Interleukin-receptor antagonist and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors for the primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases.

BACKGROUND: Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ACVD) is worsened by chronic inflammatory diseases. Interleukin receptor antagonists (IL-RAs) and tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF) inhibitors have been studied to see if they can prevent cardiovascular events. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical benefits and harms of IL-RAs and TNF inhibitors in the primary and secondary prevention of ACVD. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Heart Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, EBSCO CINAHL plus, and clinical trial registries for ongoing and unpublished studies were searched in February 2024. The reference lists of relevant studies, reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports were searched to identify additional studies. No limitations on language, date of publication or study type were set. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs that recruited people with and without pre-existing ACVD, comparing IL-RAs or TNF inhibitors versus placebo or usual care, were selected. The primary outcomes considered were all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two or more review authors, working independently at each step, selected studies, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and used GRADE to judge the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 58 RCTs (22,053 participants; 21,308 analysed), comparing medication efficacy with placebo or usual care. Thirty-four trials focused on primary prevention and 24 on secondary prevention. The interventions included IL-1 RAs (anakinra, canakinumab), IL-6 RA (tocilizumab), TNF-inhibitors (etanercept, infliximab) compared with placebo or usual care. The certainty of evidence was low to very low due to biases and imprecision; all trials had a high risk of bias. Primary prevention: IL-1 RAs The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the intervention on all-cause mortality(RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.58, 1 trial), myocardial infarction (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.04 to 12.48, I² = 39%, 2 trials), unstable angina (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.11, I² = 0%, 2 trials), stroke (RR 2.42, 95% CI 0.12 to 50.15; 1 trial), adverse events (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.22, I² = 54%, 3 trials), or infection (rate ratio 0.84, 95% 0.55 to 1.29, I² = 0%, 4 trials). Evidence is very uncertain about whether anakinra and cankinumab may reduce heart failure (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.94, I² = 0%, 3 trials). Peripheral vascular disease (PVD) was not reported as an outcome. IL-6 RAs The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the intervention on all-cause mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.74, I² = 30%, 3 trials), myocardial infarction (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.04 to1.68, I² = 0%, 3 trials), heart failure (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.63, I² = 0%, 2 trials), PVD (RR 2.94, 95% CI 0.12 to 71.47, 1 trial), stroke (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.14, 1 trial), or any infection (rate ratio 1.10, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.37, I2 = 18%, 5 trials). Adverse events may increase (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.23, I² = 33%, 5 trials). No trial assessed unstable angina. TNF inhibitors The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the intervention on all-cause mortality (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.99, I² = 10%, 3 trials), myocardial infarction (RR 2.61, 95% CI 0.11 to 62.26, 1 trial), stroke (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.80, I² = 0%; 3 trials), heart failure (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.76, 1 trial). Adverse events may increase (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.25, I² = 51%, 13 trials). No trial assessed unstable angina or PVD. Secondary prevention: IL-1 RAs The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the intervention on all-cause mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.06, I² = 0%, 8 trials), unstable angina (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.19, I² = 0%, 3 trials), PVD (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.73, I² = 38%, 3 trials), stroke (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.2, I² = 0%; 7 trials), heart failure (RR 0.91, 95% 0.5 to 1.65, I² = 0%; 7 trials), or adverse events (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.09, I² = 3%, 4 trials). There may be little to no difference between the groups in myocardial infarction (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.0.75 to 1.04, I² = 0%, 6 trials). IL6-RAs The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the intervention on all-cause mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.96, I² = 0%, 2 trials), myocardial infarction (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.04, I² = 45%, 3 trials), unstable angina (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.02, 1 trial), stroke (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.25, 1 trial), adverse events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.05, I² = 0%, 2 trials), or any infection (rate ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.36, I² = 0%, 4 trials). No trial assessed PVD or heart failure. TNF inhibitors The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of the intervention on all-cause mortality (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.95, I² = 47%, 5 trials), heart failure (RR 0.92, 95% 0.75 to 1.14, I² = 0%, 4 trials), or adverse events (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.56, I² = 32%, 2 trials). No trial assessed myocardial infarction, unstable angina, PVD or stroke. Adverse events may be underestimated and benefits inflated due to inadequate reporting. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This Cochrane review assessed the benefits and harms of using interleukin-receptor antagonists and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors for primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic diseases compared with placebo or usual care. However, the evidence for the predetermined outcomes was deemed low or very low certainty, so there is still a need to determine whether these interventions provide clinical benefits or cause harm from this perspective. In summary, the different biases and imprecision in the included studies limit their external validity and represent a limitation to determining the effectiveness of the intervention for both primary and secondary prevention of ACVD.

