ACES: A new framework for the application of the 2018 periodontal status classification scheme to epidemiological survey data.

AIM: To propose a framework for consistently applying the 2018 periodontal status classification scheme to epidemiological surveys (Application of the 2018 periodontal status Classification to Epidemiological Survey data, ACES). PROPOSED FRAMEWORK: We specified data requirements and workflows for either completed or planned epidemiological surveys, utilizing commonly collected measures of periodontal status (clinical attachment levels [CAL], probing depths, bleeding on probing), as well as additional necessary variables for the implementation of the 2018 periodontal status classification (tooth loss due to periodontitis and complexity factors). Following detailed instructions and flowcharts, survey participants are classified as having periodontal health, gingivitis or periodontitis. Rates of edentulism must also be reported. In cases of periodontitis, instructions on how to compute the stage and extent are provided. Assessment of grade can be derived from CAL measurements (or from radiographic alveolar bone loss data) in relation to root length and the participant's age. CONCLUSIONS: ACES is a framework to be used in epidemiological studies of periodontal status that (i) have been completed, and in which stage and grade according to the 2018 classification are inferred retroactively, or (ii) are being planned. Consistent use of the proposed comprehensive approach will facilitate the comparability of periodontitis prevalence estimates across studies.

Anti-acid therapy in SSc-associated interstitial lung disease: long-term outcomes from the German Network for Systemic Sclerosis.

OBJECTIVES: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) occurs frequently in patients with SSc. We investigated whether the presence of GERD and/or the use of anti-acid therapy, specifically proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), are associated with long-term outcomes, especially in SSc-associated interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD). METHODS: We retrospectively analysed patients with SSc and SSc-ILD from the German Network for Systemic Sclerosis (DNSS) database (2003 onwards). Kaplan-Meier analysis compared overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with GERD vs without GERD (SSc and SSc-ILD), and PPI vs no PPI use (SSc-ILD only). Progression was defined as a decrease in either percentage predicted forced vital capacity of ≥10% or single-breath diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide of ≥15%, or death. RESULTS: It was found that 2693/4306 (63%) registered patients with SSc and 1204/1931 (62%) with SSc-ILD had GERD. GERD was not associated with decreased OS or decreased PFS in patients in either cohort. In SSc-ILD, PPI use was associated with improved OS vs no PPI use after 1 year [98.4% (95% CI: 97.6, 99.3); n = 760 vs 90.8% (87.9-93.8); n = 290] and after 5 years [91.4% (89.2-93.8); n = 357 vs 70.9% (65.2-77.1); n = 106; P < 0.0001]. PPI use was also associated with improved PFS vs no PPI use after 1 year [95.9% (94.6-97.3); n = 745 vs 86.4% (82.9-90.1); n = 278] and after 5 years [66.8% (63.0-70.8); n = 286 vs 45.9% (39.6-53.2); n = 69; P < 0.0001]. CONCLUSION: GERD had no effect on survival in SSc or SSc-ILD. PPIs improved survival in patients with SSc-ILD. Controlled, prospective trials are needed to confirm this finding.

Dose-Response Relationship in Selective Serotonin and Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors in the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: A Meta-Analysis and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) are among the most prescribed antidepressants, and dose escalation is a frequently applied strategy after non-response to an initially prescribed dose. OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to find evidence of a dose-response relationship or to the contrary in direct comparisons of different SNRI doses in patients with major depressive disorder. METHODS: A systematic literature search for RCTs comparing at least two doses of SNRIs was carried out in CENTRAL, PubMed, PsycINFO, and EMBASE. Doses were classified as high, medium, and low according to manufacturers' product monographs and analyses at the level of SNRIs as a group and for single substances, accompanied by sensitivity network meta-analyses (Prospero CRD42018081031). RESULTS: From 2,070 studies screened, we included 26 studies with a total of 10,242 patients. Comparisons of medium versus low and high versus medium doses resulted in clinically and statistically non-significant standardized mean differences of -0.06 (-0.16 to 0.04) and -0.06 (-0.16 to 0.03) in favor of higher doses. In the analyses of single substances, no statistically significant results emerged, and many contrasts yielded very small effect sizes. Dropouts due to side effects tended to be more frequent with higher doses. Heterogeneity was low. Network meta-analyses of direct comparisons supported the findings, as did a risk of bias analysis. CONCLUSION: Based on the lack of positive evidence for a dose-response relationship in SNRIs as a group and in single SNRIs, we recommend prescribing medium doses. In case of insufficient response, we do not recommend increasing the dose of SNRIs.

