Meditation for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Interventions incorporating meditation to address stress, anxiety, and depression, and improve self-management, are becoming popular for many health conditions. Stress is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and clusters with other modifiable behavioural risk factors, such as smoking. Meditation may therefore be a useful CVD prevention strategy. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of meditation, primarily mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) and transcendental meditation (TM), for the primary and secondary prevention of CVD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trials registers on 14 November 2021, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of 12 weeks or more in adults at high risk of CVD and those with established CVD. We explored four comparisons: MBIs versus active comparators (alternative interventions); MBIs versus non-active comparators (no intervention, wait list, usual care); TM versus active comparators; TM versus non-active comparators. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were CVD clinical events (e.g. cardiovascular mortality), blood pressure, measures of psychological distress and well-being, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included other CVD risk factors (e.g. blood lipid levels), quality of life, and coping abilities. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 81 RCTs (6971 participants), with most studies at unclear risk of bias. MBIs versus active comparators (29 RCTs, 2883 participants) Systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure were reported in six trials (388 participants) where heterogeneity was considerable (SBP: MD -6.08 mmHg, 95% CI -12.79 to 0.63, I2 = 88%; DBP: MD -5.18 mmHg, 95% CI -10.65 to 0.29, I2 = 91%; both outcomes based on low-certainty evidence). There was little or no effect of MBIs on anxiety (SMD -0.06 units, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.13; I2 = 0%; 9 trials, 438 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), or depression (SMD 0.08 units, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.24; I2 = 0%; 11 trials, 595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Perceived stress was reduced with MBIs (SMD -0.24 units, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.03; I2 = 0%; P = 0.03; 6 trials, 357 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little to no effect on well-being (SMD -0.18 units, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.32; 1 trial, 63 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was little to no effect on smoking cessation (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.68; I2 = 79%; 6 trials, 1087 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reported CVD clinical events or adverse events. MBIs versus non-active comparators (38 RCTs, 2905 participants) Clinical events were reported in one trial (110 participants), providing very low-certainty evidence (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.42). SBP and DBP were reduced in nine trials (379 participants) but heterogeneity was substantial (SBP: MD -6.62 mmHg, 95% CI -13.15 to -0.1, I2 = 87%; DBP: MD -3.35 mmHg, 95% CI -5.86 to -0.85, I2 = 61%; both outcomes based on low-certainty evidence). There was low-certainty evidence of reductions in anxiety (SMD -0.78 units, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.41; I2 = 61%; 9 trials, 533 participants; low-certainty evidence), depression (SMD -0.66 units, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.41; I2 = 67%; 15 trials, 912 participants; low-certainty evidence) and perceived stress (SMD -0.59 units, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.29; I2 = 70%; 11 trials, 708 participants; low-certainty evidence) but heterogeneity was substantial. Well-being increased (SMD 0.5 units, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.91; I2 = 47%; 2 trials, 198 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little to no effect on smoking cessation (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.13; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 453 participants; low-certainty evidence). One small study (18 participants) reported two adverse events in the MBI group, which were not regarded as serious by the study investigators (RR 5.0, 95% CI 0.27 to 91.52; low-certainty evidence). No subgroup effects were seen for SBP, DBP, anxiety, depression, or perceived stress by primary and secondary prevention. TM versus active comparators (8 RCTs, 830 participants) Clinical events were reported in one trial (201 participants) based on low-certainty evidence (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.49). SBP was reduced (MD -2.33 mmHg, 95% CI -3.99 to -0.68; I2 = 2%; 8 trials, 774 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), with an uncertain effect on DBP (MD -1.15 mmHg, 95% CI -2.85 to 0.55; I2 = 53%; low-certainty evidence). There was little or no effect on anxiety (SMD 0.06 units, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.33; I2 = 0%; 3 trials, 200 participants; low-certainty evidence), depression (SMD -0.12 units, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.07; I2 = 0%; 5 trials, 421 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), or perceived stress (SMD 0.04 units, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.57; I2 = 70%; 3 trials, 194 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reported adverse events or smoking rates. No subgroup effects were seen for SBP or DBP by primary and secondary prevention. TM versus non-active comparators (2 RCTs, 186 participants) Two trials (139 participants) reported blood pressure, where reductions were seen in SBP (MD -6.34 mmHg, 95% CI -9.86 to -2.81; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence) and DBP (MD -5.13 mmHg, 95% CI -9.07 to -1.19; I2 = 18%; very low-certainty evidence). One trial (112 participants) reported anxiety and depression and found reductions in both (anxiety SMD -0.71 units, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.32; depression SMD -0.48 units, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.11; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reported CVD clinical events, adverse events, or smoking rates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the large number of studies included in the review, heterogeneity was substantial for many of the outcomes, which reduced the certainty of our findings. We attempted to address this by presenting four main comparisons of MBIs or TM versus active or inactive comparators, and by subgroup analyses according to primary or secondary prevention, where there were sufficient studies. The majority of studies were small and there was unclear risk of bias for most domains. Overall, we found very little information on the effects of meditation on CVD clinical endpoints, and limited information on blood pressure and psychological outcomes, for people at risk of or with established CVD. This is a very active area of research as shown by the large number of ongoing studies, with some having been completed at the time of writing this review. The status of all ongoing studies will be formally assessed and incorporated in further updates.

Interventions for treating children and adolescents with overweight and obesity: an overview of Cochrane reviews.

Children and adolescents with overweight and obesity are a global health concern. This is an integrative overview of six Cochrane systematic reviews, providing an up-to-date synthesis of the evidence examining interventions for the treatment of children and adolescents with overweight or obesity. The data extraction and quality assessments for each review were conducted by one author and checked by a second. The six high quality reviews provide evidence on the effectiveness of behaviour changing interventions conducted in children <6 years (7 trials), 6-11 years (70 trials), adolescents 12-17 years (44 trials) and interventions that target only parents of children aged 5-11 years (20 trials); in addition to interventions examining surgery (1 trial) and drugs (21 trials). Most of the evidence was derived from high-income countries and published in the last two decades. Collectively, the evidence suggests that multi-component behaviour changing interventions may be beneficial in achieving small reductions in body weight status in children of all ages, with low adverse event occurrence were reported. More research is required to understand which specific intervention components are most effective and in whom, and how best to maintain intervention effects. Evidence from surgical and drug interventions was too limited to make inferences about use and safety, and adverse events were a serious consideration.