British Heart Rhythm Society Standards for Implantation and Follow-up of Cardiac Rhythm Management Devices in Adults: January 2024 Update.

This updated guidance is designed to help with implantation and follow-up with agreed standards of practice. The update includes new guidance on subcutaneous defibrillators, leadless pacemakers and conduction system pacing. It includes new guidance on considerations at the time of a potential box change and techniques to be considered to minimise the risk of infection.

New evidence calls into question NICE's endocarditis prevention guidance.

In 2008, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines recommended against the use of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) before invasive dental procedures (IDPs) to prevent infective endocarditis (IE). They did so because of lack of AP efficacy evidence and adverse reaction concerns. Consequently, NICE concluded AP was not cost-effective and should not be recommended. In 2015, NICE reviewed its guidance and continued to recommend against AP. However, it subsequently changed its wording to 'antibiotic prophylaxis against infective endocarditis is not routinely recommended'. The lack of explanation of what constituted routinely (and not routinely), or how to manage non-routine patients, caused enormous confusion and NICE remained out of step with all major international guideline committees who continued to recommend AP for those at high risk.Since the 2015 guideline review, new data have confirmed an association between IDPs and subsequent IE and demonstrated AP efficacy in reducing IE risk following IDPs in high-risk patients. New evidence also shows that in high-risk patients, the IE risk following IDPs substantially exceeds any adverse reaction risk, and that AP is therefore highly cost-effective. Given the new evidence, a NICE guideline review would seem appropriate so that UK high-risk patients can receive the same protection afforded high-risk patients in the rest of the world.

Prevention of infective endocarditis in at-risk patients: how should dentists proceed in 2024?

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines are ambiguous over the need for patients at increased risk of infective endocarditis (IE) to receive antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) prior to invasive dental procedures (IDPs), and this has caused confusion for patients and dentists alike. Moreover, the current law on consent requires clinicians to ensure that patients are made aware of any material risk they might be exposed to by any proposed dental treatment and what can be done to ameliorate this risk, so that the patient can decide for themselves how they wish to proceed. The aim of this article is to provide dentists with the latest information on the IE-risk posed by IDPs to different patient populations (the general population and those defined as being at moderate or high risk of IE), and data on the effectiveness of AP in reducing the IE risk in these populations. This provides the information dentists need to facilitate the informed consent discussions they are legally required to have with patients at increased risk of IE about the risks posed by IDPs and how this can be minimised. The article also provides practical information and advice for dentists on how to manage patients at increased IE risk who present for dental treatment.

Recent Insights Into Native Valve Infective Endocarditis: JACC Focus Seminar 4/4.

This focused review highlights the latest issues in native valve infective endocarditis. Native valve disease moderately increases the risk of developing infective endocarditis. In 2023, new diagnostic criteria were published by the Duke-International Society of Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases group. New pathogens were designated as typical, and findings on computed tomography imaging were included as diagnostic criteria. It is now recognized that a multidisciplinary approach to care is vital, and the role of an "endocarditis team" is highlighted. Recent studies have suggested that a transition from intravenous to oral antibiotics in selected patients may be reasonable, and the role of long-acting antibiotics is discussed. It is also now clear that an aggressive surgical approach can be life-saving in some patients. Finally, results of several recent studies have suggested there is an association between dental and other invasive procedures and an increased risk of developing infective endocarditis. Moreover, data indicate that antibiotic prophylaxis may be effective in some scenarios.

Endocarditis prevention: time for a review of NICE guidance.