Intravenous iron versus oral iron versus no iron with or without erythropoiesis- stimulating agents (ESA) for cancer patients with anaemia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Anaemia is common among cancer patients and they may require red blood cell transfusions. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and iron might help in reducing the need for red blood cell transfusions. However, it remains unclear whether the combination of both drugs is preferable compared to using one drug. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the effect of intravenous iron, oral iron or no iron in combination with or without ESAs to prevent or alleviate anaemia in cancer patients and to generate treatment rankings using network meta-analyses (NMAs). SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies by searching bibliographic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase; until June 2021). We also searched various registries, conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing intravenous, oral or no iron, with or without ESAs for the prevention or alleviation of anaemia resulting from chemotherapy, radiotherapy, combination therapy or the underlying malignancy in cancer patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes were on-study mortality, number of patients receiving red blood cell transfusions, number of red blood cell units, haematological response, overall mortality and adverse events. We conducted NMAs and generated treatment rankings. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Ninety-six trials (25,157 participants) fulfilled our inclusion criteria; 62 trials (24,603 participants) could be considered in the NMA (12 different treatment options). Here we present the comparisons of ESA with or without iron and iron alone versus no treatment. Further results and subgroup analyses are described in the full text. On-study mortality We estimated that 92 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia died up to 30 days after the active study period. Evidence from NMA (55 trials; 15,074 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (12 of 1000; risk ratio (RR) 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.29; low certainty) or oral iron (34 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.01 to 27.38; low certainty) may decrease or increase and ESA alone (103 of 1000; RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.35; moderate certainty) probably slightly increases on-study mortality. Additionally, treatment with intravenous iron alone (271 of 1000; RR 2.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 12.34; low certainty) may increase and oral iron alone (24 of 1000; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.00 to 19.73; low certainty) may increase or decrease on-study mortality. Haematological response We estimated that 90 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia had a haematological response. Evidence from NMA (31 trials; 6985 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (604 of 1000; RR 6.71, 95% CI 4.93 to 9.14; moderate certainty), ESA and oral iron (527 of 1000; RR 5.85, 95% CI 4.06 to 8.42; moderate certainty), and ESA alone (467 of 1000; RR 5.19, 95% CI 4.02 to 6.71; moderate certainty) probably increases haematological response. Additionally, treatment with oral iron alone may increase haematological response (153 of 1000; RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.69 to 4.20; low certainty). Red blood cell transfusions We estimated that 360 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia needed at least one transfusion. Evidence from NMA (69 trials; 18,684 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (158 of 1000; RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.63; moderate certainty), ESA and oral iron (144 of 1000; RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.66; moderate certainty) and ESA alone (212 of 1000; RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.69; moderate certainty) probably decreases the need for transfusions. Additionally, treatment with intravenous iron alone (268 of 1000; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.28; low certainty) and with oral iron alone (333 of 1000; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.57; low certainty) may decrease or increase the need for transfusions. Overall mortality We estimated that 347 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia died overall. Low-certainty evidence from NMA (71 trials; 21,576 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (507 of 1000; RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.43) or oral iron (482 of 1000; RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.22) and intravenous iron alone (521 of 1000; RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.63 to 3.56) or oral iron alone (534 of 1000; RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.56) may decrease or increase overall mortality. Treatment with ESA alone may lead to little or no difference in overall mortality (357 of 1000; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.10; low certainty). Thromboembolic events We estimated that 36 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia developed thromboembolic events. Evidence from NMA (50 trials; 15,408 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (66 of 1000; RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.41; moderate certainty) probably slightly increases and with ESA alone (66 of 1000; RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.47; high certainty) slightly increases the number of thromboembolic events. None of the trials reported results on the other comparisons. Thrombocytopenia or haemorrhage We estimated that 76 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia developed thrombocytopenia/haemorrhage. Evidence from NMA (13 trials, 2744 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA alone probably leads to little or no difference in thrombocytopenia/haemorrhage (76 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.48; moderate certainty). None of the trials reported results on other comparisons. Hypertension We estimated that 10 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia developed hypertension. Evidence from NMA (24 trials; 8383 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA alone probably increases the number of hypertensions (29 of 1000; RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.19 to 7.25; moderate certainty). None of the trials reported results on the other comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When considering ESAs with iron as prevention for anaemia, one has to balance between efficacy and safety. Results suggest that treatment with ESA and iron probably decreases number of blood transfusions, but may increase mortality and the number of thromboembolic events. For most outcomes the different comparisons within the network were not fully connected, so ranking of all treatments together was not possible. More head-to-head comparisons including all evaluated treatment combinations are needed to fill the gaps and prove results of this review.

Short- and long-term follow-up of patients with non-neoplastic esophageal perforation.

PURPOSE: Esophageal perforation is associated with high morbidity and mortality. In addition to surgical treatment, endoscopic endoluminal stent placement and endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) are established methods in the management of this emergency condition. Although health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is becoming a major issue in the evaluation of any therapeutic intervention, not much is known about HRQoL, particularly in the long-term follow-up of patients treated for non-neoplastic esophageal perforation with different treatment strategies. The aim of this study was to evaluate patients' outcome after non-neoplastic esophageal perforation with focus on HRQoL in the long-term follow-up. METHODS: Patients treated for non-neoplastic esophageal perforation at the University Hospital Cologne from January 2003 to December 2014 were included. Primary outcome and management of esophageal perforation were documented. Long-term quality of life was assessed using the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI), the Health-Related Quality of Life Index (HRQL) for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires for general and esophageal specific QoL (QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OES18). RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were included in the study. Based on primary treatment, patients were divided into an endoscopic (n = 27; 46.6%), surgical (n = 20; 34.5%), and a conservative group (n = 11; 19%). Short- and long-term outcome and quality of life were compared. HRQoL was measured after a median follow-up of 49 months. HRQoL was generally reduced in patients with non-neoplastic esophageal perforation. Endoscopically treated patients showed the highest GIQLI overall score and highest EORTC general health status, followed by the conservative and the surgical group. CONCLUSION: HRQoL in patients with non-neoplastic esophageal perforation is reduced even in the long-term follow-up. Temporary stent or EVT is effective and provides a good alternative to surgery, not only in the short-term but also in the long-term follow-up.

