Efficacy and safety of N-acetylcysteine for preventing post-intravenous contrast acute kidney injury in patients with kidney impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: N-Acetylcysteine (NAC) may confer protection against post-contrast acute kidney injury (PC-AKI), although evidence is sparse and conflicting. The objective was to analyse the evidence on the efficacy and safety of NAC vs no administration of NAC in preventing PC-AKI in patients with pre-existing kidney impairment undergoing a non-interventional radiological examination requiring intravenous (IV) contrast media (CM) administration. METHODS: We carried out a systematic review including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Clinicaltrials.gov up to May 2022. The primary outcome was PC-AKI. Secondary outcomes included the requirement of renal replacement therapy, all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and length of hospital stay. We conducted the meta-analyses using the Mantel-Haenszel method and following a random-effects model. RESULTS: NAC was not associated with a significant reduction in PC-AKI (RR 0.47, 95%CI 0.20 to 1.11; 8 studies; 545 participants; I2: 56%; low certainty), all-cause mortality (RR 0.67, 95%CI 0.29 to 1.54; 2 studies; 129 participants; very low certainty), or length of hospital stay (mean difference 9.2 days, 95%CI - 20.08 to 38.48; 1 study; 42 participants; very low certainty). The impact on other outcomes could not be determined. CONCLUSIONS: NAC may not reduce the risk of PC-AKI or all-cause mortality in people with kidney impairment who receive an IV CM prior to radiological imaging, although the certainty of the evidence is very low or low. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Our review concludes that prophylactic administration of N-acetylcysteine may not significantly reduce the risk of acute kidney injury in patients with kidney impairment receiving an intravenous contrast media prior to non-interventional radiological imaging, which may support decision making in this common clinical scenario. KEY POINTS: • N-Acetylcysteine may not significantly reduce the risk of acute kidney injury in patients with kidney impairment receiving an intravenous contrast media prior to non-interventional radiological imaging. • All-cause mortality and length of hospital stay would not be decreased with the administration of N-Acetylcysteine in this setting.

Role of Pharmacogenomics in the Efficacy and Safety of Thiopurines in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Thiopurines' toxicity often leads to dose reduction or discontinuation. This systematic review aims to synthesize the evidence on the effect of genotype-based dosing of thiopurines on treatment efficacy and safety in inflammatory bowel disease (objective #1), and the association between genotype status and the efficacy and safety profile (objective #2). METHODS: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched in August 2021. A total of 80 studies (19,859 individuals) were included. Meta-analyses for mortality, different types of adverse events (AEs), withdrawal due to AE, change in disease activity and clinical remission were performed following mainly a fixed-effects model. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020148130. RESULTS: Genotype-based dosing was associated to a significantly lower incidence of hematologic AEs (risk ratio=0.71; 95% CI: 0.56-0.90; I2 : 47%; 4 randomized controlled trials; moderate quality), which may be attributable to nudix hydrolase 15 (NUDT15) testing more than to thiopurine methyltransferase (TPMT) genotyping. No differences were found in other outcomes. Mutations in TPMT and NUDT15 genes were associated to a higher probability of serious AEs [odds ratio (OR) TPMT=4.98; OR NUDT15=11.44], hematologic AEs (OR TPMT=3.18), and serious hematologic AEs (OR TPMT=7.88; OR NUDT15=12.83). TPMT was also associated with a higher risk of withdrawals due to AEs (OR=3.38), and NUDT15 with gastrointestinal AEs (OR=2.04). Mutations in the ITPA gene did not lead to significant differences. Evidence of an association between other genes and clinical outcomes is still scarce. CONCLUSIONS: Mutations in TPMT and NUDT15 genes predispose patients to suffer thiopurine-induced toxicity, and genotype-guided treatment has been shown to contribute to the prevention of thiopurine-induced toxicity, especially in the case of NUDT15 in Asians.

Effect of the combination of diuretics, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or metamizole (triple whammy) on hospitalisation due to acute kidney injury: A nested case-control study.

PURPOSE: Concomitant use of diuretics, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or metamizole, known as 'triple whammy' (TW), has been associated with an increased risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). Nevertheless, there is still uncertainty on its impact in hospitalisation and mortality. The aim of the study was to analyse the association between exposure to TW and the risk of hospitalisation for AKI, all-cause mortality and the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT). METHODS: A case-control study nested in a cohort of adults exposed to at least one diuretic or RAAS inhibitor between 2009 and 2018 was carried out within the Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database for Public Health Systems (BIFAP). Patients hospitalised for AKI between 2010 and 2018 (cases) were matched with up to 10 patients of the same age, sex and region of Spain who had not been hospitalised for AKI as of the date of hospitalisation for AKI of the matching case (controls). The association between TW exposure versus non-exposure to TW and outcome variables was analysed using logistic regression models. RESULTS: A total of 480 537 participants (44 756 cases and 435 781 controls) were included (mean age: 79 years). The risk of hospitalisation for AKI was significantly higher amongst those exposed to TW [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) 1.32-1.40], being higher with current (aOR 1.60, 95%CI 1.52-1.69) and prolonged exposure (aOR 1.65, 95%CI 1.55-1.75). No significant association was found with the need of RRT. Unexpectedly, mortality was lower in those exposed to TW (aOR 0.81, 95%CI 0.71-0.93), which may be influenced by other causes. CONCLUSION: Vigilance should be increased when diuretics, RAAS inhibitors, and NSAIDs or metamizole are used concomitantly, especially in patients at risk such as elderly patients.

