Characteristics and result reporting of registered COVID-19 clinical trials of Chinese and Indian traditional medicine: A comparative analysis.

Objective: To assess the main characteristics and result reporting of registered COVID-19 interventional trials of traditional Chinese medicine and traditional Indian medicine. Materials and methods: We assessed design quality and result reporting of COVID-19 trials of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and traditional Indian medicine (TIM) registered before 10 February 2021, respectively, on Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) and Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI). Comparison groups included registered COVID-19 trials of conventional medicine conducted in China (WMC), India (WMI), and in other countries (WMO). Cox regression analysis was used to assess the association between time from trial onset to result reporting and trial characteristics. Results: The proportion of COVID-19 trials investigating traditional medicine was 33.7% (130/386) among trials registered on ChiCTR, and 58.6% (266/454) on CTRI. Planned sample sizes were mostly small in all COVID-19 trials (median 100, IQR: 50-200). The proportion of trials that were randomized was 75.4 and 64.8%, respectively, for the TCM and TIM trials. Blinding measures were used in 6.2% of the TCM trials, and 23.6% of the TIM trials. Cox regression analysis revealed that planned COVID-19 clinical trials of traditional medicine were less likely to have results reported than trials of conventional medicine (hazard ratio 0.713, 95% confidence interval: 0.541-0.939; p = 0.0162). Conclusion: There were considerable between-country and within-country differences in design quality, target sample size, trial participants, and reporting of trial results. Registered COVID-19 clinical trials of traditional medicine were less likely to report results than trials of conventional medicine.

Evidence to Underpin Vitamin A Requirements and Upper Limits in Children Aged 0 to 48 Months: A Scoping Review.

Vitamin A deficiency is a major health risk for infants and children in low- and middle-income countries. This scoping review identified, quantified, and mapped research for use in updating nutrient requirements and upper limits for vitamin A in children aged 0 to 48 months, using health-based or modelling-based approaches. Structured searches were run on Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central, from inception to 19 March 2021. Titles and abstracts were assessed independently in duplicate, as were 20% of full texts. Included studies were tabulated by question, methodology and date, with the most relevant data extracted and assessed for risk of bias. We found that the most recent health-based systematic reviews and trials assessed the effects of supplementation, though some addressed the effects of staple food fortification, complementary foods, biofortified maize or cassava, and fortified drinks, on health outcomes. Recent isotopic tracer studies and modelling approaches may help quantify the effects of bio-fortification, fortification, and food-based approaches for increasing vitamin A depots. A systematic review and several trials identified adverse events associated with higher vitamin A intakes, which should be useful for setting upper limits. We have generated and provide a database of relevant research. Full systematic reviews, based on this scoping review, are needed to answer specific questions to set vitamin A requirements and upper limits.

Effect of acupuncture and auricular acupressure on smoking cessation: Protocol of a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco epidemic remains a major challenge to public health, with >7 million deaths attributable to tobacco smoking p.a. Quitting smoking is a proven way of reducing the harm of smoking. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), auricular acupressure and acupuncture are used for quit smoking, but it remains to be explored which is relatively more effective. Furthermore, a Bayesian network meta-analysis will be applied to determine the relative effects and/or safety of different smoking cessation treatments. METHODS/DESIGN: A literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will be performed in five electronic databases from inception to December 2019, including PubMed, the Cochrane library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Chinese Biomedical Database (SinoMed). Cochrane Collaboration quality assessment tool will be used for the risk of bias assessment. A Bayesian network meta-analysis will be performed using WinBUGS 1.4.3, and Stata 14 will be applied to draw the network diagram, while RevMan 5.3.5 will be used to produce funnel plot for assessing the risk of publication bias. Recommended rating, development and grade methodology will also be utilized to assess the quality of evidence. RESULTS: We will evaluate the effect of different smoking cessation treatments (e.g., acupuncture, auricular acupressure, and NRT) by directly traditional meta-analysis and indirectly Bayesian network meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: Our study will provide smokers with the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of quitting regimens.