Bacteraemia of oral origin in children-A Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the prevalence of bacteraemia, triggered by dental intervention and home oral hygiene practices, in children. The network meta-analysis (NMA) quantitatively compared the risk of bacteraemia triggered by dental extractions and home and professional cleaning procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical trials with the outcome "bacteraemia in children" were searched. The NMA was performed using the frequentist weighted least-squares approach comparing the odds ratios (OR) of different interventions. RESULTS: Among 11 of 13 studies, dental treatment was performed under general anaesthesia. In 2,381 patients, bacteraemia occurred in 38.7%-56% patients following single-tooth extractions, in 22%-46% after manual toothbrushing (MTB), and in 26%-78% after power toothbrushing (PTB). When MTB was set as the reference (OR 1), rubber cup polishing showed a slightly higher risk (OR 1.26) of bacteraemia. PTB presented a higher risk (OR 1.79-2.27) than with single-tooth extractions (OR 1.55) but lower than that with multiple extractions (OR 2.55). CONCLUSION: Daily use of MTB and routine professional cleaning were associated with the lowest risk of developing bacteraemia in children with gingivitis, almost as much as with a single-tooth extractions. Improved plaque control with PTB increased the risk of bacteraemia. There is limited evidence on gingivitis-free and systemically-diseased children.

Antiemetics for adults for prevention of nausea and vomiting caused by moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: About 70% to 80% of adults with cancer experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). CINV remains one of the most distressing symptoms associated with cancer therapy and is associated with decreased adherence to chemotherapy. Combining 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists with corticosteroids or additionally with neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonists is effective in preventing CINV among adults receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). Various treatment options are available, but direct head-to-head comparisons do not allow comparison of all treatments versus another.  OBJECTIVES: • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving HEC - To compare the effects of antiemetic treatment combinations including NK1 receptor antagonists, 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids on prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in network meta-analysis (NMA) - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy • In adults with solid cancer or haematological malignancy receiving MEC - To compare whether antiemetic treatment combinations including NK1 receptor antagonists, 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids are superior for prevention of acute phase (Day 1), delayed phase (Days 2 to 5), and overall (Days 1 to 5) chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting to treatment combinations including 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and corticosteroids solely, in network meta-analysis - To generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to treatment safety and efficacy SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings, and study registries from 1988 to February 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs including adults with any cancer receiving HEC or MEC (according to the latest definition) and comparing combination therapies of NK1 and 5-HT3 inhibitors and corticosteroids for prevention of CINV. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed treatment effects as risk ratios (RRs). Prioritised outcomes were complete control of vomiting during delayed and overall phases, complete control of nausea during the overall phase, quality of life, serious adverse events (SAEs), and on-study mortality. We assessed GRADE and developed 12 'Summary of findings' tables. We report results of most crucial outcomes in the abstract, that is, complete control of vomiting during the overall phase and SAEs. For a comprehensive illustration of results, we randomly chose aprepitant plus granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for HEC, and granisetron as exemplary reference treatment for MEC. MAIN RESULTS: Highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) We included 73 studies reporting on 25,275 participants and comparing 14 treatment combinations with NK1 and 5-HT3 inhibitors. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 704 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (39 RCTs, 21,642 participants; 12 treatment combinations with NK1 and 5-HT3 inhibitors) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron for completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): fosnetupitant + palonosetron (810 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.37; moderate certainty), aprepitant + palonosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.98  to 1.18; low-certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (753 of 1000; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.21; low certainty), and fosaprepitant + palonosetron (746 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19; low certainty).  Netupitant + palonosetron (704 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; high-certainty) and fosaprepitant + granisetron (697 of 1000; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; high-certainty) have little to no impact on complete control of vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than aprepitant + granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant + ondansetron (676 of 1000; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.05; low certainty), fosaprepitant + ondansetron (662 of 1000; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.04; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (634 of 1000; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; low certainty), rolapitant + granisetron (627 of 1000; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate certainty), and rolapitant + ondansetron (598 of 1000; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; low certainty). We could not include two treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 35 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with aprepitant + granisetron. Evidence from NMA (23 RCTs, 16,065 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that fewer participants may experience SAEs when treated with the following drug combinations than with aprepitant + granisetron: fosaprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.07; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.39; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (9 of 1000; RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.58; low certainty), fosaprepitant + granisetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.50; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (20 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.70; low certainty). Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of aprepitant + ondansetron (8 of 1000; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.14; very low certainty), aprepitant + ramosetron (11 of 1000; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.90; very low certainty), fosaprepitant + palonosetron (12 of 1000; RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.95; very low certainty), fosnetupitant + palonosetron (13 of 1000; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.16; very low certainty), and aprepitant + palonosetron (17 of 1000; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 4.78; very low certainty) on the risk of SAEs when compared to aprepitant + granisetron, respectively.  We could not include three treatment combinations (ezlopitant + granisetron, aprepitant + tropisetron, rolapitant + ondansetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) We included 38 studies reporting on 12,038 participants and comparing 15 treatment combinations with NK1 and 5-HT3 inhibitors, or 5-HT3 inhibitors solely. All treatment combinations included corticosteroids. Complete control of vomiting during the overall phase We estimated that 555 of 1000 participants achieve complete control of vomiting in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when treated with granisetron. Evidence from NMA (22 RCTs, 7800 participants; 11 treatment combinations) suggests that the following drug combinations are more efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days): aprepitant + palonosetron (716 of 1000; RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.66; low certainty), netupitant + palonosetron (694 of 1000; RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.70; low certainty), and rolapitant + granisetron (660 of 1000; RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.33; high certainty).  Palonosetron (588 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) and aprepitant + granisetron (577 of 1000; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; low certainty) may or may not increase complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron, respectively. Azasetron (560 of 1000; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.34; low certainty) may result in little to no difference in complete response in the overall treatment phase (one to five days) when compared to granisetron. Evidence further suggests that the following drug combinations are less efficacious than granisetron in completely controlling vomiting during the overall treatment phase (one to five days) (ordered by decreasing efficacy): fosaprepitant + ondansetron (500 of 100; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.22; low certainty), aprepitant + ondansetron (477 of 1000; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.17; low certainty), casopitant + ondansetron (461 of 1000; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; low certainty), and ondansetron (433 of 1000; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.04; low certainty). We could not include five treatment combinations (fosaprepitant + granisetron, azasetron, dolasetron, ramosetron, tropisetron) in NMA for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Serious adverse events We estimated that 153 of 1000 participants experience any SAEs when treated with granisetron. Evidence from pair-wise comparison (1 RCT, 1344 participants) suggests that more participants may experience SAEs when treated with rolapitant + granisetron (176 of 1000; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.50; low certainty). NMA was not feasible for this outcome because of missing direct comparisons.  Certainty of evidence Our main reason for downgrading was serious or very serious imprecision (e.g. due to wide 95% CIs crossing or including unity, few events leading to wide 95% CIs, or small information size). Additional reasons for downgrading some comparisons or whole networks were serious study limitations due to high risk of bias or moderate inconsistency within networks. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This field of supportive cancer care is very well researched. However, new drugs or drug combinations are continuously emerging and need to be systematically researchedand assessed. For people receiving HEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest one superior treatment for prevention and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.  For people receiving MEC, synthesised evidence does not suggest superiority for treatments including both NK1 and 5-HT3 inhibitors when compared to treatments including 5-HT3 inhibitors only. Rather, the results of our NMA suggest that the choice of 5-HT3 inhibitor may have an impact on treatment efficacy in preventing CINV.  When interpreting the results of this systematic review, it is important for the reader to understand that NMAs are no substitute for direct head-to-head comparisons, and that results of our NMA do not necessarily rule out differences that could be clinically relevant for some individuals.