Blood pressure targets for the treatment of people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: This is the third update of the review first published in 2017. Hypertension is a prominent preventable cause of premature morbidity and mortality. People with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease are at particularly high risk, so reducing blood pressure to below standard targets may be beneficial. This strategy could reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity but could also increase adverse events. The optimal blood pressure target in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine if lower blood pressure targets (systolic/diastolic 135/85 mmHg or less) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity compared with standard blood pressure targets (140 mmHg to 160mmHg/90 mmHg to 100 mmHg or less) in the treatment of people with hypertension and a history of cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, peripheral vascular occlusive disease). SEARCH METHODS: For this updated review, we used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was January 2022. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with more than 50 participants per group that provided at least six months' follow-up. Trial reports had to present data for at least one primary outcome (total mortality, serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality). Eligible interventions involved lower targets for systolic/diastolic blood pressure (135/85 mmHg or less) compared with standard targets for blood pressure (140 mmHg to 160 mmHg/90 mmHg to 100 mmHg or less). Participants were adults with documented hypertension and adults receiving treatment for hypertension with a cardiovascular history for myocardial infarction, stroke, chronic peripheral vascular occlusive disease, or angina pectoris. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTs that involved 9595 participants. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (range 1.0 to 4.7 years). Six of seven RCTs provided individual participant data. None of the included studies was blinded to participants or clinicians because of the need to titrate antihypertensive drugs to reach a specific blood pressure goal. However, an independent committee blinded to group allocation assessed clinical events in all trials. Hence, we assessed all trials at high risk of performance bias and low risk of detection bias. We also considered other issues, such as early termination of studies and subgroups of participants not predefined, to downgrade the certainty of the evidence. We found there is probably little to no difference in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.23; 7 studies, 9595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.29; 6 studies, 9484 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Similarly, we found there may be little to no differences in serious adverse events (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; 7 studies, 9595 participants; low-certainty evidence) or total cardiovascular events (including myocardial infarction, stroke, sudden death, hospitalization, or death from congestive heart failure (CHF)) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; 7 studies, 9595 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about withdrawals due to adverse effects. However, studies suggest more participants may withdraw due to adverse effects in the lower target group (RR 8.16, 95% CI 2.06 to 32.28; 3 studies, 801 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings were lower in the lower target group (systolic: mean difference (MD) -8.77 mmHg, 95% CI -12.82 to -4.73; 7 studies, 8657 participants; diastolic: MD -4.50 mmHg, 95% CI -6.35 to -2.65; 6 studies, 8546 participants). More drugs were needed in the lower target group (MD 0.56, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.96; 5 studies, 7910 participants), but blood pressure targets at one year were achieved more frequently in the standard target group (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.23; 7 studies, 8699 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found there is probably little to no difference in total mortality and cardiovascular mortality between people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease treated to a lower compared to a standard blood pressure target. There may also be little to no difference in serious adverse events or total cardiovascular events. This suggests that no net health benefit is derived from a lower systolic blood pressure target. We found very limited evidence on withdrawals due to adverse effects, which led to high uncertainty. At present, evidence is insufficient to justify lower blood pressure targets (135/85 mmHg or less) in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease. Several trials are still ongoing, which may provide an important input to this topic in the near future.

Use of methylphenidate and risk for valvular heart disease: A case-control study nested in the BIFAP cohort.

PURPOSE: To examine the association between use of methylphenidate and the risk for valvular heart disease (VHD) in the Spanish primary care database BIFAP. METHODS: Case-control study nested in a cohort of patients aged 5 to 25 years between 2002 and 2014, based in a general practice research database. Cases were people with a validated diagnosis of VHD. Ten controls per case were matched on age, sex, and calendar year. Multivariable conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) of VHD comparing patients ever treated with methylphenidate vs never users, as well as by time since last use, treatment duration, and variations in case inclusion criteria. RESULTS: From a cohort of 1 596 284 patients, we identified 262 valid cases of VHD. No difference in the incidence of VHD was observed when comparing "ever users" of methylphenidate with "never users" (adjusted OR 0.52, 95%CI 0.16-1.69). A similar result was found comparing current, recent, or past users of methylphenidate. Differences were not significant when both valid and probable cases were included as events of interest (adjusted OR 0.59, 95%CI 0.22-1.63). CONCLUSIONS: In this first-ever population-based study on this issue, association between methylphenidate and the incidence of VHD among persons in the 5 to 25 years age range was neither confirmed nor excluded. Additional studies may be required to clarify the presence or absence of this relationship.