In 2023, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) updated its infective endocarditis (IE) guidelines strongly endorsing antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) before invasive dental procedures (IDPs) for high-risk patients, elevating their recommendation to Class I. The American Heart Association (AHA) is aligned with this view and reaffirmed the need for AP to prevent IE in those at high-risk in its 2021 guidelines. In contrast, the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends against routine AP use. Despite considerable new evidence, NICE has not reviewed this recommendation since 2015. In this Personal View, we review the new evidence that has arisen since 2015. Our analysis establishes the association between IDPs and IE and shows that AP is both safe and effective in reducing the IE-risk following IDPs in those at high-risk. Data also show that AP is cost-effective and would result in significant cost savings and health benefits if re-introduced into the UK's National Health Service for high-risk patients. Given these insights, we argue it is time NICE reviewed its guidance so that high-risk patients in the UK receive the same protection against IE that is afforded to patients in the rest of the world. Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Nondental Invasive Procedures and Risk of Infective Endocarditis: Time for a Revisit: A Science Advisory From the American Heart Association.

There have been no published prospective randomized clinical trials that have: (1) established an association between invasive dental and nondental invasive procedures and risk of infective endocarditis; or (2) defined the efficacy and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis administered in the setting of invasive procedures in the prevention of infective endocarditis in high-risk patients. Moreover, previous observational studies that examined the association of nondental invasive procedures with the risk of infective endocarditis have been limited by inadequate sample size. They have typically focused on a few potential at-risk surgical and nonsurgical invasive procedures. However, recent investigations from Sweden and England that used nationwide databases and demonstrated an association between nondental invasive procedures, and the subsequent development of infective endocarditis (in particular, in high-risk patients with infective endocarditis) prompted the development of the current science advisory.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for patients at risk of infective endocarditis: an increasing evidence base?

Around 100 years ago, the first link between infective endocarditis (IE) and dental procedures was hypothesised; shortly after, physicians began to use antibiotics in an effort to reduce the risk of developing IE. Whether invasive dental procedures are linked to the development of IE, and antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) is effective, have since remained topics of controversy. This controversy, in large part, has been due to the lack of prospective randomised clinical trial data. From this suboptimal position, guideline committees representing different societies and countries have struggled to reach an optimal position on whether AP use is needed for invasive dental procedures (or other procedures) and in whom. We present the findings from an investigation involving a large US patient database, published earlier this year, by Thornhill and colleagues. The work featured the use of both a cohort and case-crossover design and demonstrated there was a significant temporal association between invasive dental procedures and development of IE in high-IE-risk patients. Furthermore, the study showed that AP use was associated with a reduced risk of IE. Additional data, also published this year, from a separate study using nationwide hospital admissions data from England by Thornhill's group, showed that certain dental and non-dental procedures were significantly associated with the subsequent development of IE. Two other investigations have reported similar concerns for non-dental invasive procedures and risk of IE. Collectively, the results of this work support a re-evaluation of the current position taken by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and other organisations that are responsible for publishing practice guidelines.

Evaluation of the prehospital use of a Valsalva assist device in the emergency treatment of supraventricular tachycardia (EVADE SVT): study protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with episodes of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), a common heart arrhythmia, are often attended by ambulance services. International guidelines advocate treatment with the Valsalva manoeuvre (VM), but this simple physical treatment has a low success rate, with most patients requiring conveyance to hospital. The Valsalva Assist Device (VAD) is a simple device that might help practitioners and patients perform a more effective VM and reduce the need for patients to be taken to hospital. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial, conducted within a UK ambulance service, compares the current standard VM with a VAD-delivered VM in stable adult patients presenting to the ambulance service with SVT. The primary outcome is conveyance to hospital; secondary outcomes measures include cardioversion rates, duration of ambulance care and number of subsequent episodes of SVT requiring ambulance service care. We plan to recruit approximately 800 patients, to have 90% power to detect an absolute reduction in conveyance rate of 10% (from 90% to 80%) between the standard VM (control) and VAD-delivered VM (intervention). Such a reduction in conveyance would benefit patients, the ambulance service and receiving emergency departments. It is estimated potential savings would pay for devices for the entire ambulance trust within 7 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Oxford Research Ethics Committee (reference 22/SC/0032). Dissemination will be through peer-reviewed journal publication, presentation at national and international conferences and by the Arrhythmia Alliance, a patient support charity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16145266.

