B-type natriuretic peptide-guided treatment for heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure is a condition in which the heart does not pump enough blood to meet all the needs of the body. Symptoms of heart failure include breathlessness, fatigue and fluid retention. Outcomes for patients with heart failure are highly variable; however on average, these patients have a poor prognosis. Prognosis can be improved with early diagnosis and appropriate use of medical treatment, use of devices and transplantation. Patients with heart failure are high users of healthcare resources, not only due to drug and device treatments, but due to high costs of hospitalisation care. B-type natriuretic peptide levels are already used as biomarkers for diagnosis and prognosis of heart failure, but could offer to clinicians a possible tool to guide drug treatment. This could optimise drug management in heart failure patients whilst allaying concerns over potential side effects due to drug intolerance. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether treatment guided by serial BNP or NT-proBNP (collectively referred to as NP) monitoring improves outcomes compared with treatment guided by clinical assessment alone. SEARCH METHODS: Searches were conducted up to 15 March 2016 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database in the Cochrane Library. Searches were also conducted in the Science Citation Index Expanded, the Conference Proceedings Citation Index on Web of Science (Thomson Reuters), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry and ClinicalTrials.gov. We applied no date or language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of NP-guided treatment of heart failure versus treatment guided by clinical assessment alone with no restriction on follow-up. Adults treated for heart failure, in both in-hospital and out-of-hospital settings, and trials reporting a clinical outcome were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for dichotomous data, and pooled mean differences (MD) (with 95% confidence intervals (CI)) were calculated for continuous data. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing data. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, we assessed the quality of the evidence and GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager to create a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 randomised controlled trials with 3660 participants (range of mean age: 57 to 80 years) comparing NP-guided treatment with clinical assessment alone. The evidence for all-cause mortality using NP-guided treatment showed uncertainty (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.01; patients = 3169; studies = 15; low quality of the evidence), and for heart failure mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.30; patients = 853; studies = 6; low quality of evidence).The evidence suggested heart failure admission was reduced by NP-guided treatment (38% versus 26%, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.80; patients = 1928; studies = 10; low quality of evidence), but the evidence showed uncertainty for all-cause admission (57% versus 53%, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.03; patients = 1142; studies = 6; low quality of evidence).Six studies reported on adverse events, however the results could not be pooled (patients = 1144; low quality of evidence). Only four studies provided cost of treatment results, three of these studies reported a lower cost for NP-guided treatment, whilst one reported a higher cost (results were not pooled; patients = 931, low quality of evidence). The evidence showed uncertainty for quality of life data (MD -0.03, 95% CI -1.18 to 1.13; patients = 1812; studies = 8; very low quality of evidence).We completed a 'Risk of bias' assessment for all studies. The impact of risk of bias from lack of blinding of outcome assessment and high attrition levels was examined by restricting analyses to only low 'Risk of bias' studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure low-quality evidence showed a reduction in heart failure admission with NP-guided treatment while low-quality evidence showed uncertainty in the effect of NP-guided treatment for all-cause mortality, heart failure mortality, and all-cause admission. Uncertainty in the effect was further shown by very low-quality evidence for patient's quality of life. The evidence for adverse events and cost of treatment was low quality and we were unable to pool results.

