Aged ; Aged ; China ; Proportional Hazards Models ; Treatment Outcome

ObjectiveTo investigate the mechanism by which Liuwei Dihuang Erzhiwan combination inhibit the lung metastasis of spontaneous breast cancer in mice by regulating the recruitment of myeloid-derived suppressor cells （MDSCs）. MethodThree hundred and eighty SPF-grade 10-month-old female breeders of Kunming mouse were palpated at the mammary gland site once every 3 days. Mice that have not had a lump touched after being raised for 6 months are used as control group. After tumor development， the mice were randomized into model， positive control （paclitaxel， intraperitoneal injection at 0.01 g·kg^-1 every other day for 22 d）， Liuwei Dihuangwan （0.65 g·kg^-1·d^-1 by gavage）， Erzhiwan （5.41 g·kg^-1·d^-1 by gavage）， and Liuwei Dihuang Erzhiwan combination （6.05 g·kg^-1·d^-1 by gavage） groups. The mice were euthanised when the tumor reached a diameter of about 15 mm， and the tumor and lung tissues were collected. The survival time， tumor mass， and lung metastasis rate of tumor-bearing mice were recorded. Hematoxylin-eosin （HE） staining was used to observe the histopathological and morphological changes of mouse tumor and lung tissues. Immunofluorescence （IF） was used to detect the distribution of MDSCs in tissues of mice in each group by double-staining of MDSCs cells with lymphocyte antigen 6 complex site G6D （Ly6G） and CD11 antigen-like family member B （CD11b）. Western blot was employed to determine the protein levels of matrix metalloproteinase-9 （MMP-9）， transforming growth factor-β （TGF-β）， zinc finger transcription factor 1 （Snail1）， and E-cadherin in the tumor tissue and CC motif chemokine 9 （CCL9） and CC motif chemokine receptor 1 （CCR1） in the lung tissue. ResultDuring the modelling period， the paclitaxel group and Chinese medicine intervention groups had longer median number of days of survival and lower tumor weight， lung metastasis rate， and lung nodule than the model group （P<0.05， P<0.01）. HE staining showed an increase in tumor cell necrosis in the paclitaxel group and the Liuwei Dihuang Erzhiwan combination group. The paclitaxel group and Chinese medicine intervention groups had lower fluorescence intensity of MDSCs in the tumor tissue than the model group （P<0.05， P<0.01）. Compared with the normal control group， the model group showed increased fluorescence intensity of MDSCs in the metastatic lung tissue （P<0.01）， which， however， was decreased in the paclitaxel group and Chinese medicine intervention groups （P<0.01）. The model group showed higher protein levels of MMP-9， TGF-β， and Snail1 and lower protein level of E-cadherin in the tumor tissue than in the normal control group （P<0.01）. Compared with model group， paclitaxel and Chinese medicine interventions downregulated the protein levels of MMP-9， TGF-β， and Snail1 （P<0.05， P<0.01） and upregulated the protein level of E-cadherin in the tumor tissue （P<0.01）. Moreover， the Liuwei Dihuang Erzhiwan combination group had lower protein levels of TGF-β and Snail1 than the Liuwei Dihuangwan group and Erzhiwan group （P<0.05）. In the metastatic lung tissue， the expression of CCL9 and CCR1 was higher in the model group than in the normal control group， paclitaxel group， and Chinese medicine intervention groups （P<0.05， P<0.01）. ConclusionLiuwei Dihuang Erzhiwan combination inhibit tumor growth， prolong survival time， and reduce the occurrence of lung metastasis in the mouse model of spontaneous breast cancer by reducing the recruitment of MDSCs in the tumor and lung tissues and modulating the phenotypes of epithelial-mesenchymal transition （EMT）-related molecules and the expression of CCL9/CCR1.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.