Blood pressure targets for the treatment of people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: This is the second update of the review first published in 2017. Hypertension is a prominent preventable cause of premature morbidity and mortality. People with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease are at particularly high risk, so reducing blood pressure to below standard targets may be beneficial. This strategy could reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity but could also increase adverse events. The optimal blood pressure target in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine if lower blood pressure targets (135/85 mmHg or less) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity as compared with standard blood pressure targets (140 to 160/90 to 100 mmHg or less) in the treatment of people with hypertension and a history of cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, peripheral vascular occlusive disease). SEARCH METHODS: For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to November 2019: Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (from 1982), along with the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs with more than 50 participants per group that provided at least six months' follow-up. Trial reports had to present data for at least one primary outcome (total mortality, serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality). Eligible interventions involved lower targets for systolic/diastolic blood pressure (135/85 mmHg or less) compared with standard targets for blood pressure (140 to 160/90 to 100 mmHg or less). Participants were adults with documented hypertension and adults receiving treatment for hypertension with a cardiovascular history for myocardial infarction, stroke, chronic peripheral vascular occlusive disease, or angina pectoris. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed search results and extracted data using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs that involved 9484 participants. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (range 1.0 to 4.7 years). All RCTs provided individual participant data. None of the included studies was blinded to participants or clinicians because of the need to titrate antihypertensives to reach a specific blood pressure goal. However, an independent committee blinded to group allocation assessed clinical events in all trials. Hence, we assessed all trials at high risk of performance bias and low risk of detection bias. Other issues such as early termination of studies and subgroups of participants not predefined were also considered to downgrade the quality evidence. We found there is probably little to no difference in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.23; 6 studies, 9484 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.29; 6 studies, 9484 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Similarly, we found there may be little to no differences in serious adverse events (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; 6 studies, 9484 participants; low-quality evidence) or total cardiovascular events (including myocardial infarction, stroke, sudden death, hospitalization, or death from congestive heart failure) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; 6 studies, 9484 participants; low-quality evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about withdrawals due to adverse effects. However, studies suggest more participants may withdraw due to adverse effects in the lower target group (RR 8.16, 95% CI 2.06 to 32.28; 2 studies, 690 participants; very low-quality evidence). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings were lower in the lower target group (systolic: mean difference (MD) -8.90 mmHg, 95% CI -13.24 to -4.56; 6 studies, 8546 participants; diastolic: MD -4.50 mmHg, 95% CI -6.35 to -2.65; 6 studies, 8546 participants). More drugs were needed in the lower target group (MD 0.56, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.96; 5 studies, 7910 participants), but blood pressure targets were achieved more frequently in the standard target group (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.24; 6 studies, 8588 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found there is probably little to no difference in total mortality and cardiovascular mortality between people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease treated to a lower compared to a standard blood pressure target. There may also be little to no difference in serious adverse events or total cardiovascular events. This suggests that no net health benefit is derived from a lower systolic blood pressure target. We found very limited evidence on withdrawals due to adverse effects, which led to high uncertainty. At present, evidence is insufficient to justify lower blood pressure targets (135/85 mmHg or less) in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease. Several trials are still ongoing, which may provide an important input to this topic in the near future.

First-line combination therapy versus first-line monotherapy for primary hypertension.