[Trends in dental and oral health status in Germany between 1997 and 2014]. / Entwicklung der Zahn- und Mundgesundheit in Deutschland von 1997 bis 2014.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is no comprehensive presentation of trends in oral diseases in the German general population over the last 20 years. OBJECTIVES: How did prevalences of caries, periodontitis, and tooth loss and their determinants change in Germany between 1997 and 2014? MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed data from 35- to 44-year-olds and 65- to 74-year-olds from the German Oral Health Studies ("Deutsche Mundgesundheitsstudien" [DMS]) III to V and of 25- to 74-year-olds from the Studies of Health in Pomerania (SHIP­0 and SHIP-Trend-0). The decayed, missing, filled teeth index (DMFT), the number of sound teeth, the community periodontal index (CPI), and data on tooth count and edentulism were analysed. RESULTS: Regarding determinants, an increase in subjects with high school education, a slight decrease in smokers, and an increase in better oral hygiene patterns was observed in both studies. In 35- to 44-year-olds, the number of sound teeth increased from 11.9 in DMS III to 16.8 in DMS V, while in 65- to 74-year-olds the number of sound teeth increased by 5.9. A similar trend was observed in SHIP. In DMS, the prevalence of the highest CPI score of 4 decreased from 9.3% to 3.5% in 35- to 44-year-olds; in 65- to 74-year-olds, the 2014 prevalence was at the same level as in 1997 (10.5% and 9.8%). In parallel, the percentage of edentulous 65- to 74-year-olds halved in both studies. The number of teeth increased across all age strata. CONCLUSIONS: DMS and SHIP consistently showed an increase in the number of healthy teeth free of fillings, a slight reduction of subjects with a CPI score of 4, more tooth retention, and less edentulism. Because of more tooth retention and current demographic changes, higher periodontal treatment needs might be expected for the future.

Internal Versus External Electrical Cardioversion of Atrial Arrhythmia in Patients With Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Atrial arrhythmias are common in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). External shocks and internal cardioversion through commanded ICD shock for electrical cardioversion are used for rhythm-control. However, there is a paucity of data on efficacy of external versus internal cardioversion and on the risk of lead and device malfunction. We hypothesized that external cardioversion is noninferior to internal cardioversion for safety, and superior for successful restoration of sinus rhythm. METHODS: Consecutive patients with ICD undergoing elective cardioversion for atrial arrhythmias at 13 centers were randomized in 1:1 fashion to either internal or external cardioversion. The primary safety end point was a composite of surrogate events of lead or device malfunction. Conversion of atrial arrhythmia to sinus rhythm was the primary efficacy end point. Myocardial damage was studied by measuring troponin release in both groups. RESULTS: N=230 patients were randomized. Shock efficacy was 93% in the external cardioversion group and 65% in the internal cardioversion group (P<0.001). Clinically relevant adverse events caused by external or internal cardioversion were not observed. Three cases of pre-existing silent lead malfunction were unmasked by internal shock, resulting in lead failure. Troponin release did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first randomized trial on external vs internal cardioversion in patients with ICDs. External cardioversion was superior for the restoration of sinus rhythm. The unmasking of silent lead malfunction in the internal cardioversion group suggests that an internal shock attempt may be reasonable in selected ICD patients presenting for electrical cardioversion. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03247738.

Older age onset of systemic sclerosis - accelerated disease progression in all disease subsets.