Whole grain cereals for the primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence from observational studies that whole grains can have a beneficial effect on risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Earlier versions of this review found mainly short-term intervention studies. There are now longer-term randomised controlled trials (RCTs) available. This is an update and expansion of the original review conducted in 2007. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effect of whole grain foods or diets on total mortality, cardiovascular events, and cardiovascular risk factors (blood lipids, blood pressure) in healthy people or people who have established cardiovascular disease or related risk factors, using all eligible RCTs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (Issue 8, 2016) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to 31 August 2016), Embase (1980 to week 35 2016), and CINAHL Plus (1937 to 31 August 2016) on 31 August 2016. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 July 2017 and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) on 6 July 2017. We checked reference lists of relevant articles and applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected RCTs assessing the effects of whole grain foods or diets containing whole grains compared to foods or diets with a similar composition, over a minimum of 12 weeks, on cardiovascular disease and related risk factors. Eligible for inclusion were healthy adults, those at increased risk of CVD, or those previously diagnosed with CVD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies. Data were extracted and quality-checked by one review author and checked by a second review author. A second review author checked the analyses. We assessed treatment effect using mean difference in a fixed-effect model and heterogeneity using the I2 statistic and the Chi2 test of heterogeneity. We assessed the overall quality of evidence using GRADE with GRADEpro software. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs randomising a total of 1414 participants (age range 24 to 70; mean age 45 to 59, where reported) to whole grain versus lower whole grain or refined grain control groups. We found no studies that reported the effect of whole grain diets on total cardiovascular mortality or cardiovascular events (total myocardial infarction, unstable angina, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, total stroke). All included studies reported the effect of whole grain diets on risk factors for cardiovascular disease including blood lipids and blood pressure. All studies were in primary prevention populations and had an unclear or high risk of bias, and no studies had an intervention duration greater than 16 weeks.Overall, we found no difference between whole grain and control groups for total cholesterol (mean difference 0.07, 95% confidence interval -0.07 to 0.21; 6 studies (7 comparisons); 722 participants; low-quality evidence).Using GRADE, we assessed the overall quality of the available evidence on cholesterol as low. Four studies were funded by independent national and government funding bodies, while the remaining studies reported funding or partial funding by organisations with commercial interests in cereals. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence from RCTs of an effect of whole grain diets on cardiovascular outcomes or on major CVD risk factors such as blood lipids and blood pressure. Trials were at unclear or high risk of bias with small sample sizes and relatively short-term interventions, and the overall quality of the evidence was low. There is a need for well-designed, adequately powered RCTs with longer durations assessing cardiovascular events as well as cardiovascular risk factors.

Low glycaemic index diets for the prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: The glycaemic index (GI) is a physiological measure of the ability of a carbohydrate to affect blood glucose. Interest is growing in this area for the clinical management of people at risk of, or with, established cardiovascular disease. There is a need to review the current evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this area. This is an update of the original review published in 2008. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of the dietary GI on total mortality, cardiovascular events, and cardiovascular risk factors (blood lipids, blood pressure) in healthy people or people who have established cardiovascular disease or related risk factors, using all eligible randomised controlled trials. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL in July 2016. We also checked reference lists of relevant articles. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected RCTs that assessed the effects of low GI diets compared to diets with a similar composition but a higher GI on cardiovascular disease and related risk factors. Minimum trial duration was 12 weeks. Participants included were healthy adults or those at increased risk of cardiovascular disease, or previously diagnosed with cardiovascular disease. Studies in people with diabetes mellitus were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently screened and selected studies. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias, evaluated the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE, and extracted data following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We contacted trial authors for additional information. Analyses were checked by a second reviewer. Continuous outcomes were synthesized using mean differences and adverse events were synthesized narratively. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-one RCTs were included, with a total of 2538 participants randomised to low GI intervention (1288) or high GI (1250). All 21 included studies reported the effect of low GI diets on risk factors for cardiovascular disease, including blood lipids and blood pressure.Twenty RCTs (18 of which were newly included in this version of the review) included primary prevention populations (healthy individuals or those at high risk of CVD, with mean age range from 19 to 69 years) and one RCT was in those diagnosed with pre-existing CVD (a secondary prevention population, with mean age 26.9 years). Most of the studies did not have an intervention duration of longer than six months. Difference in GI intake between comparison groups varied widely from 0.6 to 42.None of the included studies reported the effect of low GI dietary intake on cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular events such as fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, and stroke. The unclear risk of bias of most of the included studies makes overall interpretation of the data difficult. Only two of the included studies (38 participants) reported on adverse effects and did not observe any harms (low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no evidence available regarding the effect of low GI diets on cardiovascular disease events. Moreover, there is currently no convincing evidence that low GI diets have a clear beneficial effect on blood lipids or blood pressure parameters.

Diet, physical activity and behavioural interventions for the treatment of overweight or obese adolescents aged 12 to 17 years.

BACKGROUND: Adolescent overweight and obesity has increased globally, and can be associated with short- and long-term health consequences. Modifying known dietary and behavioural risk factors through behaviour changing interventions (BCI) may help to reduce childhood overweight and obesity. This is an update of a review published in 2009. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of diet, physical activity and behavioural interventions for the treatment of overweight or obese adolescents aged 12 to 17 years. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search in: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, and the trial registers ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP Search Portal. We checked references of identified studies and systematic reviews. There were no language restrictions. The date of the last search was July 2016 for all databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of diet, physical activity and behavioural interventions for treating overweight or obesity in adolescents aged 12 to 17 years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias, evaluated the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE instrument and extracted data following the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We contacted trial authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 completed RCTs (4781 participants) and 50 ongoing studies. The number of participants in each trial varied (10 to 521) as did the length of follow-up (6 to 24 months). Participants ages ranged from 12 to 17.5 years in all trials that reported mean age at baseline. Most of the trials used a multidisciplinary intervention with a combination of diet, physical activity and behavioural components. The content and duration of the intervention, its delivery and the comparators varied across trials. The studies contributing most information to outcomes of weight and body mass index (BMI) were from studies at a low risk of bias, but studies with a high risk of bias provided data on adverse events and quality of life.The mean difference (MD) of the change in BMI at the longest follow-up period in favour of BCI was -1.18 kg/m2 (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.67 to -0.69); 2774 participants; 28 trials; low quality evidence. BCI lowered the change in BMI z score by -0.13 units (95% CI -0.21 to -0.05); 2399 participants; 20 trials; low quality evidence. BCI lowered body weight by -3.67 kg (95% CI -5.21 to -2.13); 1993 participants; 20 trials; moderate quality evidence. The effect on weight measures persisted in trials with 18 to 24 months' follow-up for both BMI (MD -1.49 kg/m2 (95% CI -2.56 to -0.41); 760 participants; 6 trials and BMI z score MD -0.34 (95% CI -0.66 to -0.02); 602 participants; 5 trials).There were subgroup differences showing larger effects for both BMI and BMI z score in studies comparing interventions with no intervention/wait list control or usual care, compared with those testing concomitant interventions delivered to both the intervention and control group. There were no subgroup differences between interventions with and without parental involvement or by intervention type or setting (health care, community, school) or mode of delivery (individual versus group).The rate of adverse events in intervention and control groups was unclear with only five trials reporting harms, and of these, details were provided in only one (low quality evidence). None of the included studies reported on all-cause mortality, morbidity or socioeconomic effects.BCIs at the longest follow-up moderately improved adolescent's health-related quality of life (standardised mean difference 0.44 ((95% CI 0.09 to 0.79); P = 0.01; 972 participants; 7 trials; 8 comparisons; low quality of evidence) but not self-esteem.Trials were inconsistent in how they measured dietary intake, dietary behaviours, physical activity and behaviour. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low quality evidence that multidisciplinary interventions involving a combination of diet, physical activity and behavioural components reduce measures of BMI and moderate quality evidence that they reduce weight in overweight or obese adolescents, mainly when compared with no treatment or waiting list controls. Inconsistent results, risk of bias or indirectness of outcome measures used mean that the evidence should be interpreted with caution. We have identified a large number of ongoing trials (50) which we will include in future updates of this review.

Diet, physical activity and behavioural interventions for the treatment of overweight or obese children from the age of 6 to 11 years.