BACKGROUND: This is the first update of a review originally published in 2017. Starting with one drug and starting with a combination of two drugs are strategies suggested in clinical guidelines as initial treatment of hypertension. The recommendations are not based on evidence about clinically relevant outcomes. Some antihypertensive combinations have been shown to be harmful. The actual harm-to-benefit balance of each strategy is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine if there are differences in clinical outcomes between monotherapy and combination therapy as initial treatment for primary hypertension. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to April 2019: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 2005), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We used no language restrictions. We also searched clinical studies repositories of pharmaceutical companies, reviews of combination drugs on the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency websites, and lists of references in reviews and clinical practice guidelines. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind trials with at least 12 months' follow-up in adults with primary hypertension (systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure 140/90 mmHg or higher, or 130/80 mmHg or higher if participants had diabetes), which compared combination of two first-line antihypertensive drugs with monotherapy as initial treatment. Trials had to include at least 50 participants per group and report mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular events, or serious adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, evaluated the risk of bias, and performed data entry. The primary outcomes were mortality, serious adverse events, cardiovascular events, and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes were withdrawals due to drug-related adverse effects, reaching blood pressure control (as defined in each trial), and blood pressure change from baseline. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. We summarised data on dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: This update included one new study in which a subgroup of participants met our inclusion criteria. As none of the four included studies focused solely on people initiating antihypertensive treatment, we asked investigators for data for this subgroup. One study (PREVER-treatment 2016) used a combination of thiazide-type diuretic/potassium-sparing diuretic; as the former is not indicated in monotherapy, we analysed this study separately. The three original trials in the main comparison (monotherapy: 335 participants; combination therapy: 233 participants) included outpatients, mostly European and white people. Two trials only included people with type 2 diabetes; the remaining trial excluded people treated with diabetes, hypocholesterolaemia, or cardiovascular drugs. The follow-up was 12 months in two trials and 36 months in one trial. It is very uncertain whether combination therapy versus monotherapy reduces total mortality (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.08 to 21.72), cardiovascular mortality (zero events reported), cardiovascular events (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.22 to 4.41), serious adverse events (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.92), or withdrawals due to adverse effects (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.35); all outcomes had 568 participants, and the evidence was rated as of very low certainty due to serious imprecision and for using a subgroup that was not defined in advance. The confidence intervals were extremely wide for all important outcomes and included both appreciable harm and benefit. The PREVER-treatment 2016 trial, which used a combination therapy with potassium-sparing diuretic (monotherapy: 84 participants; combination therapy: 116 participants), included outpatients. This trial was conducted in Brazil and had a follow-up of 18 months. The number of events was very low and confidence intervals very wide, with zero events reported for cardiovascular mortality and withdrawals due to adverse events. It is very uncertain if there are differences in clinical outcomes between monotherapy and combination therapy in this trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The numbers of included participants, and hence the number of events, were too small to draw any conclusion about the relative efficacy of monotherapy versus combination therapy as initial treatment for primary hypertension. There is a need for large clinical trials that address the review question and report clinically relevant endpoints.

Alcohol intake reduction for controlling hypertension.

BACKGROUND: High blood pressure constitutes one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity all over the world. At the same time, heavy drinking increases the risk for developing cardiovascular diseases, including cardiomyopathy, hypertension, atrial arrhythmias, or stroke. Several studies have already assessed specifically the relationship between alcohol intake and hypertension. However, the potential effect on blood pressure of alcohol intake reduction interventions is largely unknown. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of any intervention to reduce alcohol intake in terms of blood pressure decrease in hypertensive people with alcohol consumption compared to a control intervention or no intervention at all. To determine additional effects related to mortality, major cardiovascular events, serious adverse events, or quality of life. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to June 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 5, 2020), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1946), MEDLINE Ovid Epub Ahead of Print, and MEDLINE Ovid In-Process, Embase Ovid (from 1974), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Trial authors were contacted when needed and no language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials with minimum 12 weeks duration and including 50 or more subjects per group with quantitative measurement of alcohol consumption and/or biological measurement of the outcomes of interest. Participants were adults (16 years of age or older) with systolic blood pressure (SBP) greater than 140 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) greater than 90 mmHg, and SBP ≥ 130 or DBP ≥ 80 mmHg in participants with diabetes. We included any intervention implemented to reduce their alcohol intake. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed search results and extracted data using standard methodological procedures adopted by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 1210 studies were screened. We included one randomised controlled trial involving a total of 269 participants with a two-year follow-up. Individual patient data for all participants were provided and used in this review. No differences were found between the cognitive-behavioural intervention group and the control group for overall mortality (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.17; low-certainty evidence), cardiovascular mortality (not estimable) and cardiovascular events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.79; very low-certainty evidence). There was no statistical difference in systolic blood pressure (SBP) reduction (Mean Difference (MD) -0.92 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.66 to 3.82 mmHg; very low-certainty evidence) or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) decrease (MD 0.98 mmHg, 95% CI -1.69 to 3.65 mmHg; low-certainty evidence) between the cognitive-behavioural intervention group and the control group. We also did not find any differences in the proportion of subjects with SBP < 140 mmHg and DBP < 90 mmHg (Risk Ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.65; very low-certainty evidence). Concerning secondary outcomes, the alcohol intake was significantly reduced in the cognitive-behavioural intervention compared with the control group (MD 191.33 g, 95% CI 85.36 to 297.30 g). We found no differences between the active and control intervention in the proportion of subjects with lower-risk alcohol intake versus higher-risk and extreme drinkers at the end of the study (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.60). There were no estimable results for the quality of life outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: An intervention for decreasing alcohol intake consumption did not result in differences in systolic and diastolic blood pressure when compared with a control intervention, although there was a reduction in alcohol intake favouring the active intervention. No differences were found either for overall mortality, cardiovascular mortality or cardiovascular events. No data on serious adverse events or quality of life were available to assess. Adequate randomised controlled trials are needed to provide additional evidence on this specific question.