Omega-3 fatty acids for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids from oily fish (long-chain omega-3 (LCn3)), including eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)), as well as from plants (alpha-linolenic acid (ALA)) may benefit cardiovascular health. Guidelines recommend increasing omega-3-rich foods, and sometimes supplementation, but recent trials have not confirmed this. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of increased intake of fish- and plant-based omega-3 fats for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, adiposity and lipids. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to February 2019, plus ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry to August 2019, with no language restrictions. We handsearched systematic review references and bibliographies and contacted trial authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that lasted at least 12 months and compared supplementation or advice to increase LCn3 or ALA intake, or both, versus usual or lower intake. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed validity. We performed separate random-effects meta-analysis for ALA and LCn3 interventions, and assessed dose-response relationships through meta-regression. MAIN RESULTS: We included 86 RCTs (162,796 participants) in this review update and found that 28 were at low summary risk of bias. Trials were of 12 to 88 months' duration and included adults at varying cardiovascular risk, mainly in high-income countries. Most trials assessed LCn3 supplementation with capsules, but some used LCn3- or ALA-rich or enriched foods or dietary advice compared to placebo or usual diet. LCn3 doses ranged from 0.5 g a day to more than 5 g a day (19 RCTs gave at least 3 g LCn3 daily). Meta-analysis and sensitivity analyses suggested little or no effect of increasing LCn3 on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.01; 143,693 participants; 11,297 deaths in 45 RCTs; high-certainty evidence), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99; 117,837 participants; 5658 deaths in 29 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence), cardiovascular events (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.01; 140,482 participants; 17,619 people experienced events in 43 RCTs; high-certainty evidence), stroke (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.12; 138,888 participants; 2850 strokes in 31 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) or arrhythmia (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 77,990 participants; 4586 people experienced arrhythmia in 30 RCTs; low-certainty evidence). Increasing LCn3 may slightly reduce coronary heart disease mortality (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 334, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.00; 127,378 participants; 3598 coronary heart disease deaths in 24 RCTs, low-certainty evidence) and coronary heart disease events (NNTB 167, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.97; 134,116 participants; 8791 people experienced coronary heart disease events in 32 RCTs, low-certainty evidence). Overall, effects did not differ by trial duration or LCn3 dose in pre-planned subgrouping or meta-regression. There is little evidence of effects of eating fish. Increasing ALA intake probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.20; 19,327 participants; 459 deaths in 5 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence),cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.25; 18,619 participants; 219 cardiovascular deaths in 4 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence), coronary heart disease mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.26; 18,353 participants; 193 coronary heart disease deaths in 3 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) and coronary heart disease events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.22; 19,061 participants; 397 coronary heart disease events in 4 RCTs; low-certainty evidence). However, increased ALA may slightly reduce risk of cardiovascular disease events (NNTB 500, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07; but RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.04 in RCTs at low summary risk of bias; 19,327 participants; 884 cardiovascular disease events in 5 RCTs; low-certainty evidence), and probably slightly reduces risk of arrhythmia (NNTB 91, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97; 4912 participants; 173 events in 2 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). Effects on stroke are unclear. Increasing LCn3 and ALA had little or no effect on serious adverse events, adiposity, lipids and blood pressure, except increasing LCn3 reduced triglycerides by ˜15% in a dose-dependent way (high-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This is the most extensive systematic assessment of effects of omega-3 fats on cardiovascular health to date. Moderate- and low-certainty evidence suggests that increasing LCn3 slightly reduces risk of coronary heart disease mortality and events, and reduces serum triglycerides (evidence mainly from supplement trials). Increasing ALA slightly reduces risk of cardiovascular events and arrhythmia.

Omega-3, omega-6, and total dietary polyunsaturated fat for prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess effects of increasing omega-3, omega-6, and total polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) on diabetes diagnosis and glucose metabolism. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Clinicaltrials.gov, and trials in relevant systematic reviews. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of at least 24 weeks' duration assessing effects of increasing α-linolenic acid, long chain omega-3, omega-6, or total PUFA, which collected data on diabetes diagnoses, fasting glucose or insulin, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), and/or homoeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). DATA SYNTHESIS: Statistical analysis included random effects meta-analyses using relative risk and mean difference, and sensitivity analyses. Funnel plots were examined and subgrouping assessed effects of intervention type, replacement, baseline risk of diabetes and use of antidiabetes drugs, trial duration, and dose. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool and quality of evidence with GRADE. RESULTS: 83 randomised controlled trials (mainly assessing effects of supplementary long chain omega-3) were included; 10 were at low summary risk of bias. Long chain omega-3 had little or no effect on likelihood of diagnosis of diabetes (relative risk 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.17; 58 643 participants, 3.7% developed diabetes) or measures of glucose metabolism (HbA1c mean difference -0.02%, 95% confidence interval -0.07% to 0.04%; plasma glucose 0.04, 0.02 to 0.07, mmol/L; fasting insulin 1.02, -4.34 to 6.37, pmol/L; HOMA-IR 0.06, -0.21 to 0.33). A suggestion of negative outcomes was observed when dose of supplemental long chain omega-3 was above 4.4 g/d. Effects of α-linolenic acid, omega-6, and total PUFA on diagnosis of diabetes were unclear (as the evidence was of very low quality), but little or no effect on measures of glucose metabolism was seen, except that increasing α-linolenic acid may increase fasting insulin (by about 7%). No evidence was found that the omega-3/omega-6 ratio is important for diabetes or glucose metabolism. CONCLUSIONS: This is the most extensive systematic review of trials to date to assess effects of polyunsaturated fats on newly diagnosed diabetes and glucose metabolism, including previously unpublished data following contact with authors. Evidence suggests that increasing omega-3, omega-6, or total PUFA has little or no effect on prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017064110.