BACKGROUND: Child and adolescent overweight and obesity has increased globally, and can be associated with significant short- and long-term health consequences. This is an update of a Cochrane review published first in 2003, and updated previously in 2009. However, the update has now been split into six reviews addressing different childhood obesity treatments at different ages. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of diet, physical activity and behavioural interventions (behaviour-changing interventions) for the treatment of overweight or obese children aged 6 to 11 years. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS as well as trial registers ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP Search Portal. We checked references of studies and systematic reviews. We did not apply any language restrictions. The date of the last search was July 2016 for all databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of diet, physical activity, and behavioural interventions (behaviour-changing interventions) for treating overweight or obese children aged 6 to 11 years, with a minimum of six months' follow-up. We excluded interventions that specifically dealt with the treatment of eating disorders or type 2 diabetes, or included participants with a secondary or syndromic cause of obesity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened references, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and evaluated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE instrument. We contacted study authors for additional information. We carried out meta-analyses according to the statistical guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. MAIN RESULTS: We included 70 RCTs with a total of 8461 participants randomised to either the intervention or control groups. The number of participants per trial ranged from 16 to 686. Fifty-five trials compared a behaviour-changing intervention with no treatment/usual care control and 15 evaluated the effectiveness of adding an additional component to a behaviour-changing intervention. Sixty-four trials were parallel RCTs, and four were cluster RCTs. Sixty-four trials were multicomponent, two were diet only and four were physical activity only interventions. Ten trials had more than two arms. The overall quality of the evidence was low or very low and 62 trials had a high risk of bias for at least one criterion. Total duration of trials ranged from six months to three years. The median age of participants was 10 years old and the median BMI z score was 2.2.Primary analyses demonstrated that behaviour-changing interventions compared to no treatment/usual care control at longest follow-up reduced BMI, BMI z score and weight. Mean difference (MD) in BMI was -0.53 kg/m2 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.82 to -0.24); P < 0.00001; 24 trials; 2785 participants; low-quality evidence. MD in BMI z score was -0.06 units (95% CI -0.10 to -0.02); P = 0.001; 37 trials; 4019 participants; low-quality evidence and MD in weight was -1.45 kg (95% CI -1.88 to -1.02); P < 0.00001; 17 trials; 1774 participants; low-quality evidence.Thirty-one trials reported on serious adverse events, with 29 trials reporting zero occurrences RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.17 to 1.93); P = 0.37; 4/2105 participants in the behaviour-changing intervention groups compared with 7/1991 participants in the comparator groups). Few trials reported health-related quality of life or behaviour change outcomes, and none of the analyses demonstrated a substantial difference in these outcomes between intervention and control. In two trials reporting on minutes per day of TV viewing, a small reduction of 6.6 minutes per day (95% CI -12.88 to -0.31), P = 0.04; 2 trials; 55 participants) was found in favour of the intervention. No trials reported on all-cause mortality, morbidity or socioeconomic effects, and few trials reported on participant views; none of which could be meta-analysed.As the meta-analyses revealed substantial heterogeneity, we conducted subgroup analyses to examine the impact of type of comparator, type of intervention, risk of attrition bias, setting, duration of post-intervention follow-up period, parental involvement and baseline BMI z score. No subgroup effects were shown for any of the subgroups on any of the outcomes. Some data indicated that a reduction in BMI immediately post-intervention was no longer evident at follow-up at less than six months, which has to be investigated in further trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Multi-component behaviour-changing interventions that incorporate diet, physical activity and behaviour change may be beneficial in achieving small, short-term reductions in BMI, BMI z score and weight in children aged 6 to 11 years. The evidence suggests a very low occurrence of adverse events. The quality of the evidence was low or very low. The heterogeneity observed across all outcomes was not explained by subgrouping. Further research is required of behaviour-changing interventions in lower income countries and in children from different ethnic groups; also on the impact of behaviour-changing interventions on health-related quality of life and comorbidities. The sustainability of reduction in BMI/BMI z score and weight is a key consideration and there is a need for longer-term follow-up and further research on the most appropriate forms of post-intervention maintenance in order to ensure intervention benefits are sustained over the longer term.

Psychological interventions for coronary heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the most common cause of death globally, although mortality rates are falling. Psychological symptoms are prevalent for people with CHD, and many psychological treatments are offered following cardiac events or procedures with the aim of improving health and outcomes. This is an update of a Cochrane systematic review previously published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of psychological interventions (alone or with cardiac rehabilitation) compared with usual care (including cardiac rehabilitation where available) for people with CHD on total mortality and cardiac mortality; cardiac morbidity; and participant-reported psychological outcomes of levels of depression, anxiety, and stress; and to explore potential study-level predictors of the effectiveness of psychological interventions in this population. SEARCH METHODS: We updated the previous Cochrane Review searches by searching the following databases on 27 April 2016: CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), and CINAHL (EBSCO). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological interventions compared to usual care, administered by trained staff, and delivered to adults with a specific diagnosis of CHD. We selected only studies estimating the independent effect of the psychological component, and with a minimum follow-up of six months. The study population comprised of adults after: a myocardial infarction (MI), a revascularisation procedure (coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)), and adults with angina or angiographically defined coronary artery disease (CAD). RCTs had to report at least one of the following outcomes: mortality (total- or cardiac-related); cardiac morbidity (MI, revascularisation procedures); or participant-reported levels of depression, anxiety, or stress. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts of all references for eligibility. A lead review author extracted study data, which a second review author checked. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information. MAIN RESULTS: This review included 35 studies which randomised 10,703 people with CHD (14 trials and 2577 participants added to this update). The population included mainly men (median 77.0%) and people post-MI (mean 65.7%) or after undergoing a revascularisation procedure (mean 27.4%). The mean age of participants within trials ranged from 53 to 67 years. Overall trial reporting was poor, with around a half omitting descriptions of randomisation sequence generation, allocation concealment procedures, or the blinding of outcome assessments. The length of follow-up ranged from six months to 10.7 years (median 12 months). Most studies (23/35) evaluated multifactorial interventions, which included therapies with multiple therapeutic components. Ten studies examined psychological interventions targeted at people with a confirmed psychopathology at baseline and two trials recruited people with a psychopathology or another selecting criterion (or both). Of the remaining 23 trials, nine studies recruited unselected participants from cardiac populations reporting some level of psychopathology (3.8% to 53% with depressive symptoms, 32% to 53% with anxiety), 10 studies did not report these characteristics, and only three studies excluded people with psychopathology.Moderate quality evidence showed no risk reduction for total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.05; participants = 7776; studies = 23) or revascularisation procedures (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.11) with psychological therapies compared to usual care. Low quality evidence found no risk reduction for non-fatal MI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.05), although there was a 21% reduction in cardiac mortality (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.98). There was also low or very low quality evidence that psychological interventions improved participant-reported levels of depressive symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.27, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.15; GRADE = low), anxiety (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.09; GRADE = low), and stress (SMD -0.56, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.24; GRADE = very low).There was substantial statistical heterogeneity for all psychological outcomes but not clinical outcomes, and there was evidence of small-study bias for one clinical outcome (cardiac mortality: Egger test P = 0.04) and one psychological outcome (anxiety: Egger test P = 0.012). Meta-regression exploring a limited number of intervention characteristics found no significant predictors of intervention effects for total mortality and cardiac mortality. For depression, psychological interventions combined with adjunct pharmacology (where deemed appropriate) for an underlying psychological disorder appeared to be more effective than interventions that did not (ß = -0.51, P = 0.003). For anxiety, interventions recruiting participants with an underlying psychological disorder appeared more effective than those delivered to unselected populations (ß = -0.28, P = 0.03). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated Cochrane Review found that for people with CHD, there was no evidence that psychological treatments had an effect on total mortality, the risk of revascularisation procedures, or on the rate of non-fatal MI, although the rate of cardiac mortality was reduced and psychological symptoms (depression, anxiety, or stress) were alleviated; however, the GRADE assessments suggest considerable uncertainty surrounding these effects. Considerable uncertainty also remains regarding the people who would benefit most from treatment (i.e. people with or without psychological disorders at baseline) and the specific components of successful interventions. Future large-scale trials testing the effectiveness of psychological therapies are required due to the uncertainty within the evidence. Future trials would benefit from testing the impact of specific (rather than multifactorial) psychological interventions for participants with CHD, and testing the targeting of interventions on different populations (i.e. people with CHD, with or without psychopathologies).