Blood pressure targets for the treatment of people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: This is the first update of the review published in 2017. Hypertension is a prominent preventable cause of premature morbidity and mortality. People with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease are at particularly high risk, so reducing blood pressure to below standard targets may be beneficial. This strategy could reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity but could also increase adverse events. The optimal blood pressure target in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine if 'lower' blood pressure targets (≤ 135/85 mmHg) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity as compared with 'standard' blood pressure targets (≤ 140 to 160/90 to 100 mmHg) in the treatment of people with hypertension and a history of cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, peripheral vascular occlusive disease). SEARCH METHODS: For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to February 2018: Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (from 1982), along with the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included more than 50 participants per group and provided at least six months' follow-up. Trial reports had to present data for at least one primary outcome (total mortality, serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality). Eligible interventions involved lower targets for systolic/diastolic blood pressure (≤ 135/85 mmHg) compared with standard targets for blood pressure (≤ 140 to 160/90 to 100 mmHg).Participants were adults with documented hypertension and adults receiving treatment for hypertension with a cardiovascular history for myocardial infarction, stroke, chronic peripheral vascular occlusive disease, or angina pectoris. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed search results and extracted data using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs that involved a total of 9484 participants. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (range 1.0 to 4.7 years). All RCTs provided individual participant data.We found no change in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.23) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.29; moderate-quality evidence). Similarly, we found no differences in serious adverse events (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; low-quality evidence) or total cardiovascular events (including myocardial infarction, stroke, sudden death, hospitalization, or death from congestive heart failure) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; low-quality evidence). Studies reported more participant withdrawals due to adverse effects in the lower target arm (RR 8.16, 95% CI 2.06 to 32.28; very low-quality evidence). Blood pressures were lower in the lower target group by 8.9/4.5 mmHg. More drugs were needed in the lower target group, but blood pressure targets were achieved more frequently in the standard target group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of a difference in total mortality, serious adverse events, or total cardiovascular events between people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease treated to a lower or to a standard blood pressure target. This suggests that no net health benefit is derived from a lower systolic blood pressure target. We found very limited evidence on adverse events, which led to high uncertainty. At present, evidence is insufficient to justify lower blood pressure targets (≤ 135/85 mmHg) in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease. More trials are needed to examine this topic.

Use of oral antidiabetic agents and risk of community-acquired pneumonia: a nested case-control study.

AIMS: To evaluate the association between use of different oral antidiabetic agents (OAD) and the risk of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in patients with type-2 diabetes (T2DM). METHODS: Case-control study nested in a cohort of patients with T2DM and use of OAD between 2002 and 2013, based in a Spanish general practice research database. Cases were people diagnosed with T2DM, aged >18 years and with a validated diagnosis of CAP between 2002 and 2013. Ten controls were matched on age, sex and calendar year. Odds ratio (OR) of CAP was estimated comparing patients treated with: (1) metformin vs. other monotherapies or no antidiabetic treatment; (2) metformin + sulfonylureas vs. other antidiabetic combinations. OR of CAP was also assessed according to antidiabetic treatment duration. RESULTS: From a cohort of 76 009 T2DM patients, we identified 1803 cases of CAP. No difference in the incidence of CAP was observed when comparing any OAD in monotherapy with metformin. Compared with current use of metformin + sulfonylurea, thiazolidinediones + metformin was associated with an increased risk of CAP (adjusted OR = 2.48, 95% CI 1.40-4.38). The use of any combination with thiazolidinediones was also associated with higher risk of CAP (adjusted OR = 2.00, 95% CI 1.22-3.28). Current use of DPP-4 inhibitors was not associated with an increased risk of CAP. CONCLUSIONS: No differences in the incidence of CAP were observed between the use of OAD in monotherapy vs. metformin. Thiazolidinedione use in combination was associated with an increase in the risk of CAP when compared to metformin + sulfonylureas. The use of DPP-4 inhibitors was not associated with an increased risk of CAP.