Creation of a database to assess effects of omega-3, omega-6 and total polyunsaturated fats on health: methodology for a set of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To create a database of long-term randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing higher with lower omega-3, omega-6 or total polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA), regardless of reported outcomes, and to develop methods to assess effects of increasing omega-6, alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), long-chain omega-3 (LCn3) and total PUFA on health outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review search, methodology and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Clinicaltrials.gov and trials in relevant systematic reviews. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: RCTs of ≥24 weeks' duration assessing effects of increasing ALA, LCn3, omega-6 or total PUFAs, regardless of outcomes reported. DATA SYNTHESIS: Methods included random-effects meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses. Funnel plots were examined, and subgrouping assessed effects of intervention type, replacement, baseline diabetes risk and use of diabetic medications, trial duration and dose. Quality of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: Electronic searches generated 37 810 hits, de-duplicated to 19 772 titles and abstracts. We assessed 2155 full-text papers, conference abstracts and trials registry entries independently in duplicate. Included studies were grouped into 363 RCTs comparing higher with lower omega-3, omega-6 and/or total PUFA intake of at least 6 months' duration-the Database.Of these 363 included RCTs, 216 RCTs were included in at least one of our reviews of health outcomes, data extracted and risk of bias assessed in duplicate. Ninety five RCTs were included in the Database but not included in our current reviews. Of these 311 completed trials, 27 altered ALA intake, 221 altered LCn3 intake and 16 trials altered omega-3 intake without specifying whether ALA or LCn3. Forty one trials altered omega-6 and 59 total PUFA.The remaining 52 trials are ongoing though 13 (25%) appear to be outstanding, or constitute missing data. CONCLUSIONS: This extensive database of trials is available to allow assessment of further health outcomes.

Omega-3 fatty acids for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Researchers have suggested that omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids from oily fish (long-chain omega-3 (LCn3), including eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)), as well as from plants (alpha-linolenic acid (ALA)) benefit cardiovascular health. Guidelines recommend increasing omega-3-rich foods, and sometimes supplementation, but recent trials have not confirmed this. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of increased intake of fish- and plant-based omega-3 for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CVD) events, adiposity and lipids. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to April 2017, plus ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry to September 2016, with no language restrictions. We handsearched systematic review references and bibliographies and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that lasted at least 12 months and compared supplementation and/or advice to increase LCn3 or ALA intake versus usual or lower intake. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed validity. We performed separate random-effects meta-analysis for ALA and LCn3 interventions, and assessed dose-response relationships through meta-regression. MAIN RESULTS: We included 79 RCTs (112,059 participants) in this review update and found that 25 were at low summary risk of bias. Trials were of 12 to 72 months' duration and included adults at varying cardiovascular risk, mainly in high-income countries. Most studies assessed LCn3 supplementation with capsules, but some used LCn3- or ALA-rich or enriched foods or dietary advice compared to placebo or usual diet. LCn3 doses ranged from 0.5g/d LCn3 to > 5 g/d (16 RCTs gave at least 3g/d LCn3).Meta-analysis and sensitivity analyses suggested little or no effect of increasing LCn3 on all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03, 92,653 participants; 8189 deaths in 39 trials, high-quality evidence), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03, 67,772 participants; 4544 CVD deaths in 25 RCTs), cardiovascular events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.04, 90,378 participants; 14,737 people experienced events in 38 trials, high-quality evidence), coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.09, 73,491 participants; 1596 CHD deaths in 21 RCTs), stroke (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16, 89,358 participants; 1822 strokes in 28 trials) or arrhythmia (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.05, 53,796 participants; 3788 people experienced arrhythmia in 28 RCTs). There was a suggestion that LCn3 reduced CHD events (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.97, 84,301 participants; 5469 people experienced CHD events in 28 RCTs); however, this was not maintained in sensitivity analyses - LCn3 probably makes little or no difference to CHD event risk. All evidence was of moderate GRADE quality, except as noted.Increasing ALA intake probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.20, 19,327 participants; 459 deaths, 5 RCTs),cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.25, 18,619 participants; 219 cardiovascular deaths, 4 RCTs), and CHD mortality (1.1% to 1.0%, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.26, 18,353 participants; 193 CHD deaths, 3 RCTs) and ALA may make little or no difference to CHD events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.22, 19,061 participants, 397 CHD events, 4 RCTs, low-quality evidence). However, increased ALA may slightly reduce risk of cardiovascular events (from 4.8% to 4.7%, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07, 19,327 participants; 884 CVD events, 5 RCTs, low-quality evidence with greater effects in trials at low summary risk of bias), and probably reduces risk of arrhythmia (3.3% to 2.6%, RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10, 4,837 participants; 141 events, 1 RCT). Effects on stroke are unclear.Sensitivity analysis retaining only trials at low summary risk of bias moved effect sizes towards the null (RR 1.0) for all LCn3 primary outcomes except arrhythmias, but for most ALA outcomes, effect sizes moved to suggest protection. LCn3 funnel plots suggested that adding in missing studies/results would move effect sizes towards null for most primary outcomes. There were no dose or duration effects in subgrouping or meta-regression.There was no evidence that increasing LCn3 or ALA altered serious adverse events, adiposity or lipids, except LCn3 reduced triglycerides by ˜15% in a dose-dependant way (high-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This is the most extensive systematic assessment of effects of omega-3 fats on cardiovascular health to date. Moderate- and high-quality evidence suggests that increasing EPA and DHA has little or no effect on mortality or cardiovascular health (evidence mainly from supplement trials). Previous suggestions of benefits from EPA and DHA supplements appear to spring from trials with higher risk of bias. Low-quality evidence suggests ALA may slightly reduce CVD event and arrhythmia risk.