Fixed-dose combination therapy for the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases.

BACKGROUND: Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is the leading cause of death and disability worldwide, yet ASCVD risk factor control and secondary prevention rates remain low. A fixed-dose combination of blood pressure- and cholesterol-lowering and antiplatelet treatments into a single pill, or polypill, has been proposed as one strategy to reduce the global burden of ASCVD. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of fixed-dose combination therapy on all-cause mortality, fatal and non-fatal ASCVD events, and adverse events. We also sought to determine the effect of fixed-dose combination therapy on blood pressure, lipids, adherence, discontinuation rates, health-related quality of life, and costs. SEARCH METHODS: We updated our previous searches in September 2016 of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Science, and DARE, HTA, and HEED. We also searched two clinical trials registers in September 2016. We used no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of a fixed-dose combination therapy including at least one blood pressure-lowering and one lipid-lowering component versus usual care, placebo, or an active drug comparator for any treatment duration in adults 18 years old or older, with no restrictions on presence or absence of pre-existing ASCVD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted the data for this update. We evaluated risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' assessment tool. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using fixed-effect models when heterogeneity was low (I2 < 50%) and random-effects models when heterogeneity was high (I2 ≥ 50%). We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: In the initial review, we identified nine randomised controlled trials with a total of 7047 participants and four additional trials (n = 2012 participants; mean age range 62 to 63 years; 30% to 37% women) were included in this update. Eight of the 13 trials evaluated the effects of fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy in populations without prevalent ASCVD, and the median follow-up ranged from six weeks to 23 months. More recent trials were generally larger with longer follow-up and lower risk of bias. The main risk of bias was related to lack of blinding of participants and personnel, which was inherent to the intervention. Compared with the comparator groups (placebo, usual care, or active drug comparator), the effects of the fixed-dose combination treatment on mortality (FDC = 1.0% versus control = 1.0%, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.89,  I2 = 0%, 5 studies, N = 5300) and fatal and non-fatal ASCVD events (FDC = 4.7% versus control = 3.7%, RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.66, I2 = 0%, 6 studies, N = 4517) were uncertain (low-quality evidence). The low event rates for these outcomes and indirectness of evidence for comparing fixed-dose combination to usual care versus individual drugs suggest that these results should be viewed with caution. Adverse events were common in both the intervention (32%) and comparator (27%) groups, with participants randomised to fixed-dose combination therapy being 16% (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.25, 11 studies, 6906 participants, moderate-quality evidence) more likely to report an adverse event . The mean differences in systolic blood pressure between the intervention and control arms was -6.34 mmHg (95% CI -9.03 to -3.64, 13 trials, 7638 participants, moderate-quality evidence). The mean differences (95% CI) in total and LDL cholesterol between the intervention and control arms were -0.61 mmol/L (95% CI -0.88 to -0.35, 11 trials, 6565 participants, low-quality evidence) and -0.70 mmol/L (95% CI -0.98 to -0.41, 12 trials, 7153 participants, moderate-quality evidence), respectively. There was a high degree of statistical heterogeneity in comparisons of blood pressure and lipids (I2 ≥ 80% for all) that could not be explained, so these results should be viewed with caution. Fixed-dose combination therapy improved adherence to a multidrug strategy by 44% (26% to 65%) compared with usual care (4 trials, 3835 participants, moderate-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effects of fixed-dose combination therapy on all-cause mortality or ASCVD events are uncertain. A limited number of trials reported these outcomes, and the included trials were primarily designed to observe changes in ASCVD risk factor levels rather than clinical events, which may partially explain the observed differences in risk factors that were not translated into differences in clinical outcomes among the included trials. Fixed-dose combination therapy is associated with modest increases in adverse events compared with placebo, active comparator, or usual care but may be associated with improved adherence to a multidrug regimen. Ongoing, longer-term trials of fixed-dose combination therapy will help demonstrate whether short-term changes in risk factors might be maintained and lead to expected differences in clinical events based on these changes.

Vitamin C supplementation for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin C is an essential micronutrient and powerful antioxidant. Observational studies have shown an inverse relationship between vitamin C intake and major cardiovascular events and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. Results from clinical trials are less consistent. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of vitamin C supplementation as a single supplement for the primary prevention of CVD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases on 11 May 2016: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase Classic and Embase (Ovid); Web of Science Core Collection (Thomson Reuters); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE); Health Technology Assessment Database and Health Economics Evaluations Database in the Cochrane Library. We searched trial registers on 13 April 2016 and reference lists of reviews for further studies. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of vitamin C supplementation as a single nutrient supplement lasting at least three months and involving healthy adults or adults at moderate and high risk of CVD were included. The comparison group was no intervention or placebo. The outcomes of interest were CVD clinical events and CVD risk factors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, abstracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight trials with 15,445 participants randomised. The largest trial with 14,641 participants provided data on our primary outcomes. Seven trials reported on CVD risk factors. Three of the eight trials were regarded at high risk of bias for either reporting or attrition bias, most of the 'Risk of bias' domains for the remaining trials were judged as unclear, with the exception of the largest trial where most domains were judged to be at low risk of bias.The composite endpoint, major CVD events was not different between the vitamin C and placebo group (hazard ratio (HR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.10; 1 study; 14,641 participants; low-quality evidence) in the Physicians Health Study II over eight years of follow-up. Similar results were obtained for all-cause mortality HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.18; 1 study; 14,641 participants; very low-quality evidence, total myocardial infarction (MI) (fatal and non-fatal) HR 1.04 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.24); 1 study; 14,641 participants; low-quality evidence, total stroke (fatal and non-fatal) HR 0.89 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.07); 1 study; 14,641 participants; low-quality evidence, CVD mortality HR 1.02 (95% 0.85 to 1.22); 1 study; 14,641 participants; very low-quality evidence, self-reported coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)/percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) HR 0.96 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.07); 1 study; 14,641 participants; low-quality evidence, self-reported angina HR 0.93 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.03); 1 study; 14,641 participants; low-quality evidence.The evidence for the majority of primary outcomes was downgraded (low quality) because of indirectness and imprecision. For all-cause mortality and CVD mortality, the evidence was very low because more factors affected the directness of the evidence and because of inconsistency.Four studies did not state sources of funding, two studies declared non-commercial funding and two studies declared both commercial and non-commercial funding. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is no evidence to suggest that vitamin C supplementation reduces the risk of CVD in healthy participants and those at increased risk of CVD, but current evidence is limited to one trial of middle-aged and older male physicians from the USA. There is limited low- and very low-quality evidence currently on the effect of vitamin C supplementation and risk of CVD risk factors.