Rapid Roll Out of a Pacemaker Home Monitoring Programme: A Patient Perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety, efficacy, and patient acceptability of a pacemaker home monitoring (HM) service. METHODS: All patients receiving a new Biotronik (Biotronik, Berlin, Germany) pacemaker between March 2020 and February 2021 were contacted for participation. Participants were surveyed on their experience of pacemaker HM. HM alerts and remote wound monitoring rates were also assessed. RESULTS: Of the patients contacted, 77% responded, with a mean age of 80.6±9.9 years. Of these, 95.8% agreed that the home monitoring (HM) has been beneficial. Two thirds preferred HM to face-to-face follow-up and two thirds felt safe with HM. Three themes were identified from the comments: reassurance, technology and data security. Forty-one percent (41%) of respondents would like more reassurance that their HM is working, 18% mentioned technology with mixed responses, and 4.7% cited cybersecurity or the use of their personal data as a concern. The average one-way patient journey saved was 24.3±16.7 km (15.1±10.4 miles). One in three HM alerts required action but only 3.4% were urgent. Remote wound review was successful in 59%. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients prefer HM and almost all think it has been beneficial. It saves significant travel time and provides actionable alerts. The patient experience could be improved by reassuring patients that their device is being monitored.

Endocarditis, invasive dental procedures, and antibiotic prophylaxis efficacy in US Medicaid patients.

OBJECTIVE: Antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended before invasive dental procedures to prevent endocarditis in those at high risk, but supporting data are sparse. We therefore investigated any association between invasive dental procedures and endocarditis, and any antibiotic prophylaxis effect on endocarditis incidence. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Cohort and case-crossover studies were performed on 1,678,190 Medicaid patients with linked medical, dental, and prescription data. RESULTS: The cohort study identified increased endocarditis incidence within 30 days of invasive dental procedures in those at high risk, particularly after extractions (OR 14.17, 95% CI 5.40-52.11, p < 0.0001) or oral surgery (OR 29.98, 95% CI 9.62-119.34, p < 0.0001). Furthermore, antibiotic prophylaxis significantly reduced endocarditis incidence following invasive dental procedures (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06-0.53, p < 0.0001). Case-crossover analysis confirmed the association between invasive dental procedures and endocarditis in those at high risk, particularly following extractions (OR 3.74, 95% CI 2.65-5.27, p < 0.005) and oral surgery (OR 10.66, 95% CI 5.18-21.92, p < 0.0001). The number of invasive procedures, extractions, or surgical procedures needing antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent one endocarditis case was 244, 143 and 71, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Invasive dental procedures (particularly extractions and oral surgery) were significantly associated with endocarditis in high-risk individuals, but AP significantly reduced endocarditis incidence following these procedures, thereby supporting current guideline recommendations.

Bacteremia following different oral procedures: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

To evaluate the timing, duration and incidence of bacteremia following invasive dental procedures (IDPs) or activities of daily living (ADL). Eight databases were searched for randomized (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled trials (nRCTs) evaluating bacteremia before and after IDPs or ADL in healthy individuals. The risk of bias was assessed by RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I. For the meta-analysis, the primary outcomes were the timing and duration of bacteremia. The secondary outcome was the incidence of bacteremia, measuring the proportion of patients with bacteremia within 5 min after the end of the procedure compared with baseline. We included 64 nRCTs and 25 RCTs. Peak bacteremia occurred within 5 min after the procedure and then decreased over time. Dental extractions showed the highest incidence of bacteremia (62%-66%), followed by scaling and root planing (SRP) (44%-36%) and oral health procedures (OHP) (e.g., dental prophylaxis and dental probing without SRP) (27%-28%). Other ADL (flossing and chewing) (16%) and toothbrushing (8%-26%) resulted in bacteremia as well. The majority of studies had some concerns RCTs or moderate risk of bias nRCTs. Dental extractions, SRP and OHP, are associated with the highest frequency of bacteremia. Toothbrushing, flossing, and chewing also caused bacteremia in lower frequency.