First-line combination therapy versus first-line monotherapy for primary hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Starting with one drug and starting with a combination of two drugs are strategies suggested in clinical guidelines as initial treatment of hypertension. The recommendations are not based on evidence about clinically relevant outcomes. Some antihypertensive combinations have been shown to be harmful. The actual harm-to-benefit balance of each strategy is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine if there are differences in clinical outcomes between monotherapy and combination therapy as initial treatment for primary hypertension. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Hypertension Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2016, Issue 2), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) up to February 2016. We searched in clinical studies repositories of pharmaceutical companies, reviews of combination drugs in Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency, and lists of references in reviews and clinical practice guidelines. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized, double-blind trials with at least 12 months' follow-up in adults with primary hypertension (systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure 140/90 mmHg or higher, or 130/80 mmHg or higher if participants had diabetes), which compared combination of two first-line antihypertensive drug with monotherapy as initial treatment. Trials had to include at least 50 participants per group and report mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular events or serious adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion, evaluated the risk of bias and entered the data. Primary outcomes were mortality, serious adverse events, cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes were withdrawals due to drug-related adverse effects, reaching blood pressure control (as defined in each trial) and blood pressure change from baseline. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. We summarized data on dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. MAIN RESULTS: We found three studies in which a subgroup of participants met our inclusion criteria. None of the studies focused solely on people initiating antihypertensive treatment so we asked investigators for data for this subgroup (monotherapy: 335 participants; combination therapy: 233 participants). They included outpatients, and mostly European and white people. Two trials included only people with type 2 diabetes, whereas the other trial excluded people treated with diabetes, hypocholesterolaemia or cardiovascular drugs. The follow-up was 12 months in two trials and 36 months in one trial. Certainty of evidence was very low due to the serious imprecision, and for using a subgroup not defined in advance. Confidence intervals were extremely wide for all important outcomes and included both appreciable harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The numbers of included participants and, hence the number of events, were too small to draw any conclusion about the relative efficacy of monotherapy versus combination therapy as initial treatment for primary hypertension. There is a need for large clinical trials that address the question and report clinically relevant endpoints.

Blood pressure targets for the treatment of people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a prominent preventable cause of premature morbidity and mortality. People with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease are at particularly high risk, so reducing blood pressure below standard targets may be beneficial. This strategy could reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity but could also increase adverse events. The optimal blood pressure target in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine if 'lower' blood pressure targets (≤ 135/85 mmHg) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity as compared with 'standard' blood pressure targets (≤ 140 to 160/ 90 to 100 mmHg) in the treatment of people with hypertension and a history of cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, peripheral vascular occlusive disease). SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to February 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Literature Database (from 1982) and contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with more than 50 participants per group and at least six months follow-up. Trial reports needed to present data for at least one primary outcome (total mortality, serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality). Eligible interventions were lower target for systolic/diastolic blood pressure (≤ 135/85 mmHg) compared with standard target for blood pressure (≤ 140 to 160/90 to 100 mmHg).Participants were adults with documented hypertension or who were receiving treatment for hypertension and cardiovascular history for myocardial infarction, stroke, chronic peripheral vascular occlusive disease or angina pectoris. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed search results and extracted data using standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs that involved a total of 9795 participants. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (range 1.0 to 4.7 years). Five RCTs provided individual patient data for 6775 participants.We found no change in total mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.21; moderate-quality evidence). Similarly, no differences were found in serious adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.11; low-quality evidence). There was a reduction in fatal and non fatal cardiovascular events (including myocardial infarction, stroke, sudden death, hospitalization or death from congestive heart failure) with the lower target (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.98; ARR 1.6% over 3.7 years; low-quality evidence). There were more participant withdrawals due to adverse effects in the lower target arm (RR 8.16, 95% CI 2.06 to 32.28; very low-quality evidence). Blood pressures were lower in the lower' target group by 9.5/4.9 mmHg. More drugs were needed in the lower target group but blood pressure targets were achieved more frequently in the standard target group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No evidence of a difference in total mortality and serious adverse events was found between treating to a lower or to a standard blood pressure target in people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease. This suggests no net health benefit from a lower systolic blood pressure target despite the small absolute reduction in total cardiovascular serious adverse events. There was very limited evidence on adverse events, which lead to high uncertainty. At present there is insufficient evidence to justify lower blood pressure targets (≤ 135/85 mmHg) in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease. More trials are needed to answer this question.

The Cochrane Collaboration withdraws a review on methylphenidate for adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

A Cochrane systematic review on immediate-release methylphenidate for adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was withdrawn from the Cochrane Library on 26 May 2016 after substantial criticism of its methods and flawed conclusions. Retraction of scientific papers on this basis is unusual but can be necessary. We provide a summary of the criticism that led to the withdrawal. We detail the methodological flaws of the withdrawn Cochrane systematic review and general issues of bias and shortcomings of the included ADHD trials: cross-over designs compared with parallel-group designs, exclusion of participants with psychiatric comorbidity, absence of 'functional outcomes' and use of clinical outcomes with limited relevance, short trial duration and small trial populations, broken blinding caused by easily recognisable side effects, combining outcome assessments by trial investigators and participants, outcome reporting bias, poor evaluation of cardiovascular and psychiatric harms and conflicts of interest of trialists and systematic reviewers. The withdrawal of the Cochrane systematic review signals recognition of previous unreliable clinical ADHD research. We conclude that clinical trials of immediate-release methylphenidate in adults with ADHD are of very low quality. We urgently need well-conducted long-term trials free of bias to assess the benefits and harms of central stimulant treatment in adult ADHD.