Questionnaire study to gain an insight into the manufacturing and fitting process of artificial eyes in children: an ocularist perspective.

PURPOSE: To gain an insight into the manufacturing and fitting of artificial eyes in children and potential improvements to the process. METHOD: An online qualitative survey was distributed to 39 ocularists/prosthetists in Europe and Canada. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling, specifically maximum variation sampling from the researcher's contacts and an online search. RESULTS: The findings highlighted the current impression technique as being the most difficult yet most important part of the current process for both the ocularist and child patient. Negatively affecting obtaining a good impression, the child patients distress can be reduced by their parents by providing encouragement, reassurance, practicing the insertion and removal of the artificial eye and being matter of fact. Whilst improvements to the current process provided mixed views, the incorporation of current technology was perceived as not being able to meet the requirements to produce aesthetically pleasing artificial eyes. CONCLUSION: The current artificial eye process can be seen as an interaction with its success being dependent on the child patient's acceptance and adjustment which is dependent on the factors associated to the process. Investigation into the needs of the patient and whether technology can improve the process are the next steps in its advancement.

Diet, physical activity, and behavioural interventions for the treatment of overweight or obesity in preschool children up to the age of 6 years.

BACKGROUND: Child overweight and obesity has increased globally, and can be associated with short- and long-term health consequences. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of diet, physical activity, and behavioural interventions for the treatment of overweight or obesity in preschool children up to the age of 6 years. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search in the databases Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and LILACS, as well as in the trial registers ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP Search Portal. We also checked references of identified trials and systematic reviews. We applied no language restrictions. The date of the last search was March 2015 for all databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of diet, physical activity, and behavioural interventions for treating overweight or obesity in preschool children aged 0 to 6 years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias, evaluated the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE instrument, and extracted data following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We contacted trial authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: We included 7 RCTs with a total of 923 participants: 529 randomised to an intervention and 394 to a comparator. The number of participants per trial ranged from 18 to 475. Six trials were parallel RCTs, and one was a cluster RCT. Two trials were three-arm trials, each comparing two interventions with a control group. The interventions and comparators in the trials varied. We categorised the comparisons into two groups: multicomponent interventions and dietary interventions. The overall quality of the evidence was low or very low, and six trials had a high risk of bias on individual 'Risk of bias' criteria. The children in the included trials were followed up for between six months and three years.In trials comparing a multicomponent intervention with usual care, enhanced usual care, or information control, we found a greater reduction in body mass index (BMI) z score in the intervention groups at the end of the intervention (6 to 12 months): mean difference (MD) -0.3 units (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.4 to -0.2); P < 0.00001; 210 participants; 4 trials; low-quality evidence, at 12 to 18 months' follow-up: MD -0.4 units (95% CI -0.6 to -0.2); P = 0.0001; 202 participants; 4 trials; low-quality evidence, and at 2 years' follow-up: MD -0.3 units (95% CI -0.4 to -0.1); 96 participants; 1 trial; low-quality evidence.One trial stated that no adverse events were reported; the other trials did not report on adverse events. Three trials reported health-related quality of life and found improvements in some, but not all, aspects. Other outcomes, such as behaviour change and parent-child relationship, were inconsistently measured.One three-arm trial of very low-quality evidence comparing two types of diet with control found that both the dairy-rich diet (BMI z score change MD -0.1 units (95% CI -0.11 to -0.09); P < 0.0001; 59 participants) and energy-restricted diet (BMI z score change MD -0.1 units (95% CI -0.11 to -0.09); P < 0.0001; 57 participants) resulted in greater reduction in BMI than the comparator at the end of the intervention period, but only the dairy-rich diet maintained this at 36 months' follow-up (BMI z score change in MD -0.7 units (95% CI -0.71 to -0.69); P < 0.0001; 52 participants). The energy-restricted diet had a worse BMI outcome than control at this follow-up (BMI z score change MD 0.1 units (95% CI 0.09 to 0.11); P < 0.0001; 47 participants). There was no substantial difference in mean daily energy expenditure between groups. Health-related quality of life, adverse effects, participant views, and parenting were not measured.No trial reported on all-cause mortality, morbidity, or socioeconomic effects.All results should be interpreted cautiously due to their low quality and heterogeneous interventions and comparators. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Muticomponent interventions appear to be an effective treatment option for overweight or obese preschool children up to the age of 6 years. However, the current evidence is limited, and most trials had a high risk of bias. Most trials did not measure adverse events. We have identified four ongoing trials that we will include in future updates of this review.The role of dietary interventions is more equivocal, with one trial suggesting that dairy interventions may be effective in the longer term, but not energy-restricted diets. This trial also had a high risk of bias.

Internet-based interventions for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease.

BACKGROUND: The Internet could provide a means of delivering secondary prevention programmes to people with coronary heart disease (CHD). OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of Internet-based interventions targeting lifestyle changes and medicines management for the secondary prevention of CHD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, in December 2014. We also searched six other databases in October 2014, and three trials registers in January 2015 together with reference checking and handsearching to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating Internet-delivered secondary prevention interventions aimed at people with CHD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We assessed evidence quality using the GRADE approach and presented this in a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen trials met our inclusion criteria. Eleven studies are complete (1392 participants), and seven are ongoing. Of the completed studies, seven interventions are broad, targeting the lifestyle management of CHD, and four focused on physical activity promotion. The comparison group in trials was usual care (n = 6), minimal intervention (n = 3), or traditional cardiac rehabilitation (n = 2).We found no effects of Internet-based interventions for all-cause mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 1.63; participants = 895; studies = 6; low-quality evidence). There was only one case of cardiovascular mortality in a control group (participants = 895; studies = 6). No incidences of non-fatal re-infarction were reported across any of the studies. We found no effects for revascularisation (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.27; participants = 895; studies = 6; low-quality evidence).We found no effects for total cholesterol (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.28; participants = 439; studies = 4; low-quality evidence), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.07; participants = 437; studies = 4; low-quality evidence), or triglycerides (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.19; participants = 439; studies = 4; low-quality evidence). We did not pool the data for low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol due to considerable heterogeneity. Two out of six trials measuring LDL cholesterol detected favourable intervention effects, and four trials reported no effects. Seven studies measured systolic and diastolic blood pressure; we did not pool the data due to substantial heterogeneity. For systolic blood pressure, two studies showed a reduction with the intervention, but the remaining studies showed no effect. For diastolic blood pressure, two studies showed a reduction with the intervention, one study showed an increase with the intervention, and the remaining four studies showed no effect.Five trials measured health-related quality of life (HRQOL). We could draw no conclusions from one study due to incomplete reporting; one trial reported no effect; two studies reported a short- and medium-term effect respectively; and one study reported both short- and medium-term effects.Five trials assessed dietary outcomes: two reported favourable effects, and three reported no effects. Eight studies assessed physical activity: five of these trials reported no physical activity effects, and three reported effectiveness. Trials are yet to measure the impact of these interventions on compliance with medication.Two studies measured healthcare utilisation: one reported no effects, and the other reported increased usage of healthcare services compared to a control group in the intervention group at nine months' follow-up. Two trials collected cost data: both reported that Internet-delivered interventions are likely to be cost-effective.In terms of the risk of bias, the majority of studies reported appropriate randomisation and appropriate concealment of randomisation processes. A lack of blinding resulted in a risk of performance bias in seven studies, and a risk of detection bias in five trials. Two trials were at risk of attrition bias, and five were at risk for reporting bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In general, evidence was of low quality due to lack of blinding, loss to follow-up, and uncertainty around the effect size. Few studies measured clinical events, and of those that did, a very small number of events were reported, and therefore no firm conclusions can be made. Similarly, there was no clear evidence of effect for cardiovascular risk factors, although again the number of studies reporting these was small. There was some evidence for beneficial effects on HRQOL, dietary outcomes, and physical activity, although firm conclusions cannot yet be made. The effects on healthcare utilisation and cost-effectiveness are also inconclusive, and trials are yet to measure the impact of Internet interventions on compliance with medication. The comparison groups differed across trials, and there were insufficient studies with usable data for subgroup analyses. We intend to study the intensity of comparison groups in future updates of this review when more evidence is available. The completion of the ongoing trials will add to the evidence base.