Polyunsaturated fatty acids for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the health effects of total polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) is equivocal. Fish oils are rich in omega-3 PUFA and plant oils in omega-6 PUFA. Evidence suggests that increasing PUFA-rich foods, supplements or supplemented foods can reduce serum cholesterol, but may increase body weight, so overall cardiovascular effects are unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of increasing total PUFA intake on cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality, lipids and adiposity in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to April 2017 and clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to September 2016, without language restrictions. We checked trials included in relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing higher with lower PUFA intakes in adults with or without cardiovascular disease that assessed effects over 12 months or longer. We included full texts, abstracts, trials registry entries and unpublished data. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease mortality and events, risk factors (blood lipids, adiposity, blood pressure), and adverse events. We excluded trials where we could not separate effects of PUFA intake from other dietary, lifestyle or medication interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We wrote to authors of included trials for further data. Meta-analyses used random-effects analysis, sensitivity analyses included fixed-effects and limiting to low summary risk of bias. We assessed GRADE quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 49 RCTs randomising 24,272 participants, with duration of one to eight years. Eleven included trials were at low summary risk of bias, 33 recruited participants without cardiovascular disease. Baseline PUFA intake was unclear in most trials, but 3.9% to 8% of total energy intake where reported. Most trials gave supplemental capsules, but eight gave dietary advice, eight gave supplemental foods such as nuts or margarine, and three used a combination of methods to increase PUFA.Increasing PUFA intake probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality (risk 7.8% vs 7.6%, risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.07, 19,290 participants in 24 trials), but probably slightly reduces risk of coronary heart disease events from 14.2% to 12.3% (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.06, 15 trials, 10,076 participants) and cardiovascular disease events from 14.6% to 13.0% (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.01, 17,799 participants in 21 trials), all moderate-quality evidence. Increasing PUFA may slightly reduce risk of coronary heart disease death (6.6% to 6.1%, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06, 9 trials, 8810 participants) andstroke (1.2% to 1.1%, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.44, 11 trials, 14,742 participants, though confidence intervals include important harms), but has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.26, 16 trials, 15,107 participants) all low-quality evidence. Effects of increasing PUFA on major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events and atrial fibrillation are unclear as evidence is of very low quality.Increasing PUFA intake probably slightly decreases triglycerides (by 15%, MD -0.12 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.04, 20 trials, 3905 participants), but has little or no effect on total cholesterol (mean difference (MD) -0.12 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.02, 26 trials, 8072 participants), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01, 18 trials, 4674 participants) or low-density lipoprotein (LDL) (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.06, 15 trials, 3362 participants). Increasing PUFA probably has little or no effect on adiposity (body weight MD 0.76 kg, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.19, 12 trials, 7100 participants).Effects of increasing PUFA on serious adverse events such as pulmonary embolism and bleeding are unclear as the evidence is of very low quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This is the most extensive systematic review of RCTs conducted to date to assess effects of increasing PUFA on cardiovascular disease, mortality, lipids or adiposity. Increasing PUFA intake probably slightly reduces risk of coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease events, may slightly reduce risk of coronary heart disease mortality and stroke (though not ruling out harms), but has little or no effect on all-cause or cardiovascular disease mortality. The mechanism may be via TG reduction.

