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& Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, EBSCO CINAHL plus, and clinical trial registries for ongoing and unpublished studies were searched in February 2024.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.

Growth factors for treating diabetic foot ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Foot ulcers are a major complication of diabetes mellitus, often leading to amputation. Growth factors derived from blood platelets, endothelium, or macrophages could potentially be an important treatment for these wounds but they may also confer risks. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of growth factors for foot ulcers in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2015 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials in any setting, recruiting people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus diagnosed with a foot ulcer. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they compared a growth factor plus standard care (e.g., antibiotic therapy, debridement, wound dressings) versus placebo or no growth factor plus standard care, or compared different growth factors against each other. We considered lower limb amputation (minimum of one toe), complete healing of the foot ulcer, and time to complete healing of the diabetic foot ulcer as the primary outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Independently, we selected randomised clinical trials, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data in duplicate. We estimated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. We measured statistical heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic. We subjected our analyses to both fixed-effect and random-effects model analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 28 randomised clinical trials involving 2365 participants. The cause of foot ulcer (neurologic, vascular, or combined) was poorly defined in all trials. The trials were conducted in ten countries. The trials assessed 11 growth factors in 30 comparisons: platelet-derived wound healing formula, autologous growth factor, allogeneic platelet-derived growth factor, transforming growth factor ß2, arginine-glycine-aspartic acid peptide matrix, recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor (becaplermin), recombinant human epidermal growth factor, recombinant human basic fibroblast growth factor, recombinant human vascular endothelial growth factor, recombinant human lactoferrin, and recombinant human acidic fibroblast growth factor. Topical intervention was the most frequent route of administration. All the trials were underpowered and had a high risk of bias. Pharmaceutical industry sponsored 50% of the trials.Any growth factor compared with placebo or no growth factor increased the number of participants with complete wound healing (345/657 (52.51%) versus 167/482 (34.64%); RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.73; I(2) = 51%, 12 trials; low quality evidence). The result is mainly based on platelet-derived wound healing formula (36/56 (64.28%) versus 7/27 (25.92%); RR 2.45, 95% 1.27 to 4.74; I(2) = 0%, two trials), and recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor (becaplermin) (205/428 (47.89%) versus 109/335 (32.53%); RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.76, I(2)= 74%, five trials).In terms of lower limb amputation (minimum of one toe), there was no clear evidence of a difference between any growth factor and placebo or no growth factor (19/150 (12.66%) versus 12/69 (17.39%); RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.39; I(2) = 0%, two trials; very low quality evidence). One trial involving 55 participants showed no clear evidence of a difference between recombinant human vascular endothelial growth factor and placebo in terms of ulcer-free days following treatment for diabetic foot ulcers (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.94; P value 0.56, low quality of evidence)Although 11 trials reported time to complete healing of the foot ulcers in people with diabetes , meta-analysis was not possible for this outcome due to the unique comparisons within each trial, failure to report data, and high number of withdrawals. Data on quality of life were not reported. Growth factors showed an increasing risk of overall adverse event rate compared with compared with placebo or no growth factor (255/498 (51.20%) versus 169/332 (50.90%); RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96; I(2) = 48%; eight trials; low quality evidence). Overall, safety data were poorly reported and adverse events may have been underestimated. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This Cochrane systematic review analysed a heterogeneous group of trials that assessed 11 different growth factors for diabetic foot ulcers. We found evidence suggesting that growth factors may increase the likelihood that people will have complete healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes. However, this conclusion is based on randomised clinical trials with high risk of systematic errors (bias). Assessment of the quality of the available evidence (GRADE) showed that further trials investigating the effect of growth factors are needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. The safety profiles of the growth factors are unclear. Future trials should be conducted according to SPIRIT statement and reported according to the CONSORT statement by independent investigators and using the Foundation of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research recommendations.

Pharmacological interventions for treating heart failure in patients with chagas cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Chagas disease-related cardiomyopathy is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in Latin America. Despite the substantial burden to the healthcare system, there is uncertainty regarding the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for treating heart failure in patients with Chagas disease. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of current pharmacological interventions for treating heart failure in patients with Chagas cardiomyopathy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library) Issue 1, 2011, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), LILACS and ISI Web of Science to April 2011. We checked the reference lists of included papers. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of pharmacological interventions for treating heart failure in adult patients (≥18 years) with symptomatic heart failure (New York Heart Association class II to IV), irrespective of the left ventricular ejection fraction stage, reduced or preserved, with Chagas cardiomyopathy. No limits were applied with respect to the follow-up duration. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality at 30 days, time to heart decompensation and disease-free period (at 30, 60 and 90 days), and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. We estimated relative risks (RR) and the respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes. We measured statistical heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic. We used a fixed-effect model to synthesize the findings. We contacted authors for additional data. MAIN RESULTS: We included two randomized clinical trials involving 69 participants. Both trials compared carvedilol against placebo, and had a high risk of bias. Carvedilol compared with placebo did not significantly affect all-cause mortality (2/34 (5.88%) versus 3/35 (5.87%); pooled RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.88, I(2) = 0%). None of the trials reported on cardiovascular mortality, time to heart decompensation or disease-free period. Evidence on the adverse effects of carvedilol is inconclusive. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This Cochrane review has found a lack of evidence on the effects of carvedilol for treating heart failure in patients with Chagas disease. The two included trials were underpowered and had a high risk of bias. There are no conclusive data to support the use of carvedilol for treating Chagas cardiomyopathy. Unless randomized clinical trials provide evidence of a treatment effect, and the trade off between potential benefits and harms is established, policy-makers, clinicians, and academics should be cautious when recommending and administering carvedilol for treating heart failure in patients with Chagas disease. The efficacy and safety of other pharmacological interventions for treating heart failure in patients with Chagas disease is unknown.