Multiple risk factor interventions for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: In many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) have grown exponentially over recent years. It is estimated that about 80% of CVD deaths occur in LMICs. People in LMICs are more exposed to cardiovascular risk factors such as tobacco, and often do not have access to effective and equitable healthcare services (including early detection services). Evidence from high-income countries indicates that multiple risk factor intervention programmes do not result in reductions in CVD events. Given the increasing incidence of CVDs and lower CVD health awareness in LMICs it is possible that such programmes may have beneficial effects. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of multiple risk factor interventions (with or without pharmacological treatment) aimed at modifying major cardiovascular risk factors for the primary prevention of CVD in LMICs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched (from inception to 27 June 2014) the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL, HTA, DARE, EED), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health and three other databases on 27 June 2014. We also searched two clinical trial registers and conducted reference checking to identify additional studies. We applied no language limits. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of health promotion interventions to achieve behaviour change (i.e. smoking cessation, dietary advice, increasing activity levels) with or without pharmacological treatments, which aim to alter more than one cardiovascular risk factor (i.e. diet, reduce blood pressure, smoking, total blood cholesterol or increase physical activity) of at least six months duration of follow-up conducted in LMICs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We combined dichotomous data using risk ratios (RRs) and continuous data using mean differences (MDs), and presented all results with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The primary outcome was combined fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular disease events. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen trials met the inclusion criteria and are included in the review. All studies had at least one domain with unclear risk of bias. Some studies were at high risk of bias for random sequence generation (two trials), allocation concealment (two trials), blinding of outcome assessors (one trial) and incomplete outcome data (one trial). Duration and content of multiple risk factor interventions varied across the trials. Two trials recruited healthy participants and the other 11 trials recruited people with varying risks of CVD, such as participants with known hypertension and type 2 diabetes. Only one study reported CVD outcomes and multiple risk factor interventions did not reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.07, 232 participants, low-quality evidence); the result is imprecise (a wide confidence interval and small sample size) and makes it difficult to draw a reliable conclusion. None of the included trials reported all-cause mortality. The pooled effect indicated a reduction in systolic blood pressure (MD -6.72 mmHg, 95% CI -9.82 to -3.61, I² = 91%, 4868 participants, low-quality evidence), diastolic blood pressure (MD -4.40 mmHg, 95% CI -6.47 to -2.34, I² = 92%, 4701 participants, low-quality evidence), body mass index (MD -0.76 kg/m², 95% CI -1.29 to -0.22, I² = 80%, 2984 participants, low-quality evidence) and waist circumference (MD -3.31, 95% CI -4.77 to -1.86, I² = 55%, 393 participants, moderate-quality evidence) in favour of multiple risk factor interventions, but there was substantial heterogeneity. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of these interventions on consumption of fruit or vegetables, smoking cessation, glycated haemoglobin, fasting blood sugar, high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and total cholesterol. None of the included trials reported on adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the limited evidence currently available, we can draw no conclusions as to the effectiveness of multiple risk factor interventions on combined CVD events and mortality. There is some evidence that multiple risk factor interventions may lower blood pressure levels, body mass index and waist circumference in populations in LMIC settings at high risk of hypertension and diabetes. There was considerable heterogeneity between the trials, the trials were small, and at some risk of bias. Larger studies with longer follow-up periods are required to confirm whether multiple risk factor interventions lead to reduced CVD events and mortality in LMIC settings.

A self-management programme for COPD: a randomised controlled trial.

Studies of programmes of self-management support for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have been inconclusive. The Self-Management Programme of Activity, Coping and Education (SPACE) FOR COPD is a 6-week self-management intervention for COPD, and this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of this intervention in primary care. A single-blind randomised controlled trial recruited people with COPD from primary care and randomised participants to receive usual care or SPACE FOR COPD. Outcome measures were performed at baseline, 6 weeks and 6 months. The primary outcome was symptom burden, measured by the self-reported Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ-SR) dyspnoea domain. Secondary outcomes included other domains of the CRQ-SR, shuttle walking tests, disease knowledge, anxiety, depression, self-efficacy, smoking status and healthcare utilisation. 184 people with COPD were recruited and randomised. At 6 weeks, there were significant differences between groups in CRQ-SR dyspnoea, fatigue and emotion scores, exercise performance, anxiety, and disease knowledge. At 6 months, there was no between-group difference in change in CRQ-SR dyspnoea. Exercise performance, anxiety and smoking status were significantly different between groups at 6 months, in favour of the intervention. This brief self-management intervention did not improve dyspnoea over and above usual care at 6 months; however, there were gains in anxiety, exercise performance, and disease knowledge.