Chronotherapy versus conventional statins therapy for the treatment of hyperlipidaemia.

BACKGROUND: Elevated levels of total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein play an important role in the development of atheromas and, therefore, in cardiovascular diseases. Cholesterol biosynthesis follows a circadian rhythm and is principally produced at night (between 12:00 am and 6:00 am). The adjustment of hypolipaemic therapy to biologic rhythms is known as chronotherapy. Chronotherapy is based on the idea that medication can have different effects depending on the hour at which it is taken. Statins are one of the most widely used drugs for the prevention of cardiovascular events. In usual clinical practice, statins are administered once per day without specifying the time when they should be taken. It is unknown whether the timing of statin administration is important for clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To critically evaluate and analyse the evidence available from randomised controlled trials regarding the effects of chronotherapy on the effectiveness and safety of treating hyperlipidaemia with statins. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, ProQuest Health & Medical Complete, OpenSIGLE, Web of Science Conference Proceedings, and various other resources including clinical trials registers up to November 2015. We also searched the reference lists of relevant reviews for eligible studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), enrolling people with primary or secondary hyperlipidaemia. To be included, trials must have compared any chronotherapeutic lipid-lowering regimen with statins and any other statin lipid-lowering regimen not based on chronotherapy. We considered any type and dosage of statin as eligible, as long as the control and experimental arms differed only in the timing of the administration of the same statin. Quasi-randomised studies were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We extracted the key data from studies in relation to participants, interventions, and outcomes for safety and efficacy. We calculated odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Using the GRADE approach, we assessed the quality of the evidence and we used the GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool to import data from Review Manager to create 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes eight RCTs (767 participants analysed in morning and evening arms). The trials used different lipid-lowering regimens with statins (lovastatin: two trials; simvastatin: three trials; fluvastatin: two trials; pravastatin: one trial). All trials compared the effects between morning and evening statin administration. Trial length ranged from four to 14 weeks. We found a high risk of bias in the domain of selective reporting in three trials and in the domain of incomplete outcome data in one trial of the eight trials included. None of the studies included were judged to be at low risk of bias.None of the included RCTs reported data on cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, incidence of cardiovascular events, or deaths from any cause. Pooled results showed no evidence of a difference in total cholesterol (MD 4.33, 95% CI -1.36 to 10.01), 514 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (MD 4.85 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.87 to 10.57, 473 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (MD 0.54, 95% CI -1.08 to 2.17, 514 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence) or triglycerides (MD -8.91, 95% CI -22 to 4.17, 510 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence) between morning and evening statin administration.With regard to safety outcomes, five trials (556 participants) reported adverse events. Pooled analysis found no differences in statins adverse events between morning and evening intake (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.15, 556 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Limited and low-quality evidence suggested that there were no differences between chronomodulated treatment with statins in people with hyperlipidaemia as compared to conventional treatment with statins, in terms of clinically relevant outcomes. Studies were short term and therefore did not report on our primary outcomes, cardiovascular clinical events or death. The review did not find differences in adverse events associated with statins between both regimens. Taking statins in the evening does not have an effect on the improvement of lipid levels with respect to morning administration. Further high-quality trials with longer-term follow-up are needed to confirm the results of this review.

Systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of multidisciplinary interventions to address polypharmacy in community-dwelling older adults.

Interventions to address polypharmacy in community-dwelling older adults often focus on medication-related outcomes. The aim was to explore the impact of multidisciplinary interventions to manage polypharmacy on clinical outcomes for community-dwelling older adults. This systematic review and meta-analysis included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on interventions by at least a pharmacist and a physician, indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE or CENTRAL up to January 2023. Evidence certainty was assessed using the GRADE approach. Seventeen RCTs were included. Fifteen were rated as 'high' risk of bias. No relevant benefits were found in functional and cognitive status (primary outcomes), falls, mortality, quality of life, patient satisfaction, hospital admissions, emergency department or primary care visits. Interventions reduced medication costs, improved medication appropriateness (odds ratio [OR] 0.39), reduced number of medications (mean difference [MD] -0.57), resolved medication-related problems (MD -0.45), and improved medication adherence (relative risk [RR] 1.14). There was a low or very low certainty of the evidence for most outcomes. Multidisciplinary interventions to address polypharmacy appear effective in improving multiple dimensions of medication use. However, evidence for corresponding improvements in functional or cognitive status is scarce. New efficient models of multidisciplinary interventions to address polypharmacy impacting clinical outcomes should be explored.