Temporal association between invasive procedures and infective endocarditis.

OBJECTIVE: Antibiotic prophylaxis has been recommended for patients at increased risk of infective endocarditis (IE) undergoing specific invasive procedures (IPs) despite a lack of data supporting its use. Therefore, antibiotic prophylaxis recommendations ceased in the mid-2000s for all but those at high IE risk undergoing invasive dental procedures. We aimed to quantify any association between IPs and IE. METHODS: All 14 731 IE hospital admissions in England between April 2010 and March 2016 were identified from national admissions data, and medical records were searched for IP performed during the 15-month period before IE admission. We compared the incidence of IP during the 3 months immediately before IE admission (case period) with the incidence during the preceding 12 months (control period) to determine whether the odds of developing IE were increased in the 3 months after certain IP. RESULTS: The odds of IE were increased following permanent pacemaker and defibrillator implantation (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.85, p<0.001), extractions/surgical tooth removal (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.76, p=0.047), upper (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.85, p<0.001) and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.04, p<0.001) and bone marrow biopsy (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.69, p=0.039). Using an alternative analysis, bronchoscopy (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.68, p=0.049) and blood transfusions/red cell/plasma exchange (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.35, p=0.012) were also associated with IE. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies a significant association between specific IPs (permanent pacemaker and defibrillator implantation, dental extraction, gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy) and subsequent IE that warrants re-evaluation of current antibiotic prophylaxis recommendations to prevent IE in high IE risk individuals.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis Against Infective Endocarditis Before Invasive Dental Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) before invasive dental procedures (IDPs) is recommended to prevent infective endocarditis (IE) in those at high IE risk, but there are sparse data supporting a link between IDPs and IE or AP efficacy in IE prevention. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate any association between IDPs and IE, and the effectiveness of AP in reducing this. METHODS: We performed a case-crossover analysis and cohort study of the association between IDPs and IE, and AP efficacy, in 7,951,972 U.S. subjects with employer-provided Commercial/Medicare-Supplemental coverage. RESULTS: Time course studies showed that IE was most likely to occur within 4 weeks of an IDP. For those at high IE risk, case-crossover analysis demonstrated a significant temporal association between IE and IDPs in the preceding 4 weeks (OR: 2.00; 95% CI: 1.59-2.52; P = 0.002). This relationship was strongest for dental extractions (OR: 11.08; 95% CI: 7.34-16.74; P < 0.0001) and oral-surgical procedures (OR: 50.77; 95% CI: 20.79-123.98; P < 0.0001). AP was associated with a significant reduction in IE incidence following IDP (OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.29-0.85; P = 0.01). The cohort study confirmed the associations between IE and extractions or oral surgical procedures in those at high IE risk and the effect of AP in reducing these associations (extractions: OR: 0.13; 95% CI: 0.03-0.34; P < 0.0001; oral surgical procedures: OR: 0.09; 95% CI: 0.01-0.35; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated a significant temporal association between IDPs (particularly extractions and oral-surgical procedures) and subsequent IE in high-IE-risk individuals, and a significant association between AP use and reduced IE incidence following these procedures. These data support the American Heart Association, and other, recommendations that those at high IE risk should receive AP before IDP.