Fixed-dose combination therapy for the prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death and disability worldwide, yet CVD risk factor control and secondary prevention rates remain low. A fixed-dose combination of blood pressure and cholesterol lowering and antiplatelet treatments into a single pill, or polypill, has been proposed as one strategy to reduce the global burden of CVD by up to 80% given its potential for better adherence and lower costs. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of fixed-dose combination therapy on reducing fatal and non-fatal CVD events and on improving blood pressure and lipid CVD risk factors for both primary and secondary prevention of CVD. We also aimed to determine discontinuation rates, adverse events, health-related quality of life, and costs of fixed-dose combination therapy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 6), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to week 2 July 2013), EMBASE Ovid (1980 to Week 28 2013), ISI Web of Science (1970 to 19 July 2013), and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA), and Health Economics Evaluations Database (HEED) (2011, Issue 4) in The Cochrane Library. We used no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of a fixed-dose combination therapy including at least one blood pressure lowering and one lipid lowering component versus usual care, placebo, or a single drug active component for any treatment duration in adults ≥ 18 years old with no restrictions on presence or absence of pre-existing cardiovascular disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted the data. We evaluated risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. We sought to include outcome data on all-cause mortality, fatal and non-fatal CVD events, adverse events, changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, total and low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol concentrations, discontinuation rates, quality of life, and costs. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and weighted mean differences (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using fixed-effect models when heterogeneity was low (I(2) < 50%) and random-effects models when heterogeneity was high (I(2) > 50%). MAIN RESULTS: We found nine randomised controlled trials with a total of 7047 participants. Seven of the nine trials evaluated the effects of fixed-dose combination therapy on primary CVD prevention, and the trial length ranged from six weeks to 15 months. We found a moderate to high risk of bias in the domains of selection, performance, detection, attrition, and other types of bias in five of the nine trials. Compared with the comparator groups, the effects of the fixed-dose combination treatment on mortality (1.2% versus 1.0%, RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.38,  N = 3465) and cardiovascular events (4.0% versus 2.9%, RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.10, N = 2479) were uncertain (low quality evidence). The low event rates for these outcomes, limited availability of data as only two out of nine trials reported on these outcomes, and a high risk of bias in at least one domain suggest that these results should not be viewed with confidence. Adverse events were common in both the intervention (30%) and comparator (24%) groups, with participants randomised to fixed-dose combination therapy being 20% (95% CI 9% to 30%) more likely to report an adverse event. Notably, no serious adverse events were reported. Compared with placebo, the rate of discontinuation among participants randomised to fixed-dose combination was higher (14% versus 11%, RR 1.26 95% CI 1.02 to 1.55). The weighted mean differences in systolic and diastolic blood pressure between the intervention and control arms were -7.05 mmHg (95% CI -10.18 to -3.87) and -3.65 mmHg (95% CI -5.44 to -1.85), respectively. The weighted mean differences (95% CI) in total and LDL cholesterol between the intervention and control arms were -0.75 mmol/L (95% CI -1.05 to -0.46) and -0.81 mmol/L (95% CI -1.09 to -0.53), respectively. There was a high degree of statistical heterogeneity in comparisons of blood pressure and lipids (I(2) ≥ 70% for all) that could not be explained, so these results should be viewed with caution. Fixed-dose combination therapy improved adherence to a multi-drug strategy by 33% (26% to 41%) compared with usual care, but this comparison was reported in only one study. The effects of fixed-dose combination therapy on quality of life are uncertain, though these results were reported in only one trial. No trials reported costs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, single drug active component, or usual care, the effects of fixed-dose combination therapy on all-cause mortality or CVD events are uncertain; only few trials report these outcomes and the included trials were primarily designed to observe changes in CVD risk factor levels rather than clinical events. Reductions in blood pressure and lipid parameters are generally lower than those previously projected, though substantial heterogeneity of results exists. Fixed-dose combination therapy is associated with modest increases in adverse events compared with placebo, single drug active component, or usual care but may be associated with improved adherence to a multidrug regimen. Ongoing trials of fixed-dose combination therapy will likely inform key outcomes.

Dietary advice for reducing cardiovascular risk.

BACKGROUND: Changes in population diet are likely to reduce cardiovascular disease and cancer, but the effect of dietary advice is uncertain. This review is an update of a previous review published in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of providing dietary advice to achieve sustained dietary changes or improved cardiovascular risk profile among healthy adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the HTA database on The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2010). We searched MEDLINE (Ovid) (1950 to week 2 October 2010) and EMBASE (Ovid) (1980 to Week 42 2010). Additional searches were done on CAB Health (1972 to December 1999), CVRCT registry (2000), CCT (2000) and SIGLE (1980 to 2000). Dissertation abstracts and reference lists of articles were checked and researchers were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised studies with no more than 20% loss to follow-up, lasting at least three months and involving healthy adults comparing dietary advice with no advice or minimal advice. Trials involving children, trials to reduce weight or those involving supplementation were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-four trials with 52 intervention arms (comparisons) comparing dietary advice with no advice were included in the review; 18,175 participants or clusters were randomised. Twenty-nine of the 44 included trials were conducted in the USA. Dietary advice reduced total serum cholesterol by 0.15 mmol/L (95% CI 0.06 to 0.23) and LDL cholesterol by 0.16 mmol/L (95% CI 0.08 to 0.24) after 3 to 24 months. Mean HDL cholesterol levels and triglyceride levels were unchanged. Dietary advice reduced blood pressure by 2.61 mm Hg systolic (95% CI 1.31 to 3.91) and 1.45 mm Hg diastolic (95% CI 0.68 to 2.22) and 24-hour urinary sodium excretion by 40.9 mmol (95% CI 25.3 to 56.5) after 3 to 36 months but there was heterogeneity between trials for the latter outcome. Three trials reported plasma antioxidants, where small increases were seen in lutein and ß-cryptoxanthin, but there was heterogeneity in the trial effects. Self-reported dietary intake may be subject to reporting bias, and there was significant heterogeneity in all the following analyses. Compared to no advice, dietary advice increased fruit and vegetable intake by 1.18 servings/day (95% CI 0.65 to 1.71). Dietary fibre intake increased with advice by 6.5 g/day (95% CI 2.2 to 10.82), while total dietary fat as a percentage of total energy intake fell by 4.48% (95% CI 2.47 to 6.48) with dietary advice, and saturated fat intake fell by 2.39% (95% CI 1.4 to 3.37).Two trials analysed incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) events (TOHP I/II). Follow-up was 77% complete at 10 to 15 years after the end of the intervention period and estimates of event rates lacked precision but suggested that sodium restriction advice probably led to a reduction in cardiovascular events (combined fatal plus non-fatal events) plus revascularisation (TOHP I hazards ratio (HR) 0.59, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.08; TOHP II HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.12). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Dietary advice appears to be effective in bringing about modest beneficial changes in diet and cardiovascular risk factors over approximately 12 months, but longer-term effects are not known.

Green and black tea for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that both green and black tea are beneficial for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of green and black tea on the primary prevention of CVD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 12 October 2012 without language restrictions: CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID) and Web of Science (Thomson Reuters). We also searched trial registers, screened reference lists and contacted authors for additional information where necessary. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) lasting at least three months involving healthy adults or those at high risk of CVD. Trials investigated the intake of green tea, black tea or tea extracts. The comparison group was no intervention, placebo or minimal intervention. The outcomes of interest were CVD clinical events and major CVD risk factors. Any trials involving multifactorial lifestyle interventions or focusing on weight loss were excluded to avoid confounding. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Trials of green tea were analysed separately from trials of black tea. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 11 RCTs with a total of 821 participants, two trials awaiting classification and one ongoing trial. Seven trials examined a green tea intervention and four examined a black tea intervention. Dosage and form of both green and black tea differed between trials. The ongoing trial is examining the effects of green tea powder capsules.No studies reported cardiovascular events.Black tea was found to produce statistically significant reductions in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (mean difference (MD) -0.43 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.56 to -0.31) and blood pressure (systolic blood pressure (SBP): MD -1.85 mmHg, 95% CI -3.21 to -0.48. Diastolic blood pressure (DBP): MD -1.27 mmHg, 95% CI -3.06 to 0.53) over six months, stable to sensitivity analysis, but only a small number of trials contributed to each analysis and studies were at risk of bias.Green tea was also found to produce statistically significant reductions in total cholesterol (MD -0.62 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.46), LDL cholesterol (MD -0.64 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.52) and blood pressure (SBP: MD -3.18 mmHg, 95% CI -5.25 to -1.11; DBP: MD -3.42, 95% CI -4.54 to -2.30), but only a small number of studies contributed to each analysis, and results were not stable to sensitivity analysis. When both tea types were analysed together they showed favourable effects on LDL cholesterol (MD -0.48 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.35) and blood pressure (SBP: MD -2.25 mmHg, 95% CI -3.39 to -1.11; DBP: MD -2.81 mmHg, 95% CI -3.77 to -1.86). Adverse events were measured in five trials and included a diagnosis of prostate cancer, hospitalisation for influenza, appendicitis and retinal detachment but these are unlikely to be directly attributable to the intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are very few long-term studies to date examining green or black tea for the primary prevention of CVD. The limited evidence suggests that tea has favourable effects on CVD risk factors, but due to the small number of trials contributing to each analysis the results should be treated with some caution and further high quality trials with longer-term follow-up are needed to confirm this.