Immunogenicity and seroefficacy of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background: Vaccination of infants with pneumococcal conjugate vaccines is recommended by the World Health Organization. Evidence is mixed regarding the differences in immunogenicity and efficacy of the different pneumococcal vaccines. Objectives: The primary objective was to compare the immunogenicity of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-10 versus pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13. The main secondary objective was to compare the seroefficacy of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-10 versus pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Global Health, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and trialsearch.who.int up to July 2022. Studies were eligible if they directly compared either pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-7, pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-10 or pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13 in randomised trials of children under 2 years of age, and provided immunogenicity data for at least one time point. Individual participant data were requested and aggregate data used otherwise. Outcomes included the geometric mean ratio of serotype-specific immunoglobulin G and the relative risk of seroinfection. Seroinfection was defined for each individual as a rise in antibody between the post-primary vaccination series time point and the booster dose, evidence of presumed subclinical infection. Each trial was analysed to obtain the log of the ratio of geometric means and its standard error. The relative risk of seroinfection ('seroefficacy') was estimated by comparing the proportion of participants with seroinfection between vaccine groups. The log-geometric mean ratios, log-relative risks and their standard errors constituted the input data for evidence synthesis. For serotypes contained in all three vaccines, evidence could be synthesised using a network meta-analysis. For other serotypes, meta-analysis was used. Results from seroefficacy analyses were incorporated into a mathematical model of pneumococcal transmission dynamics to compare the differential impact of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-10 and pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13 introduction on invasive pneumococcal disease cases. The model estimated the impact of vaccine introduction over a 25-year time period and an economic evaluation was conducted. Results: In total, 47 studies were eligible from 38 countries. Twenty-eight and 12 studies with data available were included in immunogenicity and seroefficacy analyses, respectively. Geometric mean ratios comparing pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13 versus pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-10 favoured pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13 for serotypes 4, 9V and 23F at 1 month after primary vaccination series, with 1.14- to 1.54-fold significantly higher immunoglobulin G responses with pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13. Risk of seroinfection prior to the time of booster dose was lower for pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13 for serotype 4, 6B, 9V, 18C and 23F than for pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-10. Significant heterogeneity and inconsistency were present for most serotypes and for both outcomes. Twofold higher antibody after primary vaccination was associated with a 54% decrease in risk of seroinfection (relative risk 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 0.96). In modelled scenarios, pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13 or pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-10 introduction in 2006 resulted in a reduction in cases that was less rapid for pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-10 than for pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13. The pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13 programme was predicted to avoid an additional 2808 (95% confidence interval 2690 to 2925) cases of invasive pneumococcal disease compared with pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-10 introduction between 2006 and 2030. Limitations: Analyses used data from infant vaccine studies with blood samples taken prior to a booster dose. The impact of extrapolating pre-booster efficacy to post-booster time points is unknown. Network meta-analysis models contained significant heterogeneity which may lead to bias. Conclusions: Serotype-specific differences were found in immunogenicity and seroefficacy between pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13 and pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-10. Higher antibody response after vaccination was associated with a lower risk of subsequent infection. These methods can be used to compare the pneumococcal conjugate vaccines and optimise vaccination strategies. For future work, seroefficacy estimates can be determined for other pneumococcal vaccines, which could contribute to licensing or policy decisions for new pneumococcal vaccines. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019124580. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/148/03) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 34. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Pneumococcal disease is a serious illness caused by a bacterial infection that can result in death. Children in the United Kingdom receive a vaccine to prevent this disease that protects against 13 different types of pneumococcal diseases. It is very effective, but other vaccines are also available, such as one that contains 10 types of pneumococcal diseases. Vaccines in the United Kingdom are bought by the government and the choice of which vaccine to provide is based on the cost of the vaccine as well as the benefits to our health. However, there is very little information comparing different vaccines and it is often assumed they are the same. We did a large analysis combining all studies of the two main licensed pneumococcal vaccines to determine which vaccine provides better protection against infection and how this affects costs. We used information from studies published in medical journals, and also data from studies done by the companies that own the vaccines. Our results showed that pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13 vaccine provided better protection than pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-10 for 5 of the 10 serotypes that are contained in both vaccines. When we used these results to model what might have happened had either of these vaccines been introduced into the United Kingdom vaccination programme in 2006, we found that both vaccines caused a rapid decrease in the amount of disease, but that the decrease in disease was faster with pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13 than pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-10. This resulted in 2808 cases of diseases prevented over a 25-year time frame with pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-13 compared with pneumococcal conjugate vaccine-10. Our methods can be used to compare other vaccines and we recommend this type of study be done in future when making decisions on vaccine product choice.

Immunogenicity and seroefficacy of 10-valent and 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccines: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of individual participant data.