Infective endocarditis following invasive dental procedures: IDEA case-crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Infective endocarditis is a heart infection with a first-year mortality rate of ≈ 30%. It has long been thought that infective endocarditis is causally associated with bloodstream seeding with oral bacteria in ≈ 40-45% of cases. This theorem led guideline committees to recommend that individuals at increased risk of infective endocarditis should receive antibiotic prophylaxis before undergoing invasive dental procedures. However, to the best of our knowledge, there has never been a clinical trial to prove the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis and there is no good-quality evidence to link invasive dental procedures with infective endocarditis. Many contend that oral bacteria-related infective endocarditis is more likely to result from daily activities (e.g. tooth brushing, flossing and chewing), particularly in those with poor oral hygiene. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine if there is a temporal association between invasive dental procedures and subsequent infective endocarditis, particularly in those at high risk of infective endocarditis. DESIGN: This was a self-controlled, case-crossover design study comparing the number of invasive dental procedures in the 3 months immediately before an infective endocarditis-related hospital admission with that in the preceding 12-month control period. SETTING: The study took place in the English NHS. PARTICIPANTS: All individuals admitted to hospital with infective endocarditis between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2016 were eligible to participate. INTERVENTIONS: This was an observational study; therefore, there was no intervention. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The outcome measure was the number of invasive and non-invasive dental procedures in the months before infective endocarditis-related hospital admission. DATA SOURCES: NHS Digital provided infective endocarditis-related hospital admissions data and dental procedure data were obtained from the NHS Business Services Authority. RESULTS: The incidence rate of invasive dental procedures decreased in the 3 months before infective endocarditis-related hospital admission (incidence rate ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval 1.13 to 1.58). Further analysis showed that this was due to loss of dental procedure data in the 2-3 weeks before any infective endocarditis-related hospital admission. LIMITATIONS: We found that urgent hospital admissions were a common cause of incomplete courses of dental treatment and, because there is no requirement to record dental procedure data for incomplete courses, this resulted in a significant loss of dental procedure data in the 2-3 weeks before infective endocarditis-related hospital admissions. The data set was also reduced because of the NHS Business Services Authority's 10-year data destruction policy, reducing the power of the study. The main consequence was a loss of dental procedure data in the critical 3-month case period of the case-crossover analysis (immediately before infective endocarditis-related hospital admission), which did not occur in earlier control periods. Part of the decline in the rate of invasive dental procedures may also be the result of the onset of illness prior to infective endocarditis-related hospital admission, and part may be due to other undefined causes. CONCLUSIONS: The loss of dental procedure data in the critical case period immediately before infective endocarditis-related hospital admission makes interpretation of the data difficult and raises uncertainty over any conclusions that can be drawn from this study. FUTURE WORK: We suggest repeating this study elsewhere using data that are unafflicted by loss of dental procedure data in the critical case period. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN11684416. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 28. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Infective endocarditis is a life-threatening infection of the heart valves. Most people are at low risk of infective endocarditis. However, those with certain cardiac conditions are at moderate risk of infective endocarditis, and those with artificial or repaired heart valves, a history of infective endocarditis and certain congenital heart conditions are at high risk of infective endocarditis. In around 40­45% of cases, oral bacteria are the cause of infective endocarditis. For many years, those people at moderate or high risk of infective endocarditis were given antibiotics (antibiotic prophylaxis) before invasive dental procedures such as extractions to reduce the risk of infective endocarditis. There is no good-quality evidence, however, to support the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis, or the link between invasive dental procedures and infective endocarditis. Many believe that the oral bacteria that cause infective endocarditis are more likely to enter the blood during daily activities (e.g. toothbrushing, flossing or chewing), particularly in those with poor oral hygiene, than on the rare occasions when invasive dental procedures are performed. The aim of this study was to link English NHS data on infective endocarditis-related hospital admissions and dental treatments to determine if infective endocarditis is more likely in the weeks immediately after an invasive dental procedure than at any other time. When we linked the data sets and plotted the occurrence of different dental treatments over the year before infective endocarditis-related hospital admission, we detected a problem in the way that dental data were recorded. Unfortunately, there was a failure to collect dental procedure data when courses of treatment were incomplete. As one of the most common reasons for not completing a course of treatment was emergency admission to hospital, this meant that the number of dental procedures recorded decreased in the weeks before any emergency hospital admission. We have attempted to correct for this, but the data loss has affected the data quality. Although the data suggest an association between invasive dental procedures and infective endocarditis in individuals at high risk of infective endocarditis, the certainty of this association has been weakened.

