The new European guidelines for prevention of cardiovascular disease are misleading.

Introduction: The European Society of Cardiology and European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) have recently published three major revisions of their guidelines for the management of chronic heart disease, blood lipids, and diabetes. Areas covered: We have scrutinized these guidelines in detail and found that the authors have ignored many studies that are in conflict with their conclusions and recommendations. Expert commentary: The authors of the guidelines have ignored that LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) of patients with acute myocardial infarction is lower than normal; that high cholesterol is not a risk factor for diabetics; that the degree of coronary artery calcification is not associated with LDL-C; and that 27 follow-up studies have shown that people with high total cholesterol or LDL-C live just as long or longer than people with low cholesterol. They have also ignored the lack of exposure-response in the statin trials; that several of these trials have been unable to lower CVD or total mortality; that no statin trial has succeeded with lowering mortality in women, elderly people, or diabetics; and that cholesterol-lowering with statins has been associated with many serious side effects.

LDL-C does not cause cardiovascular disease: a comprehensive review of the current literature.

INTRODUCTION: For half a century, a high level of total cholesterol (TC) or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) has been considered to be the major cause of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease (CVD), and statin treatment has been widely promoted for cardiovascular prevention. However, there is an increasing understanding that the mechanisms are more complicated and that statin treatment, in particular when used as primary prevention, is of doubtful benefit. Areas covered: The authors of three large reviews recently published by statin advocates have attempted to validate the current dogma. This article delineates the serious errors in these three reviews as well as other obvious falsifications of the cholesterol hypothesis. Expert commentary: Our search for falsifications of the cholesterol hypothesis confirms that it is unable to satisfy any of the Bradford Hill criteria for causality and that the conclusions of the authors of the three reviews are based on misleading statistics, exclusion of unsuccessful trials and by ignoring numerous contradictory observations.

A Critical Review of the Consensus Statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel 2017.

BACKGROUND: The Consensus Statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) Consensus Panel 2017 concludes on the basis of 3 different types of clinical studies that low-density lipoprotein (LDL) causes atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). In Mendelian randomization studies, rare genetic mutations affecting LDL receptor function were found to cause higher or lower LDL-C levels, which are associated with correspondingly altered ASCVD risk. In prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of statins, a remarkably consistent log-linear association was demonstrated between the absolute magnitude of LDL-C exposure and ASCVD risk. The EAS Statement proposes that any mechanism of lowering plasma LDL concentration should reduce the risk of ASCVD events proportional to the absolute reduction in LDL-C and the cumulative duration of exposure to lower LDL-C. However, as we explain, we do not find this conclusion acceptable. SUMMARY: Our review points out that different interpretations are possible for the results of Mendelian randomization studies. As for prospective cohort studies, many inconsistent reports on the association of LDL-C and ASCVD were disregarded when drafting the Statement, reports with and without genetic factors related to LDL receptor function should be analyzed separately, and the term ASCVD in the Statement is used inappropriately because myocardial infarction and cerebral infarction differ in their association with LDL-C. As for RCTs, clinical reports on statins published before and after the implementation of new regulations affecting clinical trials (2004/2005) should not both be included in meta-analyses because the evaluated efficacy of statins changed markedly, and the irreversible adverse effects of statins need to be evaluated more rigorously now that their mechanisms have been elucidated. Key Messages: Apart from the EAS hypothesis that LDL causes ASCVD, recent pharmacological/biochemical studies, as summarized in this review and elsewhere, have revealed that atherosclerosis is caused by statins taken to lower LDL-C, as well as by warfarin and some types of vegetable fats and oils, in the absence of significantly elevated LDL-C levels. Thus, the promotion of statin treatment by the Statement is rather risky and we do not feel that the conclusions are justified for the prevention of ASCVD.

The mechanisms of delayed onset type adverse reactions to oseltamivir.