Dietary advice for reducing cardiovascular risk.

BACKGROUND: Changes in population diet are likely to reduce cardiovascular disease and cancer, but the effect of dietary advice is uncertain. This review is an update of a previous review published in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of providing dietary advice to achieve sustained dietary changes or improved cardiovascular risk profile among healthy adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the HTA database on The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2010). We searched MEDLINE (Ovid) (1950 to week 2 October 2010) and EMBASE (Ovid) (1980 to Week 42 2010). Additional searches were done on CAB Health (1972 to December 1999), CVRCT registry (2000), CCT (2000) and SIGLE (1980 to 2000). Dissertation abstracts and reference lists of articles were checked and researchers were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised studies with no more than 20% loss to follow-up, lasting at least three months and involving healthy adults comparing dietary advice with no advice or minimal advice. Trials involving children, trials to reduce weight or those involving supplementation were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-four trials with 52 intervention arms (comparisons) comparing dietary advice with no advice were included in the review; 18,175 participants or clusters were randomised. Twenty-nine of the 44 included trials were conducted in the USA. Dietary advice reduced total serum cholesterol by 0.15 mmol/L (95% CI 0.06 to 0.23) and LDL cholesterol by 0.16 mmol/L (95% CI 0.08 to 0.24) after 3 to 24 months. Mean HDL cholesterol levels and triglyceride levels were unchanged. Dietary advice reduced blood pressure by 2.61 mm Hg systolic (95% CI 1.31 to 3.91) and 1.45 mm Hg diastolic (95% CI 0.68 to 2.22) and 24-hour urinary sodium excretion by 40.9 mmol (95% CI 25.3 to 56.5) after 3 to 36 months but there was heterogeneity between trials for the latter outcome. Three trials reported plasma antioxidants, where small increases were seen in lutein and ß-cryptoxanthin, but there was heterogeneity in the trial effects. Self-reported dietary intake may be subject to reporting bias, and there was significant heterogeneity in all the following analyses. Compared to no advice, dietary advice increased fruit and vegetable intake by 1.18 servings/day (95% CI 0.65 to 1.71). Dietary fibre intake increased with advice by 6.5 g/day (95% CI 2.2 to 10.82), while total dietary fat as a percentage of total energy intake fell by 4.48% (95% CI 2.47 to 6.48) with dietary advice, and saturated fat intake fell by 2.39% (95% CI 1.4 to 3.37).Two trials analysed incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) events (TOHP I/II). Follow-up was 77% complete at 10 to 15 years after the end of the intervention period and estimates of event rates lacked precision but suggested that sodium restriction advice probably led to a reduction in cardiovascular events (combined fatal plus non-fatal events) plus revascularisation (TOHP I hazards ratio (HR) 0.59, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.08; TOHP II HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.12). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Dietary advice appears to be effective in bringing about modest beneficial changes in diet and cardiovascular risk factors over approximately 12 months, but longer-term effects are not known.

Estimating EQ-5D utility values for major health behavioural risk factors in England.

BACKGROUND: Major behavioural risk factors, namely obesity, alcohol consumption, smoking, lack of fruit and vegetable intake and physical inactivity negatively impact on self-reported quality of life. However, little is known about their impact on preference-based measures of health-related quality of life commonly used to inform economic evaluations. METHODS: Preference-based health-related quality of life outcomes associated with major behavioural risk factors were estimated using the EuroQol EQ-5D responses of 14 117 participants, aged ≥16 years, in the 2008 Health Survey for England. Multivariable linear regression was used to model the relationship between the five risk factors and EQ-5D utility scores. In addition, logistic regression was used to model their relationship to dichotomous reports of problems for each of the five EQ-5D dimensions. RESULTS: Only one-third of participants had a body mass index within normal range, never drank alcohol, consumed at least five portions of fruit or vegetable/day or exercised regularly, while nearly half of participants were smokers or ex-smokers. In the fully adjusted multivariable analyses, reductions in EQ-5D utility scores (95% CI) of 0.105 (0.072 to 0.137), 0.062 (0.042 to 0.082) and 0.142 (0.129 to 0.155) were estimated for a body mass index ≥40 kg/m(2), heavy smoking (≥20 cigarettes/day) and physical inactivity, respectively. Hazardous alcohol consumption (men >4 and ≤8 units/day; women >3 and ≤6 units/day) and daily fruit and vegetable intake between three and less than five portions were associated with small positive effects on EQ-5D utility scores (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The high prevalence and substantial utility loss associated with obesity, smoking and physical inactivity highlight the potential impact that interventions aimed at their prevention or alleviation may have on population health.

Psychological interventions for coronary heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Psychological symptoms are strongly associated with coronary heart disease (CHD), and many psychological treatments are offered following cardiac events or procedures. OBJECTIVES: Update the existing Cochrane review to (1) determine the independent effects of psychological interventions in patients with CHD (principal outcome measures included total or cardiac-related mortality, cardiac morbidity, depression, and anxiety) and (2) explore study-level predictors of the impact of these interventions. SEARCH STRATEGY: The original review searched Cochrane Controleed Trials Register (CCTR, Issue 4, 2001), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL to December 2001. This was updated by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL from 2001 to January 2009. In addition, we searched reference lists of papers, and expert advice was sought for the original and update review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of psychological interventions compared to usual care, administered by trained staff. Only studies estimating the independent effect of the psychological component with a minimum follow-up of six months. Adults with specific diagnosis of CHD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Titles and abstracts of all references screened for eligibility by two reviewers independently; data extracted by the lead author and checked by a second reviewer. Authors contacted where possible to obtain missing information. MAIN RESULTS: There was no strong evidence that psychological intervention reduced total deaths, risk of revascularisation, or non-fatal infarction. Amongst a smaller group of studies reporting cardiac mortality there was a modest positive effect of psychological intervention (relative risk: 0.80 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.00)). Furthermore, psychological intervention did result in small/moderate improvements in depression, standardised mean difference (SMD): -0.21 (95% CI -0.35, -0.08) and anxiety, SMD: -0.25 (95% CI -0.48 to -0.03). Results for mortality indicated some evidence of small-study bias, though results for other outcomes did not. Meta regression analyses revealed four significant predictors of intervention effects on depression were found: (1) an aim to treat type-A behaviours (ß = -0.32, p = 0.03) were more effective than other interventions. In contrast, interventions which (2) aimed to educate patients about cardiac risk factors (ß = 0.23, p = 0.03), (3) included client-led discussion and emotional support as core therapeutic components (ß = 0.31, p < 0.01), or (4) included family members in the treatment process (ß = 0.26, p < 0.01) were significantly less effective. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Psychological treatments appear effective in treating psychological symptoms of CHD patients. Uncertainly remains regarding the subgroups of patients who would benefit most from treatment and the characteristics of successful interventions.