Omega-6 fats for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Omega-6 fats are polyunsaturated fats vital for many physiological functions, but their effect on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk is debated. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of increasing omega-6 fats (linoleic acid (LA), gamma-linolenic acid (GLA), dihomo-gamma-linolenic acid (DGLA) and arachidonic acid (AA)) on CVD and all-cause mortality. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to May 2017 and clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to September 2016, without language restrictions. We checked trials included in relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing higher versus lower omega-6 fat intake in adults with or without CVD, assessing effects over at least 12 months. We included full texts, abstracts, trials registry entries and unpublished studies. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, CVD mortality, CVD events, risk factors (blood lipids, adiposity, blood pressure), and potential adverse events. We excluded trials where we could not separate omega-6 fat effects from those of other dietary, lifestyle or medication interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened titles/abstracts, assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included trials. We wrote to authors of included studies. Meta-analyses used random-effects analysis, while sensitivity analyses used fixed-effects and limited analyses to trials at low summary risk of bias. We assessed GRADE quality of evidence for 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 RCTs in 6461 participants who were followed for one to eight years. Seven trials assessed the effects of supplemental GLA and 12 of LA, none DGLA or AA; the omega-6 fats usually displaced dietary saturated or monounsaturated fats. We assessed three RCTs as being at low summary risk of bias.Primary outcomes: we found low-quality evidence that increased intake of omega-6 fats may make little or no difference to all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.12, 740 deaths, 4506 randomised, 10 trials) or CVD events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.15, 1404 people experienced events of 4962 randomised, 7 trials). We are uncertain whether increasing omega-6 fats affects CVD mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.55, 472 deaths, 4019 randomised, 7 trials), coronary heart disease events (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.17, 1059 people with events of 3997 randomised, 7 trials), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.20, 817 events, 2879 participants, 2 trials) or stroke (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.11, 54 events, 3730 participants, 4 trials), as we assessed the evidence as being of very low quality. We found no evidence of dose-response or duration effects for any primary outcome, but there was a suggestion of greater protection in participants with lower baseline omega-6 intake across outcomes.Additional key outcomes: we found increased intake of omega-6 fats may reduce myocardial infarction (MI) risk (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.02, 609 events, 4606 participants, 7 trials, low-quality evidence). High-quality evidence suggests increasing omega-6 fats reduces total serum cholesterol a little in the long term (mean difference (MD) -0.33 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.16, I2 = 81%; heterogeneity partially explained by dose, 4280 participants, 10 trials). Increasing omega-6 fats probably has little or no effect on adiposity (body mass index (BMI) MD -0.20 kg/m2, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.16, 371 participants, 1 trial, moderate-quality evidence). It may make little or no difference to serum triglycerides (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.21, 834 participants, 5 trials), HDL (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02, 1995 participants, 4 trials) or low-density lipoprotein (MD -0.04 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.14, 244 participants, 2 trials, low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This is the most extensive systematic assessment of effects of omega-6 fats on cardiovascular health, mortality, lipids and adiposity to date, using previously unpublished data. We found no evidence that increasing omega-6 fats reduces cardiovascular outcomes other than MI, where 53 people may need to increase omega-6 fat intake to prevent 1 person from experiencing MI. Although benefits of omega-6 fats remain to be proven, increasing omega-6 fats may be of benefit in people at high risk of MI. Increased omega-6 fats reduce serum total cholesterol but not other blood fat fractions or adiposity.