Oseltamivir is recommended for the treatment and prophylaxis of influenza in persons at higher risk for influenza complications such as individuals with diabetes, neuropsychiatric illnesses, and respiratory, cardiac, renal, hepatic or haematological diseases. However, a recent Cochrane review reported that reduction of antibody production, renal disorders, hyperglycaemia, psychiatric disorders, and QT prolongation may be related to oseltamivir use. The underlying mechanisms are reviewed. There is decisive evidence that administration of a clinically compatible dose of oseltamivir in mice challenged by a respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) that lacks a neuraminidase gene showed symptom-relieving effects and inhibition of viral clearance. These effects were accompanied by decreased level of T cell surface sialoglycosphingolipid (ganglioside) GM1 that is regulated by the endogenous neuraminidase in response to viral challenge. Clinical and non-clinical evidence supports the view that the usual dose of oseltamivir suppresses pro-inflammatory cytokines such as interferon-gamma, interleukin-6, and tumour necrosis factor-alpha almost completely with partial suppression of viral shedding in human influenza virus infection experiment. Animal toxicity tests support the clinical evidence with regard to renal and cardiac disorders (bradycardia and QT prolongation) and do not disprove the metabolic effect. Reduction of antibody production and cytokine induction and renal, metabolic, cardiac, and prolonged psychiatric disorders after oseltamivir use may be related to inhibition of the host's endogenous neuraminidase. While the usual clinical dose of zanamivir may not have this effect, a higher dose or prolonged administration of zanamivir and other neuraminidase inhibitors may induce similar delayed reactions, including reduction of the antibody and/or cytokine production.

Neuraminidase inhibitors for influenza: a systematic review and meta-analysis of regulatory and mortality data.

BACKGROUND: Neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) are stockpiled and recommended by public health agencies for treating and preventing seasonal and pandemic influenza. They are used clinically worldwide. OBJECTIVES: To (1) describe the potential benefits and harms of NIs for influenza in all age groups by reviewing all clinical study reports (CSRs) of published and unpublished randomised, placebo-controlled trials and regulatory comments; and (2) determine the effect of oseltamivir (Tamiflu(®), Roche) treatment on mortality in patients with 2009A/H1N1 influenza. METHODS: We searched trial registries, electronic databases and corresponded with regulators and sponsors to identify randomised trials of NIs. We requested full CSRs and accessed regulators' comments. We included only those trials for which we had CSRs. To examine the effects of oseltamivir on 2009A/H1N1 influenza mortality, we requested individual patient data (IPD) from corresponding authors of all included observational studies. RESULTS: Effect of oseltamivir and zanamivir (Relenza®, GlaxoSmithKline) in the prevention and treatment of influenza: Oseltamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults by 16.8 hours [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.4 to 25.1 hours]. Zanamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults by 0.60 days (95% CI 0.39 to 0.81 days). Oseltamivir reduced unverified pneumonia in adult treatment [risk difference (RD) 1.00%, 95% CI 0.22% to 1.49%]; similar findings were observed with zanamivir prophylaxis in adults (RD 0.32%, 95% CI 0.09% to 0.41%). Oseltamivir treatment of adults increased the risk of nausea (RD 3.66%, 95% CI 0.90% to 7.39%) and vomiting (RD 4.56%, 95% CI 2.39% to 7.58%). In the treatment of children, oseltamivir induced vomiting (RD 5.34%, 95% CI 1.75% to 10.29%). Both oseltamivir and zanamivir prophylaxis reduced the risk of symptomatic influenza in individuals (oseltamivir RD 3.05%, 95% CI 1.83% to 3.88%; zanamivir RD 1.98%, 95% CI 0.98% to 2.54%) and in households (oseltamivir RD 13.6%, 95% CI 9.52% to 15.47%; zanamivir RD 14.84%, 95% CI 12.18% to 16.55%). Oseltamivir increased psychiatric adverse events in the combined on- and off-treatment periods (RD 1.06%, 95% CI 0.07% to 2.76%) and the risk of headaches while on treatment (RD 3.15%, 95% CI 0.88% to 5.78%). Effect of oseltamivir on mortality in patients with 2009A/H1N1 influenza: Analysis of summary data of 30 studies as well as IPD of four studies showed evidence of time-dependent bias. After adjusting for time-dependent bias and potential confounding variables, competing risks analysis of the IPD showed insufficient evidence that oseltamivir reduced the risk of mortality (hazard ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.65). CONCLUSIONS: Oseltamivir and zanamivir cause small reductions in the time to first alleviation of influenza symptoms in adults. The use of oseltamivir increases the risk of nausea, vomiting, psychiatric events in adults and vomiting in children. Oseltamivir has no protective effect on mortality among patients with 2009A/H1N1 influenza. Prophylaxis with either NI may reduce symptomatic influenza in individuals and in households. The balance between benefits and harms should be considered when making decisions about use of NIs for either prophylaxis or treatment of influenza. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002245. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Patient-reported outcomes after discontinuation of long-term topical corticosteroid treatment for atopic dermatitis: a targeted cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Topical corticosteroid (TCS) treatment is widely prescribed for atopic dermatitis (AD). However, TCS treatment is associated with tachyphylaxis, and discontinuation after long-term use may cause exacerbation of symptoms. Some AD patients are reluctant to use TCS. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patient-reported short- and long-term outcomes after discontinuation of TCS treatment for AD. METHODS: Questionnaires were distributed to adult AD patients (n=1,812) of doctors who did not recommend TCS as first-line therapy for patients who preferred to avoid TCS. Data collected included current TCS use, duration of TCS use, past discontinuation of TCS use, exacerbation of symptoms after discontinuation of TCS use, and limitations to daily activities because of AD. RESULTS: Of 918 respondents, 97.7% had used TCS, of whom 92.3% had experienced discontinuation of TCS use. After discontinuation, 63.9% experienced their most severe AD symptoms ever. The severity of exacerbation of symptoms was significantly correlated with the length of TCS use (P<0.001). Although most respondents who experienced severe exacerbation after TCS discontinuation were not current TCS users, they generally had fewer current limitations to activities than when AD symptoms were at their worst. CONCLUSION: Adult Japanese AD patients who experience severe exacerbation of symptoms immediately after discontinuation of TCS use generally improve over time. We suggest caution regarding long-term TCS treatment in AD patients.