OBJECTIVES: Systemic sclerosis is a heterogeneous, multisystem disease. It can occur at any age, but most patients develop the disease between the age of 40 to 50 years. There is controversial evidence on whether/how the age at disease onset affects their clinical phenotype. We here investigate the relationship between age at disease onset and symptoms in a large cohort of SSc patients (lcSSc, dcSSc and SSc-overlap syndromes). METHODS: Clinical data of the registry of the German Network for Systemic Scleroderma including 3281 patients were evaluated and subdivided into three age groups at disease onset (<40 years, 40-60 years, >60 years). RESULTS: Among all SSc patients, 24.5% developed their first non-Raynaud phenomenon symptoms at the age <40 years, and 22.5% were older than 60 years of age. In particular, older patients at onset developed the lcSSc subset significantly more often. Furthermore, they had pulmonary hypertension more often, but digital ulcerations less often. Remarkably, the course of the disease was more rapidly progressing in the older cohort (>60 years), except for gastrointestinal and musculoskeletal involvement. No significant difference was found for the use of corticosteroids. However, significantly, fewer patients older than 60 years received immunosuppressive treatment. CONCLUSION: In this large registry, ∼25% of patients developed SSc at an age above 60 years with an increased frequency of lcSSc. In this age group, an onset of internal organ involvement was significantly accelerated across all three subsets. These findings suggest that, in the elderly cohort, more frequent follow-up examinations are required for an earlier detection of organ complications.

Bisphosphonates or RANK-ligand-inhibitors for men with prostate cancer and bone metastases: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Different bone-modifying agents like bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL)-inhibitors are used as supportive treatment in men with prostate cancer and bone metastases to prevent skeletal-related events (SREs). SREs such as pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression, surgery and radiotherapy to the bone, and hypercalcemia lead to morbidity, a poor performance status, and impaired quality of life. Efficacy and acceptability of the bone-targeted therapy is therefore of high relevance. Until now recommendations in guidelines on which bone-modifying agents should be used are rare and inconsistent. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of bisphosphonates and RANKL-inhibitors as supportive treatment for prostate cancer patients with bone metastases and to generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to their safety and efficacy using network meta-analysis. SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies by electronically searching the bibliographic databases Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase until 23 March 2020. We searched the Cochrane Library and various trial registries and screened abstracts of conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing different bisphosphonates and RANKL-inihibitors with each other or against no further treatment or placebo for men with prostate cancer and bone metastases. We included men with castration-restrictive and castration-sensitive prostate cancer and conducted subgroup analyses according to this criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. We defined proportion of participants with pain response and the adverse events renal impairment and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) as the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were SREs in total and each separately (see above), mortality, quality of life, and further adverse events such as grade 3 to 4 adverse events, hypocalcemia, fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea. We conducted network meta-analysis and generated treatment rankings for all outcomes, except quality of life due to insufficient reporting on this outcome. We compiled ranking plots to compare single outcomes of efficacy against outcomes of acceptability of the bone-modifying agents. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-five trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Twenty-one trials could be considered in the quantitative analysis, of which six bisphosphonates (zoledronic acid, risedronate, pamidronate, alendronate, etidronate, or clodronate) were compared with each other, the RANKL-inhibitor denosumab, or no treatment/placebo. By conducting network meta-analysis we were able to compare all of these reported agents directly and/or indirectly within the network for each outcome. In the abstract only the comparisons of zoledronic acid and denosumab against the main comparator (no treatment/placebo) are described for outcomes that were predefined as most relevant and that also appear in the 'Summary of findings' table. Other results, as well as results of subgroup analyses regarding castration status of participants, are displayed in the Results section of the full text. Treatment with zoledronic acid probably neither reduces nor increases the proportion of participants with pain response when compared to no treatment/placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 2.32; per 1000 participants 121 more (19 less to 349 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 4 trials including 1013 participants). For this outcome none of the trials reported results for the comparison with denosumab. The adverse event renal impairment probably occurs more often when treated with zoledronic acid compared to treatment/placebo (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.45; per 1000 participants 78 more (10 more to 180 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 6 trials including 1769 participants). Results for denosumab could not be included for this outcome, since zero events cannot be considered in the network meta-analysis, therefore it does not appear in the ranking. Treatment with denosumab results in increased occurrence of the adverse event ONJ (RR 3.45, 95% CI 1.06 to 11.24; per 1000 participants 30 more (1 more to 125 more); high-certainty evidence; 4 trials, 3006 participants) compared to no treatment/placebo. When comparing zoledronic acid to no treatment/placebo, the confidence intervals include the possibility of benefit or harm, therefore treatment with zoledronic acid probably neither reduces nor increases ONJ (RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 4.87; per 1000 participants 11 more (3 less to 47 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 4 trials including 3006 participants). Compared to no treatment/placebo, treatment with zoledronic acid (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97) and denosumab (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96) may result in a reduction of the total number of SREs (per 1000 participants 75 fewer (131 fewer to 14 fewer) and 131 fewer (215 fewer to 19 fewer); both low-certainty evidence; 12 trials, 5240 participants). Treatment with zoledronic acid and denosumab likely neither reduces nor increases mortality when compared to no treatment/placebo (zoledronic acid RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.01; per 1000 participants 48 fewer (97 fewer to 5 more); denosumab RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; per 1000 participants 34 fewer (111 fewer to 54 more); both moderate-certainty evidence; 13 trials, 5494 participants). Due to insufficient reporting, no network meta-analysis was possible for the outcome quality of life. One study with 1904 participants comparing zoledronic acid and denosumab showed that more zoledronic acid-treated participants than denosumab-treated participants experienced a greater than or equal to five-point decrease in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General total scores over a range of 18 months (average relative difference = 6.8%, range -9.4% to 14.6%) or worsening of cancer-related quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When considering bone-modifying agents as supportive treatment, one has to balance between efficacy and acceptability. Results suggest that Zoledronic acid likely increases both the proportion of participants with pain response, and the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events However, more trials with head-to-head comparisons including all potential agents are needed to draw the whole picture and proof the results of this analysis.

Baroreflex activation therapy reduces frequency and duration of hypertension-related hospitalizations in patients with resistant hypertension.

