Sargodha Medical College (Urdu: سرگودھا طبی کالج or SMC) is a public medical college located in Sargodha, Punjab, Pakistan.It remained a constituent college of University of Sargodha till 31st December 2021 when Cabinet Committee through its executive orders decided that Specialized Healthcare & Medical Education Department, Government of the Punjab will take control of Sargodha Medical College. It was further directed by the Govt. of Punjab that during the transition period (January to June 2022) University of Sargodha will manage the finances of the college. It offers undergraduate academic degree of MBBS in affiliation with University of Health Sciences (Lahore) and postgraduate training programs of (FCPS) Fellow of College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan and (MCPS) Member of College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan in affiliation with College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan (CPSP).It is recognised and is listed among the colleges in International Medical Education Directory (IMED). It is accredited by the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC).Aside from these, it offers undergraduate degrees in Allied Health Sciences (AHS) in the disciplines of Radiology, Pathology, Operation Theatre Technology (Surgery) and Public Health.It also offers five year undergraduate degree in Physiotherapy called Doctor of Physiotherapy (DPT) in affiliation with University of Sargodha.
Resistant hypertension remains a major clinical challenge despite multidrug therapy. Baxdrostat, a highly selective aldosterone synthase inhibitor, has emerged as a novel treatment option. We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate its efficacy and safety. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through April 30, 2026, for randomized controlled trials comparing baxdrostat with control in uncontrolled or resistant hypertension. Random-effects meta-analyses, Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA), subgroup/sensitivity analyses, risk of bias, and GRADE evaluations were performed. Baxdrostat significantly reduced seated systolic blood pressure (SBP) overall (MD: − 6.69 mmHg, 95
ABSTRACT Background and Aims Elevated resting heart rate in heart transplant (HTx) recipients due to graft denervation is associated with adverse outcomes. Ivabradine and beta blockers are commonly used for heart rate control post‐HTx, but their comparative effectiveness and safety remain unclear. This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ivabradine versus beta blockers in heart transplant recipients. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted in April 2025 across PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Google Scholar. Original studies, including cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivabradine to beta blockers in heart transplant patients were considered eligible. The primary outcome was mean heart rate. Secondary outcomes were left ventricular mass, left ventricular mass index, and ejection fraction; adverse events (phosphenes, dizziness, fatigue, sepsis); and mortality and survival. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2 for the randomized trial and ROBINS‐I for the non‐randomized studies, and statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.4. Results Four studies, including one RCT and three cohort studies, met the inclusion criteria. Ivabradine demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in left ventricular mass index at 24 months (MD −8.82; 95% CI −14.05 to −3.59; p = 0.001) and heart rate at 24 months (MD −11.70; 95% CI −23.36 to −0.05; p = 0.05). Other efficacy parameters, including left ventricular mass, ejection fraction, and heart rate at 12 months, showed no significant differences. Adverse effects and survival outcomes were similar between groups. Sensitivity analysis revealed reduced heterogeneity when one high‐bias study was excluded. Conclusion Ivabradine may offer improved heart rate control and favourable changes in left ventricular mass index compared with beta blockers in heart transplant recipients, with a comparable safety and mortality profile. Given the small evidence base, the predominance of observational studies, and the substantial heterogeneity observed across several outcomes, these findings should be regarded as exploratory and hypothesis‐generating. Further large‐scale RCTs are warranted to confirm these findings and guide clinical decision‐making.