Statins stimulate atherosclerosis and heart failure: pharmacological mechanisms.

In contrast to the current belief that cholesterol reduction with statins decreases atherosclerosis, we present a perspective that statins may be causative in coronary artery calcification and can function as mitochondrial toxins that impair muscle function in the heart and blood vessels through the depletion of coenzyme Q10 and 'heme A', and thereby ATP generation. Statins inhibit the synthesis of vitamin K2, the cofactor for matrix Gla-protein activation, which in turn protects arteries from calcification. Statins inhibit the biosynthesis of selenium containing proteins, one of which is glutathione peroxidase serving to suppress peroxidative stress. An impairment of selenoprotein biosynthesis may be a factor in congestive heart failure, reminiscent of the dilated cardiomyopathies seen with selenium deficiency. Thus, the epidemic of heart failure and atherosclerosis that plagues the modern world may paradoxically be aggravated by the pervasive use of statin drugs. We propose that current statin treatment guidelines be critically reevaluated.

Risk of bias in industry-funded oseltamivir trials: comparison of core reports versus full clinical study reports.

BACKGROUND: The Cochrane risk of bias tool is a prominent instrument used to evaluate potential biases in clinical trials. In three updates of our Cochrane review on neuraminidase inhibitors, we assessed risk of bias on the same trials using different levels of detail: the trials in journal publications, in core reports, and in full clinical study reports. Here we analyse whether progressively greater amounts of information and detail in full clinical study reports (including trial protocols, statistical analysis plans, certificates of analyses, individual participant data listings and randomisation lists) affected our risk of bias assessments. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess and compare risk of bias in 14 oseltamivir trials (reported in 10 clinical study reports) obtained from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the manufacturer, Roche. With more detailed information, reported in clinical study reports, no previous assessment of 'high' risk of bias was reclassified as 'low' or 'unclear' in the main analysis, and over half (55%, 34/62) of the previous assessments of 'low' risk of bias were reclassified as 'high'. Most assessments of 'unclear' risk of bias (67%, or 28/42) were reclassified as 'high' risk of bias when our judgements were based on full clinical study reports. The limits of our study were our relative inexperience in dealing with large information sets, sometimes subjective bias judgements and focus on industry trials. Comparison with journal publications was not possible because of the low number of trials published. CONCLUSIONS: We found that as information increased in the document, this increased our assessment of bias. This may mean that risk of bias has been insufficiently assessed in Cochrane reviews based on journal publications.

Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in healthy adults and children

BACKGROUND: Neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) are stockpiled and recommended by public health agencies for treating and preventing seasonal and pandemic influenza. They are used clinically worldwide. OBJECTIVE: To describe the potential benefits and harms of NIs for influenza in all age groups by reviewing all clinical study reports of published and unpublished randomised, placebo-controlled trials and regulatory comments. METHODS Search methods: We searched trial registries, electronic databases (to 22 July 2013) and regulatory archives, and corresponded with manufacturers to identify all trials. We also requested clinical study reports. We focused on the primary data sources of manufacturers but we checked that there were no published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from non-manufacturer sources by running electronic searches in the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Embase.com, PubMed (not MEDLINE), the Database of Reviews of Effects, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Economic Evaluations Database. Selection criteria: Randomised, placebo-controlled trials on adults and children with confirmed or suspected exposure to naturally occurring influenza. Data collection and analysis: We extracted clinical study reports and assessed risk of bias using purpose-built instruments. We analysed the effects of zanamivir and oseltamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms, influenza outcomes, complications, hospitalisations and adverse events in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. All trials were sponsored by the manufacturers. MAIN RESULTS: We obtained 107 clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), GlaxoSmithKline and Roche. We accessed comments by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), EMA and Japanese regulator. We included 53 trials in Stage 1 (a judgement of appropriate study design) and 46 in Stage ...

Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in adults and children.