PURPOSE: Baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) has been shown to lower blood pressure in patients with resistant hypertension. The purpose of this study was to analyze whether this translates into a reduction of more relevant clinical endpoints. METHODS: Patients with resistant hypertension were treated with the second-generation BAT system. Records on hospitalization (dates of admission and discharge, main diagnosis) were obtained from medical insurance companies. RESULTS: Records on hospitalization were available for a period of 1 year before BAT in two patients and 2 years in 22 patients. The total number of hospitalizations per patient was 3.3 ± 3.5/year before BAT and 2.2 ± 2.7/year after BAT (p = 0.03). Hospitalizations related to hypertension were significantly decreased from 1.5 ± 1.6/year before BAT to 0.5 ± 0.9/year after BAT (p < 0.01). The cumulative duration of hypertension-related hospital stays was significantly reduced from 8.0 ± 8.7 days/year before BAT to 1.8 ± 4.8 days/year after BAT (p < 0.01). Office cuff blood pressure was 183 ± 27 mmHg over 102 ± 17 mmHg under 6.6 ± 2.0 antihypertensive drugs before BAT and 157 ± 32 mmHg over 91 ± 20 mmHg (both p < 0.01) under 5.9 ± 1.9 antihypertensive drugs (p = 0.09 for number of drugs) at latest follow-up. Daytime ambulatory blood pressure was 164 ± 21 mmHg over 91 ± 14 mmHg before BAT and 153 ± 21 mmHg (p = 0.03) over 89 ± 15 mmHg (p = 0.56) at latest follow-up. Heart rate was 75 ± 16 bpm before BAT and 72 ± 12 bpm at latest follow-up (p = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Rate and duration of hypertension-related hospitalizations in patients with severe resistant hypertension were lowered after BAT. Whether the response is mediated through improvements in blood pressure control requires further studies.

Cognitive behavioral therapy in adolescents with early-onset psychosis: a randomized controlled pilot study.

Cognitive behavioral therapy for psychosis (CBT) is an effective treatment in adult patients with schizophrenia. However, no randomized controlled and blinded trial in adolescents with early-onset psychosis (EOP) has been conducted. Therefore, the present pilot study explores the acceptance, tolerability, feasibility, and safety of a modified CBT in adolescents with EOP. Twenty-five adolescents with EOP were randomized to either 9 months (20 sessions) of CBT + treatment as usual (TAU) or TAU alone. The primary endpoint was the PANSS-positive subscale (P1-7). Secondary endpoints included psychopathology, global functioning, and quality of life (QoL). Acceptance, tolerability, feasibility, and safety were assessed. Blinded assessments took place by the end of the treatment (9 months) and at 24-month follow-up. Despite improvements in both groups and lack of statistical significance between CBT + TAU and TAU regarding the primary endpoint, we observed between-group effect sizes of at least d = 0.39 in favor of CBT + TAU at post-treatment for delusions, negative symptoms, functioning and QoL after the intervention and effect sizes of at least d = 0.35 after 24 months. CBT in EOP was highly acceptable (73.5% agreed to randomization), well-tolerated (83.1% attendance rate, no drop-outs), and safe (one serious adverse event (SAE) in CBT + TAU in comparison with six SAEs in TAU). These findings suggest that CBT adapted to the needs of adolescents with EOP is a promising approach regarding negative symptoms, functioning, and QoL. CBT is a safe and tolerable treatment. However, due to the small sample size and the pilot character of the study, these conclusions are limited, and should be tested in a larger, adequately powered randomized controlled trial.

Intranasal breast milk for premature infants with severe intraventricular hemorrhage-an observation.

For nasal application of neurotrophins and mesenchymal stem cells, successful delivery to the brain and therapeutic effects are known from experimental data in animals. Human breast milk contains neurotrophins and stem cells, but gavage tube feeding in preterm infants bypasses the naso-oropharynx. This is a first exploration on additional nasal breast milk and neuromorphological outcome after severe neonatal brain injury. We present a retrospective summary of 31 very low birth weight preterm infants with intraventricular hemorrhage °3/4 from one third-level neonatal center. All were breast milk fed. Sixteen infants additionally received nasal drops of fresh breast milk daily with informed parental consent for at least 28 days. Cerebral ultrasound courses were reviewed by a pediatric radiologist blinded to the intervention. The main outcome measure was severity of porencephalic defects before discharge. Clinical covariates were comparable in both groups. With nasal breast milk, a trend to a lower incidence for severe porencephalic defects (21% vs. 58%) was detected. Incidences were lower for progressive ventricular dilatation (71% vs. 91%) and surgery for posthemorrhagic hydrocephalus (50% vs. 67%).Conclusion: The hypothesis is generated that early intranasal application of breast milk could have a beneficial effect on neurodevelopment in preterm infants. Controlled investigation is needed. What is Known: • Successful delivery to the brain and therapeutic effects are known for nasal application of neurotrophins and mesenchymal stem cells from experimental data in animal studies. • Human breast milk contains neurotrophins and stem cells, but gavage tube feeding in preterm infants bypasses the naso-oropharynx. What is New: • This is the first report on additional nasal breast milk application in very low birth weight preterm infants with severe brain injury observing a trend for less severe porencephalic defects. • The hypothesis is generated that nasal breast milk might exert neuroprotective effects in preterm infants.