Coenzyme Q10 to manage chronic heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Chronic heart failure is a debilitating condition that accounts for an annual NHS spend of £2.3B. Low levels of endogenous coenzyme Q10 may exacerbate chronic heart failure. Coenzyme Q10 supplements might improve symptoms and slow progression. As statins are thought to block the production of coenzyme Q10, supplementation might be particularly beneficial for patients taking statins. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of coenzyme Q10 in managing chronic heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. METHODS: A systematic review that included randomised trials comparing coenzyme Q10 plus standard care with standard care alone in chronic heart failure. Trials restricted to chronic heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction were excluded. Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched up to March 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (version 5.2). A planned individual participant data meta-analysis was not possible and meta-analyses were mostly based on aggregate data from publications. Potential effect modification was examined using meta-regression. A Markov model used treatment effects from the meta-analysis and baseline mortality and hospitalisation from an observational UK cohort. Costs were evaluated from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective and expressed in Great British pounds at a 2019/20 price base. Outcomes were expressed in quality-adjusted life-years. Both costs and outcomes were discounted at a 3.5% annual rate. RESULTS: A total of 26 trials, comprising 2250 participants, were included in the systematic review. Many trials were reported poorly and were rated as having a high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Meta-analysis suggested a possible benefit of coenzyme Q10 on all-cause mortality (seven trials, 1371 participants; relative risk 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 1.03). The results for short-term functional outcomes were more modest or unclear. There was no indication of increased adverse events with coenzyme Q10. Meta-regression found no evidence of treatment interaction with statins. The base-case cost-effectiveness analysis produced incremental costs of £4878, incremental quality-adjusted life-years of 1.34 and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £3650. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that at thresholds of £20,000 and £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year coenzyme Q10 had a high probability (95.2% and 95.8%, respectively) of being more cost-effective than standard care alone. Scenario analyses in which the population and other model assumptions were varied all found coenzyme Q10 to be cost-effective. The expected value of perfect information suggested that a new trial could be valuable. LIMITATIONS: For most outcomes, data were available from few trials and different trials contributed to different outcomes. There were concerns about risk of bias and whether or not the results from included trials were applicable to a typical UK population. A lack of individual participant data meant that planned detailed analyses of effect modifiers were not possible. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggested that, if prescribed, coenzyme Q10 has the potential to be clinically effective and cost-effective for heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. However, given important concerns about risk of bias, plausibility of effect sizes and applicability of the evidence base, establishing whether or not coenzyme Q10 is genuinely effective in a typical UK population is important, particularly as coenzyme Q10 has not been subject to the scrutiny of drug-licensing processes. Stronger evidence is needed before considering its prescription in the NHS. FUTURE WORK: A new independent, well-designed clinical trial of coenzyme Q10 in a typical UK heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction population may be warranted. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018106189. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

People living with chronic heart failure suffer from shortness of breath, ankle swelling, tiredness, frequent stays in hospital and reduced quality of life and have shorter lives. The NHS spends over £2 billion each year managing chronic heart failure. Coenzyme Q10 is a vitamin-like substance made by the body that helps cells produce energy. Low levels of coenzyme Q10 in heart muscle may lead to, or exacerbate, chronic heart failure. Taking coenzyme Q10 supplements might improve symptoms or slow deterioration. To the best of our knowledge, we found all randomised clinical trials of coenzyme Q10 in patients with the type of chronic heart failure caused by muscle weakness (i.e. heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, where the heart's pumping function is weaker than normal). We asked the research groups responsible for these trials to provide the patient data that they had collected in their trials. Most research groups did not share their data and so we mainly used information from published trial reports. This limited our planned analyses. We found that taking coenzyme Q10 alongside usual treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction potentially reduced deaths by approximately one-third and reduced readmission to hospital by around 40%. However, these results were uncertain. Side effects were not increased. We had some concerns about how reliable the data were, and it is not clear how well the results apply to UK patients. We also worked out what the benefits and costs to the NHS would be if coenzyme Q10 became available on prescription for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Our model found that prescription could be worthwhile; however, a new trial is needed first to make sure that coenzyme Q10 improves outcomes for patients. A new trial would be particularly important because coenzyme Q10 has not been assessed in the same way as prescribed medicines. A new trial could make sure that there is better evidence about whether or not prescribing would be a good use of NHS resources.