Background: Vaccination of infants with pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) is recommended by the World Health Organization. Evidence is mixed regarding the differences in immunogenicity and efficacy of the different pneumococcal vaccines. Methods: In this systematic-review and network meta-analysis, we searched the Cochrane Library, Embase, Global Health, Medline, clinicaltrials.gov and trialsearch.who.int up to February 17, 2023 with no language restrictions. Studies were eligible if they presented data comparing the immunogenicity of either PCV7, PCV10 or PCV13 in head-to-head randomised trials of young children under 2 years of age, and provided immunogenicity data for at least one time point after the primary vaccination series or the booster dose. Publication bias was assessed via Cochrane's Risk Of Bias due to Missing Evidence tool and comparison-adjusted funnel plots with Egger's test. Individual participant level data were requested from publication authors and/or relevant vaccine manufacturers. Outcomes included the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of serotype-specific IgG and the relative risk (RR) of seroinfection. Seroinfection was defined for each individual as a rise in antibody between the post-primary vaccination series time point and the booster dose, evidence of presumed subclinical infection. Seroefficacy was defined as the RR of seroinfection. We also estimated the relationship between the GMR of IgG one month after priming and the RR of seroinfection by the time of the booster dose. The protocol is registered with PROSPERO, ID CRD42019124580. Findings: 47 studies were eligible from 38 countries across six continents. 28 and 12 studies with data available were included in immunogenicity and seroefficacy analyses, respectively. GMRs comparing PCV13 vs PCV10 favoured PCV13 for serotypes 4, 9V, and 23F at 1 month after primary vaccination series, with 1.14- to 1.54- fold significantly higher IgG responses with PCV13. Risk of seroinfection prior to the time of booster dose was lower for PCV13 for serotype 4, 6B, 9V, 18C and 23F than for PCV10. Significant heterogeneity and inconsistency were present for most serotypes and for both outcomes. Two-fold higher antibody after primary vaccination was associated with a 54% decrease in risk of seroinfection (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.23-0.96). Interpretation: Serotype-specific differences were found in immunogenicity and seroefficacy between PCV13 and PCV10. Higher antibody response after vaccination was associated with a lower risk of subsequent infection. These findings could be used to compare PCVs and optimise vaccination strategies. Funding: The NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Effects of antihypertensives, lipid-modifying drugs, glycaemic control drugs and sodium bicarbonate on the progression of stages 3 and 4 chronic kidney disease in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of drug interventions that may modify the progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in adults with CKD stages 3 and 4. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Health Technology Assessment, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index and Clinical Trials Register, from March 1999 to July 2018, we identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of drugs for hypertension, lipid modification, glycaemic control and sodium bicarbonate, compared with placebo, no drug or a drug from another class, in ≥40 adults with CKD stages 3 and/or 4, with at least 2 years of follow-up and reporting renal function (primary outcome), proteinuria, adverse events, maintenance dialysis, transplantation, cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality or all-cause mortality. Two reviewers independently screened citations and extracted data. For continuous outcomes, we used the ratio of means (ROM) at the end of the trial in random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed methodological quality with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and confidence in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. RESULTS: We included 35 RCTs and over 51 000 patients. Data were limited, and heterogeneity varied. Final renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate) was 6% higher in those taking glycaemic control drugs (ROM 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.10, I2=0%, low GRADE confidence) and 4% higher in those taking lipid-modifying drugs (ROM 1.04, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.08, I2=88%, very low GRADE confidence). For RCTs of antihypertensive drugs, there were no significant differences in renal function. Treatment with lipid-modifying drugs led to a 36% reduction in cardiovascular disease and 26% reduction in all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Glycaemic control and lipid-modifying drugs may slow the progression of CKD, but we found no pooled evidence of benefit nor harm from antihypertensive drugs. However, given the data limitations, further research is needed to confirm these findings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015017501.

Impact of heterogeneity and effect size on the estimation of the optimal information size: analysis of recently published meta-analyses.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of systematic reviews that meet the optimal information size (OIS) and assess the impact heterogeneity and effect size have on the OIS estimate by type of outcome (eg, mortality, semiobjective or subjective). METHODS: We carried out searches of Medline and Cochrane to retrieve meta-analyses published in systematic reviews from 2010 to 2012. We estimated the OIS using Trial Sequential Analysis software (TSA V.0.9) and based on several heterogeneity and effect size scenarios, stratifying by type of outcome (mortality/semiobjective/subjective) and by Cochrane/non-Cochrane reviews. RESULTS: We included 137 meta-analyses out of 218 (63%) potential systematic reviews (one meta-analysis from each systematic review). Of these reviews, 83 (61%) were Cochrane and 54 (39%) non-Cochrane. The Cochrane reviews included a mean of 6.5 (SD 6.1) studies and the non-Cochrane included a mean of 13.2 (SD 10.2) studies. The mean number of patients was 2619.1 (SD 6245.8 or median 586.0) for the Cochrane and 19 888.5 (SD 32 925.7 or median 6566.5) patients for the non-Cochrane reviews. The percentage of systematic reviews that achieved the OIS for all-cause mortality outcome were 0% Cochrane and 25% for non-Cochrane reviews; for semiobjective outcome 17% for Cochrane and 46% for non-Cochrane reviews and for subjective outcome 45% for Cochrane and 72% for non-Cochrane reviews. CONCLUSIONS: The number of systematic reviews that meet an optimal information size is low and varies depending on the type of outcome and the type of publication. Less than half of primary outcomes synthesised in systematic reviews achieve the OIS, and therefore the conclusions are subject to substantial uncertainty.