Multiple drug combinations of bortezomib, lenalidomide, and thalidomide for first-line treatment in adults with transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma is a bone marrow-based hematological malignancy accounting for approximately two per cent of cancers. First-line treatment for transplant-ineligible individuals consists of multiple drug combinations of bortezomib (V), lenalidomide (R), or thalidomide (T). However, access to these medicines is restricted in many countries worldwide. OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the effectiveness and safety of multiple drug combinations of V, R, and T for adults with newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma and to inform an application for the inclusion of these medicines into the World Health Organization's (WHO) list of essential medicines. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL and MEDLINE, conference proceedings and study registries on 14 February 2019 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multiple drug combinations of V, R and T for adults with newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing combination therapies of V, R, and T, plus melphalan and prednisone (MP) or dexamethasone (D) for first-line treatment of adults with transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma. We excluded trials including adults with relapsed or refractory disease, trials comparing drug therapies to other types of therapy and trials including second-generation novel agents. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included trials. As effect measures we used hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and risk ratios (RRs) for adverse events. An HR or RR < 1 indicates an advantage for the intervention compared to the main comparator MP. Where available, we extracted quality of life (QoL) data (scores of standardised questionnaires). Results quoted are from network meta-analysis (NMA) unless stated. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 studies (148 references) comprising 11,403 participants and 21 treatment regimens. Treatments were differentiated between restricted treatment duration (treatment with a pre-specified amount of cycles) and continuous therapy (treatment administered until disease progression, the person becomes intolerant to the drug, or treatment given for a prolonged period). Continuous therapies are indicated with a "c". Risk of bias was generally high across studies due to the open-label study design. Overall survival (OS) Evidence suggests that treatment with RD (HR 0.63 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.99), median OS 55.2 months (35.2 to 87.0)); TMP (HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.97), median OS: 46.4 months (35.9 to 60.0)); and VRDc (HR 0.49 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.92), median OS 71.0 months (37.8 to 133.8)) probably increases survival compared to median reported OS of 34.8 months with MP (moderate certainty). Treatment with VMP may result in a large increase in OS, compared to MP (HR 0.70 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.07), median OS 49.7 months (32.5 to 77.3)), low certainty). Progression-free survival (PFS) Treatment withRD (HR 0.65 (95% CI0.44 to 0.96), median PFS: 24.9 months (16.9 to 36.8)); TMP (HR 0.63 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.78), median PFS:25.7 months (20.8 to 32.4)); VMP (HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.90), median PFS: 28.9 months (18.0 to 46.3)); and VRDc (HR 0.34 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.58), median PFS: 47.6 months (27.9 to 81.0)) may result in a large increase in PFS (low certainty) compared to MP (median reported PFS: 16.2 months). Adverse events The risk of polyneuropathies may be lower with RD compared to treatment with MP (RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.99), risk for RD: 0.5% (0.1 to 1.8), mean reported risk for MP: 0.9% (10 of 1074 patients affected), low certainty). However, the CIs are also compatible with no difference or an increase in neuropathies. Treatment with TMP (RR 4.44 (95% CI1.77 to 11.11), risk: 4.0% (1.6 to 10.0)) and VMP (RR 88.22 (95% CI 5.36 to 1451.11), risk: 79.4% (4.8 to 1306.0)) probably results in a large increase in polyneuropathies compared to MP (moderate certainty). No study reported the amount of participants with grade ≥ 3 polyneuropathies for treatment with VRDc. VMP probably increases the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to MP (RR 1.28 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.54), risk for VMP: 46.2% (38.3 to 55.6), mean risk for MP: 36.1% (177 of 490 patients affected), moderate certainty). RD, TMP, and VRDc were not connected to MP in the network and the risk of SAEs could not be compared. Treatment with RD (RR 4.18 (95% CI 2.13 to 8.20), NMA-risk: 38.5% (19.6 to 75.4)); and TMP (RR 4.10 (95% CI 2.40 to 7.01), risk: 37.7% (22.1 to 64.5)) results in a large increase of withdrawals from the trial due to adverse events (high certainty) compared to MP (mean reported risk: 9.2% (77 of 837 patients withdrew)). The risk is probably slightly increased with VMP (RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.81), risk: 9.75% (5.8 to 16.7), moderate certainty), while it is much increased with VRDc (RR 8.92 (95% CI 3.82 to 20.84), risk: 82.1% (35.1 to 191.7), high certainty) compared to MP. Quality of life QoL was reported in four studies for seven different treatment regimens (MP, MPc, RD, RMP, RMPc, TMP, TMPc) and was measured with four different tools. Assessment and reporting differed between studies and could not be meta-analysed. However, all studies reported an improvement of QoL after initiation of anti-myeloma treatment for all assessed treatment regimens. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on our four pre-selected comparisons of interest, continuous treatment with VRD had the largest survival benefit compared with MP, while RD and TMP also probably considerably increase survival. However, treatment combinations of V, R, and T also substantially increase the incidence of AEs, and lead to a higher risk of treatment discontinuation. Their effectiveness and safety profiles may best be analysed in further randomised head-to-head trials. Further trials should focus on consistent reporting of safety outcomes and should use a standardised instrument to evaluate QoL to ensure comparability of treatment-combinations.

Prevalence of hyponatremia in inpatients with incurable and life-limiting diseases and its association with physical symptoms-a retrospective descriptive study.