Omega-6 fats for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Omega-6 fats are polyunsaturated fats vital for many physiological functions, but their effect on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk is debated. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of increasing omega-6 fats (linoleic acid (LA), gamma-linolenic acid (GLA), dihomo-gamma-linolenic acid (DGLA) and arachidonic acid (AA)) on CVD and all-cause mortality. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to May 2017 and clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to September 2016, without language restrictions. We checked trials included in relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing higher versus lower omega-6 fat intake in adults with or without CVD, assessing effects over at least 12 months. We included full texts, abstracts, trials registry entries and unpublished studies. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, CVD mortality, CVD events, risk factors (blood lipids, adiposity, blood pressure), and potential adverse events. We excluded trials where we could not separate omega-6 fat effects from those of other dietary, lifestyle or medication interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened titles/abstracts, assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included trials. We wrote to authors of included studies. Meta-analyses used random-effects analysis, while sensitivity analyses used fixed-effects and limited analyses to trials at low summary risk of bias. We assessed GRADE quality of evidence for 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 RCTs in 6461 participants who were followed for one to eight years. Seven trials assessed the effects of supplemental GLA and 12 of LA, none DGLA or AA; the omega-6 fats usually displaced dietary saturated or monounsaturated fats. We assessed three RCTs as being at low summary risk of bias.Primary outcomes: we found low-quality evidence that increased intake of omega-6 fats may make little or no difference to all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.12, 740 deaths, 4506 randomised, 10 trials) or CVD events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.15, 1404 people experienced events of 4962 randomised, 7 trials). We are uncertain whether increasing omega-6 fats affects CVD mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.55, 472 deaths, 4019 randomised, 7 trials), coronary heart disease events (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.17, 1059 people with events of 3997 randomised, 7 trials), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.20, 817 events, 2879 participants, 2 trials) or stroke (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.11, 54 events, 3730 participants, 4 trials), as we assessed the evidence as being of very low quality. We found no evidence of dose-response or duration effects for any primary outcome, but there was a suggestion of greater protection in participants with lower baseline omega-6 intake across outcomes.Additional key outcomes: we found increased intake of omega-6 fats may reduce myocardial infarction (MI) risk (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.02, 609 events, 4606 participants, 7 trials, low-quality evidence). High-quality evidence suggests increasing omega-6 fats reduces total serum cholesterol a little in the long term (mean difference (MD) -0.33 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.16, I2 = 81%; heterogeneity partially explained by dose, 4280 participants, 10 trials). Increasing omega-6 fats probably has little or no effect on adiposity (body mass index (BMI) MD -0.20 kg/m2, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.16, 371 participants, 1 trial, moderate-quality evidence). It may make little or no difference to serum triglycerides (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.21, 834 participants, 5 trials), HDL (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02, 1995 participants, 4 trials) or low-density lipoprotein (MD -0.04 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.14, 244 participants, 2 trials, low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This is the most extensive systematic assessment of effects of omega-6 fats on cardiovascular health, mortality, lipids and adiposity to date, using previously unpublished data. We found no evidence that increasing omega-6 fats reduces cardiovascular outcomes other than MI, where 53 people may need to increase omega-6 fat intake to prevent 1 person from experiencing MI. Although benefits of omega-6 fats remain to be proven, increasing omega-6 fats may be of benefit in people at high risk of MI. Increased omega-6 fats reduce serum total cholesterol but not other blood fat fractions or adiposity.

Omega-3 fatty acids for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Researchers have suggested that omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids from oily fish (long-chain omega-3 (LCn3), including eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)), as well as from plants (alpha-linolenic acid (ALA)) benefit cardiovascular health. Guidelines recommend increasing omega-3-rich foods, and sometimes supplementation, but recent trials have not confirmed this. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of increased intake of fish- and plant-based omega-3 for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CVD) events, adiposity and lipids. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to April 2017, plus ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry to September 2016, with no language restrictions. We handsearched systematic review references and bibliographies and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that lasted at least 12 months and compared supplementation and/or advice to increase LCn3 or ALA intake versus usual or lower intake. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed validity. We performed separate random-effects meta-analysis for ALA and LCn3 interventions, and assessed dose-response relationships through meta-regression. MAIN RESULTS: We included 79 RCTs (112,059 participants) in this review update and found that 25 were at low summary risk of bias. Trials were of 12 to 72 months' duration and included adults at varying cardiovascular risk, mainly in high-income countries. Most studies assessed LCn3 supplementation with capsules, but some used LCn3- or ALA-rich or enriched foods or dietary advice compared to placebo or usual diet.Meta-analysis and sensitivity analyses suggested little or no effect of increasing LCn3 on all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03, 92,653 participants; 8189 deaths in 39 trials, high-quality evidence), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03, 67,772 participants; 4544 CVD deaths in 25 RCTs), cardiovascular events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.04, 90,378 participants; 14,737 people experienced events in 38 trials, high-quality evidence), coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.09, 73,491 participants; 1596 CHD deaths in 21 RCTs), stroke (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16, 89,358 participants; 1822 strokes in 28 trials) or arrhythmia (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.05, 53,796 participants; 3788 people experienced arrhythmia in 28 RCTs). There was a suggestion that LCn3 reduced CHD events (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.97, 84,301 participants; 5469 people experienced CHD events in 28 RCTs); however, this was not maintained in sensitivity analyses - LCn3 probably makes little or no difference to CHD event risk. All evidence was of moderate GRADE quality, except as noted.Increasing ALA intake probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.20, 19,327 participants; 459 deaths, 5 RCTs),cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.25, 18,619 participants; 219 cardiovascular deaths, 4 RCTs), and it may make little or no difference to CHD events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.22, 19,061 participants, 397 CHD events, 4 RCTs, low-quality evidence). However, increased ALA may slightly reduce risk of cardiovascular events (from 4.8% to 4.7%, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07, 19,327 participants; 884 CVD events, 5 RCTs, low-quality evidence), and probably reduces risk of CHD mortality (1.1% to 1.0%, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.26, 18,353 participants; 193 CHD deaths, 3 RCTs), and arrhythmia (3.3% to 2.6%, RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10, 4,837 participants; 141 events, 1 RCT). Effects on stroke are unclear.Sensitivity analysis retaining only trials at low summary risk of bias moved effect sizes towards the null (RR 1.0) for all LCn3 primary outcomes except arrhythmias, but for most ALA outcomes, effect sizes moved to suggest protection. LCn3 funnel plots suggested that adding in missing studies/results would move effect sizes towards null for most primary outcomes. There were no dose or duration effects in subgrouping or meta-regression.There was no evidence that increasing LCn3 or ALA altered serious adverse events, adiposity or lipids, although LCn3 slightly reduced triglycerides and increased HDL. ALA probably reduces HDL (high- or moderate-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This is the most extensive systematic assessment of effects of omega-3 fats on cardiovascular health to date. Moderate- and high-quality evidence suggests that increasing EPA and DHA has little or no effect on mortality or cardiovascular health (evidence mainly from supplement trials). Previous suggestions of benefits from EPA and DHA supplements appear to spring from trials with higher risk of bias. Low-quality evidence suggests ALA may slightly reduce CVD event risk, CHD mortality and arrhythmia.