BACKGROUND: Neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) are stockpiled and recommended by public health agencies for treating and preventing seasonal and pandemic influenza. They are used clinically worldwide. OBJECTIVES: To describe the potential benefits and harms of NIs for influenza in all age groups by reviewing all clinical study reports of published and unpublished randomised, placebo-controlled trials and regulatory comments. SEARCH METHODS: We searched trial registries, electronic databases (to 22 July 2013) and regulatory archives, and corresponded with manufacturers to identify all trials. We also requested clinical study reports. We focused on the primary data sources of manufacturers but we checked that there were no published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from non-manufacturer sources by running electronic searches in the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Embase.com, PubMed (not MEDLINE), the Database of Reviews of Effects, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Economic Evaluations Database. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, placebo-controlled trials on adults and children with confirmed or suspected exposure to naturally occurring influenza. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted clinical study reports and assessed risk of bias using purpose-built instruments. We analysed the effects of zanamivir and oseltamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms, influenza outcomes, complications, hospitalisations and adverse events in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. All trials were sponsored by the manufacturers. MAIN RESULTS: We obtained 107 clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), GlaxoSmithKline and Roche. We accessed comments by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), EMA and Japanese regulator. We included 53 trials in Stage 1 (a judgement of appropriate study design) and 46 in Stage 2 (formal analysis), including 20 oseltamivir (9623 participants) and 26 zanamivir trials (14,628 participants). Inadequate reporting put most of the zanamivir studies and half of the oseltamivir studies at a high risk of selection bias. There were inadequate measures in place to protect 11 studies of oseltamivir from performance bias due to non-identical presentation of placebo. Attrition bias was high across the oseltamivir studies and there was also evidence of selective reporting for both the zanamivir and oseltamivir studies. The placebo interventions in both sets of trials may have contained active substances. Time to first symptom alleviation. For the treatment of adults, oseltamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms by 16.8 hours (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.4 to 25.1 hours, P < 0.0001). This represents a reduction in the time to first alleviation of symptoms from 7 to 6.3 days. There was no effect in asthmatic children, but in otherwise healthy children there was (reduction by a mean difference of 29 hours, 95% CI 12 to 47 hours, P = 0.001). Zanamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults by 0.60 days (95% CI 0.39 to 0.81 days, P < 0.00001), equating to a reduction in the mean duration of symptoms from 6.6 to 6.0 days. The effect in children was not significant. In subgroup analysis we found no evidence of a difference in treatment effect for zanamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults in the influenza-infected and non-influenza-infected subgroups (P = 0.53). Hospitalisations. Treatment of adults with oseltamivir had no significant effect on hospitalisations: risk difference (RD) 0.15% (95% CI -0.78 to 0.91). There was also no significant effect in children or in prophylaxis. Zanamivir hospitalisation data were unreported. Serious influenza complications or those leading to study withdrawal. In adult treatment trials, oseltamivir did not significantly reduce those complications classified as serious or those which led to study withdrawal (RD 0.07%, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.44), nor in child treatment trials; neither did zanamivir in the treatment of adults or in prophylaxis. There were insufficient events to compare this outcome for oseltamivir in prophylaxis or zanamivir in the treatment of children. Pneumonia. Oseltamivir significantly reduced self reported, investigator-mediated, unverified pneumonia (RD 1.00%, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.49); number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 100 (95% CI 67 to 451) in the treated population. The effect was not significant in the five trials that used a more detailed diagnostic form for pneumonia. There were no definitions of pneumonia (or other complications) in any trial. No oseltamivir treatment studies reported effects on radiologically confirmed pneumonia. There was no significant effect on unverified pneumonia in children. There was no significant effect of zanamivir on either self reported or radiologically confirmed pneumonia. In prophylaxis, zanamivir significantly reduced the risk of self reported, investigator-mediated, unverified pneumonia in adults (RD 0.32%, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.41); NNTB = 311 (95% CI 244 to 1086), but not oseltamivir. Bronchitis, sinusitis and otitis media. Zanamivir significantly reduced the risk of bronchitis in adult treatment trials (RD 1.80%, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.80); NNTB = 56 (36 to 155), but not oseltamivir. Neither NI significantly reduced the risk of otitis media and sinusitis in both adults and children. Harms of treatment. Oseltamivir in the treatment of adults increased the risk of nausea (RD 3.66%, 95% CI 0.90 to 7.39); number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) = 28 (95% CI 14 to 112) and vomiting (RD 4.56%, 95% CI 2.39 to 7.58); NNTH = 22 (14 to 42). The proportion of participants with four-fold increases in antibody titre was significantly lower in the treated group compared to the control group (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.97, I(2) statistic = 0%) (5% absolute difference between arms). Oseltamivir significantly decreased the risk of diarrhoea (RD 2.33%, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.81); NNTB = 43 (95% CI 27 to 709) and cardiac events (RD 0.68%, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.0); NNTB = 148 (101 to 2509) compared to placebo during the on-treatment period. There was a dose-response effect on psychiatric events in the two oseltamivir "pivotal" treatment trials, WV15670 and WV15671, at 150 mg (standard dose) and 300 mg daily (high dose) (P = 0.038). In the treatment of children, oseltamivir induced vomiting (RD 5.34%, 95% CI 1.75 to 10.29); NNTH = 19 (95% CI 10 to 57). There was a significantly lower proportion of children on oseltamivir with a four-fold increase in antibodies (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00, I(2) = 0%). Prophylaxis. In prophylaxis trials, oseltamivir and zanamivir reduced the risk of symptomatic influenza in individuals (oseltamivir: RD 3.05% (95% CI 1.83 to 3.88); NNTB = 33 (26 to 55); zanamivir: RD 1.98% (95% CI 0.98 to 2.54); NNTB = 51 (40 to 103)) and in households (oseltamivir: RD 13.6% (95% CI 9.52 to 15.47); NNTB = 7 (6 to 11); zanamivir: RD 14.84% (95% CI 12.18 to 16.55); NNTB = 7 (7 to 9)). There was no significant effect on asymptomatic influenza (oseltamivir: RR 1.14 (95% CI 0.39 to 3.33); zanamivir: RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.24)). Non-influenza, influenza-like illness could not be assessed due to data not being fully reported. In oseltamivir prophylaxis studies, psychiatric adverse events were increased in the combined on- and off-treatment periods (RD 1.06%, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.76); NNTH = 94 (95% CI 36 to 1538) in the study treatment population. Oseltamivir increased the risk of headaches whilst on treatment (RD 3.15%, 95% CI 0.88 to 5.78); NNTH = 32 (95% CI 18 to 115), renal events whilst on treatment (RD 0.67%, 95% CI -2.93 to 0.01); NNTH = 150 (NNTH 35 to NNTB > 1000) and nausea whilst on treatment (RD 4.15%, 95% CI 0.86 to 9.51); NNTH = 25 (95% CI 11 to 116). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oseltamivir and zanamivir have small, non-specific effects on reducing the time to alleviation of influenza symptoms in adults, but not in asthmatic children. Using either drug as prophylaxis reduces the risk of developing symptomatic influenza. Treatment trials with oseltamivir or zanamivir do not settle the question of whether the complications of influenza (such as pneumonia) are reduced, because of a lack of diagnostic definitions. The use of oseltamivir increases the risk of adverse effects, such as nausea, vomiting, psychiatric effects and renal events in adults and vomiting in children. The lower bioavailability may explain the lower toxicity of zanamivir compared to oseltamivir. The balance between benefits and harms should be considered when making decisions about use of both NIs for either the prophylaxis or treatment of influenza. The influenza virus-specific mechanism of action proposed by the producers does not fit the clinical evidence.