PURPOSE: Hyponatremia is a common electrolyte abnormality seen in hospitalized patients. It may cause a variety of symptoms and is associated with longer hospitalizations and higher mortality. However, to date, only little is known about the extent of hyponatremia in patients with incurable diseases and whether it is associated with physical symptoms in this patient group. This study aims to describe the prevalence of hyponatremia, associated symptoms, and symptom intensity in inpatients with hyponatremia receiving specialist palliative care (SPC). METHODS: This is a retrospective study. Demographic and clinical data as well as symptoms, scored symptom intensity, and laboratory values were collected. All inpatients of a large German University Hospital receiving SPC in 2013 with documented sodium values were included. RESULTS: In 2013, 789 inpatients received SPC of which 710 had documented sodium values. The prevalence of hyponatremia was 38.7% (275/710). A mild degree showed 220 (31,0%), 44 (6.2%) had a moderate, and 11 (1.6%) a severe form. Hyponatremia patients experienced significantly more symptoms than normonatremic patients (mean = 7.71 vs 6.63; p < 0.001). Breathlessness, depressiveness, nausea, vomiting, poor appetite, constipation, and weakness were significantly more frequent in patients with hyponatremia. Furthermore, hyponatremia severity was associated with higher symptom intensity (mean = 13.29 vs 11.28; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: More than one third of all SPC patients showed a hyponatremia, and the hyponatremia grade was associated with symptom burden and symptom intensity. A prospective analysis is needed to further examine this association and the possible influence of hyponatremia correction on symptom burden reduction.

Statin Therapy in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Acute Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates whether preoperative statin therapy improves clinical outcomes in patients referred to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: A total of 1,151 patients undergoing CABG for ACS were prospectively entered into the North-Rhine-Westphalia surgical myocardial infarction registry and subdivided into two groups according to their preoperative statin status (statin naive vs. statin group). A logistic regression model was employed to analyze the impact of a statin therapy and dose for the endpoints in-hospital mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). RESULTS: Demographics, pre- and intraoperative data of the statin-naive group (n = 208; 18%) and statin-treated group (n = 943, 82%) did not differ. In-hospital mortality (12.6 vs. 6.3%, p = 0.002) and MACE rates (22.1 vs. 9.7%, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in statin naive when compared with statin-treated patients with ACS, respectively. Mevalonic acid revealed that both low- and high-dose statin treatment was associated to a reduction in in-hospital mortality and MACE, without a dose-dependent statin effect. CONCLUSION: Statin therapy in patients with ACS undergoing CABG reduces in a dose-independent manner in-hospital mortality and MACE.

[Defi catches on : Implementation of a curriculum for resuscitation in secondary schools]. / Defi macht Schule : Implementierung eines Curriculums zum Thema Reanimation an weiterführenden Schulen.

BACKGROUND: Sudden cardiac arrest is still one of the most frequent causes of death. Teaching resuscitation in schools was already successfully implemented in Scandinavian countries. Following a recommendation of the conference of german stateministers of education in June 2014, additional tuition for resuscitation is to be implemented in german schools starting in seventh grade. METHODS: The present study aimed to assess the level of knowledge of seventh grade students in the field of life support and to implement curricular standards for resuscitation courses in secondary schools. Using a standardized questionnaire, students in seventh grade of five schools in Cologne were interrogated about their knowledge on resuscitation and defibrillation. This assessment was taken as basis for developing a curricular teaching concept by the Cologne heart centre in cooperation with the department of biology and technical didactics at the University of Cologne. This tutorial concept was integrated in scholar plans for the first time in the school year 2014/2015. At the end of the school year the students' knowledge got reevaluated. RESULTS: As expected, the technical knowledge of the interviewed students is low, however confidence in their own abilities is high. Most of the interviewed persons would be willing to perform chest compressions (72,26%) and dare using an automated external defibrillator (AED, 64,38%). The exact position of defibrillator pads cannot be precisely indicated by most students (8,40%), compression point, -depth and -frequency are known by just one third of students. Already one-time performance of the live-saving lesson resulted in a clear increase of knowledge about resuscitation. CONCLUSIONS: The willingness to perform resuscitation measures and confidence in their own abilities are high in seventh grade students. Therefore, the recommendation of the conference of german stateministers of education in June 2014 addresses the right target group. Long-term success of the presented educational concept will be analysed and reported in a longitudinal study.

First-line therapy for non-transplant eligible patients with multiple myeloma: direct and adjusted indirect comparison of treatment regimens on the existing market in Germany.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare approved first-line therapies for patients with multiple myeloma. METHODS: A systematic literature search for phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing first-line chemotherapies approved in Germany and recommended by guidelines at the time of study design was conducted. Random-effects meta-analysis (MA) was used for direct and the Bucher method for adjusted indirect treatment comparison. RESULTS: One RCT comparing melphalan and prednisone plus bortezomib (VMP) vs. melphalan and prednisone (MP) and six RCTs comparing MP plus thalidomide (MPT) vs. MP were analysed. For MPT vs. MP, an individual patient data (IPD) MA was used for sensitivity analyses. VMP and MPT were superior to MP regarding efficacy endpoints (VMP vs. MP, overall survival (OS): hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.57-0.86; progression-free survival (PFS): HR 0.56, 0.39-0.79; complete response (CR), risk-ratio (RR) for non-response: 0.70, 0.65-0.75; MPT vs. MP, OS: HR 0.83, 0.66-1.03; PFS: HR 0.67, 0.56-0.81; CR, RR for non-response 0.92, 0.88-0.95); but had a higher risk of developing any grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) (VMP vs. MP: RR 1.13, 1.06-1.20; MPT vs. MP: RR 2.06, 1.43-2.98). The indirect comparison of VMP vs. MPT via MP showed a statistically not significant advantage for VMP regarding survival outcomes (OS: HR 0.85, 0.63-1.14; PFS: HR 0.83, 0.56-1.23) and a significant advantage regarding CR (RR for non-response 0.76, 0.70-0.83) and AEs (RR 0.55, 0.38-0.80). Treatment comparisons using results of IPD MA yielded similar effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS: VMP and MPT seem more effective than MP, VMP was superior to MPT regarding response criteria and AEs. Our results may best be confirmed by a head-to-head trial of VMP vs. MPT.