Polyunsaturated fatty acids for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the health effects of total polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) is equivocal. Fish oils are rich in omega-3 PUFA and plant oils in omega-6 PUFA. Evidence suggests that increasing PUFA-rich foods, supplements or supplemented foods can reduce serum cholesterol, but may increase body weight, so overall cardiovascular effects are unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of increasing total PUFA intake on cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality, lipids and adiposity in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to April 2017 and clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to September 2016, without language restrictions. We checked trials included in relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing higher with lower PUFA intakes in adults with or without cardiovascular disease that assessed effects over 12 months or longer. We included full texts, abstracts, trials registry entries and unpublished data. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease mortality and events, risk factors (blood lipids, adiposity, blood pressure), and adverse events. We excluded trials where we could not separate effects of PUFA intake from other dietary, lifestyle or medication interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We wrote to authors of included trials for further data. Meta-analyses used random-effects analysis, sensitivity analyses included fixed-effects and limiting to low summary risk of bias. We assessed GRADE quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 49 RCTs randomising 24,272 participants, with duration of one to eight years. Eleven included trials were at low summary risk of bias, 33 recruited participants without cardiovascular disease. Baseline PUFA intake was unclear in most trials, but 3.9% to 8% of total energy intake where reported. Most trials gave supplemental capsules, but eight gave dietary advice, eight gave supplemental foods such as nuts or margarine, and three used a combination of methods to increase PUFA.Increasing PUFA intake probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality (risk 7.8% vs 7.6%, risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.07, 19,290 participants in 24 trials), but probably slightly reduces risk of coronary heart disease events from 14.2% to 12.3% (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.06, 15 trials, 10,076 participants) and cardiovascular disease events from 14.6% to 13.0% (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.01, 17,799 participants in 21 trials), all moderate-quality evidence. Increasing PUFA may slightly reduce risk of coronary heart disease death (6.6% to 6.1%, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06, 9 trials, 8810 participants) andstroke (1.2% to 1.1%, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.44, 11 trials, 14,742 participants, though confidence intervals include important harms), but has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.26, 16 trials, 15,107 participants) all low-quality evidence. Effects of increasing PUFA on major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events and atrial fibrillation are unclear as evidence is of very low quality.Increasing PUFA intake slightly reduces total cholesterol (mean difference (MD) -0.12 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.02, 26 trials, 8072 participants) and probably slightly decreases triglycerides (MD -0.12 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.04, 20 trials, 3905 participants), but has little or no effect on high-density lipoprotein (HDL) (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01, 18 trials, 4674 participants) or low-density lipoprotein (LDL) (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.06, 15 trials, 3362 participants). Increasing PUFA probably causes slight weight gain (MD 0.76 kg, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.19, 12 trials, 7100 participants).Effects of increasing PUFA on serious adverse events such as pulmonary embolism and bleeding are unclear as the evidence is of very low quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This is the most extensive systematic review of RCTs conducted to date to assess effects of increasing PUFA on cardiovascular disease, mortality, lipids or adiposity. Increasing PUFA intake probably slightly reduces risk of coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease events, may slightly reduce risk of coronary heart disease mortality and stroke (though not ruling out harms), but has little or no effect on all-cause or cardiovascular disease mortality. The mechanism may be via lipid reduction, but increasing PUFA probably slightly increases weight.

Comparative Effectiveness of 12 Treatment Strategies for Preventing Contrast-Induced Acute Kidney Injury: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To simultaneously evaluate the relative efficacy of multiple pharmacologic strategies for preventing contrast-induced acute kidney injury (AKI). STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review containing a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. SETTING & POPULATION: Participants undergoing diagnostic and/or interventional procedures with contrast media. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: Randomized controlled trials comparing the active drug treatments with each other or with hydration alone. INTERVENTION: Any of the following drugs in combination with hydration: N-acetylcysteine (NAC), theophylline (aminophylline), fenoldopam, iloprost, alprostadil, prostaglandin E1, statins, statins plus NAC, bicarbonate sodium, bicarbonate sodium plus NAC, ascorbic acid (vitamin C), tocopherol (vitamin E), α-lipoic acid, atrial natriuretic peptide, B-type natriuretic peptide, and carperitide. OUTCOMES: The occurrence of contrast-induced AKI. RESULTS: The trial network included 150 trials with 31,631 participants and 4,182 contrast-induced AKI events assessing 12 different interventions. Compared to hydration, ORs (95% credible intervals) for contrast-induced AKI were 0.31 (0.14-0.60) for high-dose statin plus NAC, 0.37 (0.19-0.64) for high-dose statin alone, 0.37 (0.17-0.72) for prostaglandins, 0.48 (0.26-0.82) for theophylline, 0.62 (0.40-0.88) for bicarbonate sodium plus NAC, 0.67 (0.54-0.81) for NAC alone, 0.64 (0.41-0.95) for vitamins and analogues, 0.70 (0.29-1.37) for natriuretic peptides, 0.69 (0.31-1.37) for fenoldopam, 0.78 (0.59-1.01) for bicarbonate sodium, and 0.98 (0.41-2.07) for low-dose statin. High-dose statin plus NAC or high-dose statin alone were likely to be ranked the best or the second best for preventing contrast-induced AKI. The overall results were not materially changed in metaregressions or subgroup and sensitivity analyses. LIMITATIONS: Patient-level data were unavailable; unable to include some treatment agents; low event rates; imbalanced distribution of participants among treatment strategies. CONCLUSIONS: High-dose statins plus hydration with or without NAC might be the preferred treatment strategy to prevent contrast-induced AKI in patients undergoing diagnostic and/or interventional procedures requiring contrast media.

Systematic overview of economic evaluations of health-related rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Health related rehabilitation is instrumental in improving functioning and promoting participation by people with disabilities. To make clinical and policy decisions about health-related rehabilitation, resource allocation and cost issues need to be considered. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of systematic reviews (SRs) on economic evaluations of health-related rehabilitation. METHODS: We searched multiple databases to identify relevant SRs of economic evaluations of health-related rehabilitation. Review quality was assessed by AMSTAR checklist. RESULTS: We included 64 SRs, most of which included economic evaluations alongside randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The review quality was low to moderate (AMSTAR score 5-8) in 35, and high (score 9-11) in 29 of the included SRs. The included SRs addressed various health conditions, including spinal or other pain conditions (n = 14), age-related problems (11), stroke (7), musculoskeletal disorders (6), heart diseases (4), pulmonary (3), mental health problems (3), and injury (3). Physiotherapy was the most commonly evaluated rehabilitation intervention in the included SRs (n = 24). Other commonly evaluated interventions included multidisciplinary programmes (14); behavioral, educational or psychological interventions (11); home-based interventions (11); complementary therapy (6); self-management (6); and occupational therapy (4). CONCLUSIONS: Although the available evidence is often described as limited, inconsistent or inconclusive, some rehabilitation interventions were cost-effective or showed cost-saving in a variety of disability conditions. Available evidence comes predominantly from high income countries, therefore economic evaluations of health-related rehabilitation are urgently required in less resourced settings.

Effectiveness of nifedipine versus atosiban for tocolysis in preterm labour: a meta-analysis with an indirect comparison of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the effectiveness of nifedipine compared with atosiban for tocolysis in preterm labour. DESIGN: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials with meta-analysis using adjusted indirect comparison. POPULATION: Six hundred and seventy-nine women recruited in nine randomised trials evaluating the effectiveness of nifedipine versus beta-agonists, and 852 women recruited in four trials of atosiban versus beta-agonists. There were no trials comparing nifedipine directly with atosiban. METHODS: We performed meta-analysis with a technique involving an adjusted indirect comparison between nifedipine and atosiban using beta-agonists as the common comparator. This approach preserves the benefit accrued by randomisation in the original comparisons. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reduction in neonatal respiratory distress syndrome and delay in delivery by 48 hours. RESULTS: Nifedipine tocolysis was associated with a significant reduction in respiratory distress syndrome compared with atosiban (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.97). It also increased the number of women whose delivery was delayed by 48 hours (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.73-1.95), although this result was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: When indirectly compared with atosiban, nifedipine tocolysis is more effective. In the absence of a direct comparison, our analysis provides a way to explore the potential benefits of nifedipine versus atosiban.