Restoring Study PRGF: a randomized clinical trial on plasma rich in growth factors for knee osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: A randomized clinical trial assessing plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) versus hyaluronic acid for knee osteoarthritis was published in 2012 (sponsor trial ID BTI-01-EC/07/ART). Evidence of misreporting was discovered following access to unpublished materials. In accordance with the principles of the Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials (RIAT) initiative, we sought to re-analyse Study PRGF based on the unpublished trial materials. METHODS: Reanalysis was made possible primarily based on two unpublished study documents (original trial protocol and final report) obtained from the authors of the original publication. A call to action, calling on the authors to correct the original publication, was publicly issued. The involved ethics committee was repeatedly approached and extensive discussion with the authors ensued. After no agreement to correct the paper was reached, we embarked on this restoration. Reanalysis was focused on providing updated analyses for efficacy and safety. RESULTS: The efficacy of PRGF was not statistically different from hyaluronic acid for any prespecified primary or secondary efficacy outcomes. For the primary endpoint, the percent of patients on PRGF compared to hyaluronic acid with a decrease >40% in WOMAC pain subscale score was 5.4% higher; 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.4% to 21.3%; p = 0.505. This differs from the original publication that reported a non-prespecified primary endpoint (decrease >50% in WOMAC pain subscale score) which was 14.1% higher; 95% CI 0.5 to 27.6%; p=0.044. Furthermore, in contrast to the article statement that all the adverse events disappeared in 48 h, at least two patients in the hyaluronic arm and five patients in the PRGF arm reported persistent adverse events. Inadequate disclosure of conflicts of interest in the original publication was also noted. CONCLUSIONS: This reanalysis of Study PRGF found no clinically or statistically significant benefit from PRGF compared to hyaluronic acid. The restoration of Study PRGF shows the urgency of important changes to trial reporting and oversight practices. In the future, timely access to all clinical trial documents is needed to minimize the risk of reporting bias. Similarly, ethics committees should be ready to intervene whenever a case of potential misconduct arises. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This is a RIAT project, whose original trial was approved and registered on 19 December 2007 by the Ethics Committee of the Basque Country, Spain, as BTI-01-EC/07/ART.

Efficacy and safety of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy in hematologic malignancies: a living systematic review on comparative studies.

Background: Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) cell therapies have been claimed to be curative in responsive patients. Nonetheless, response rates can vary according to different characteristics, and these therapies are associated with important adverse events such as cytokine release syndrome, neurologic adverse events, and B-cell aplasia. Objectives: This living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated synthesis of the evidence available on the role of CAR-T therapy for the treatment of patients with hematologic malignancies. Design: A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI), evaluating the effect of CAR-T therapy versus other active treatments, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, standard of care (SoC) or any other intervention, was performed in patients with hematologic malignancies. The primary outcome is overall survival (OS). Certainty of the evidence was determined using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Data sources and Methods: Searches were performed in the Epistemonikos database, which collates information from multiple sources to identify systematic reviews and their included primary studies, including Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, DARE, HTA Database, Campbell database, JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, EPPI-Centre Evidence Library. A manual search was also carried out. We included the evidence published up to 1 July 2022. Results: We included the evidence published up to 1 July 2022. We considered 139 RCTs and 1725 NRSI as potentially eligible. Two RCTs (N = 681) comparing CAR-T therapy with SoC in patients with recurrent/relapsed (R/R) B-cell lymphoma were included. RCTs did not show statistical differences in OS, serious adverse events, or total adverse events with grade ⩾ 3. Higher complete response with substantial heterogeneity [risk ratio = 1.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) = (1.30-1.93); I 2 = 89%; 2 studies; 681 participants; very low certainty evidence] and higher progression-free survival [hazard ratio for progression or death = 0.49; 95% CI = (0.37-0.65); 1 study; 359 participants; moderate certainty evidence] were reported with CAR-T therapies. Nine NRSI (N = 540) in patients with T or B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia or R/R B-cell lymphoma were also included, providing secondary data. In general, the GRADE certainty of the evidence for main outcomes was mostly low or very low. Conclusion: So far, assuming important limitations in the level of certainty due to scarce and heterogenous comparative studies, CAR-T therapies have shown some benefit in terms of progression-free survival, but no overall survival, in patients with R/R B-cell lymphoma. Despite one-arm trials have already facilitated approval of CAR-T cell treatments, additional evidence from large comparative studies is still needed to better characterize the benefit-harm ratio of the use of CAR-T in a variety of patient populations with hematological malignancies. Registration: https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.14390.1. PROSPERO/OSF Preregistration: 10.17605/OSF.IO/V6HDX.

Meta-analysis: Efficacy and safety of albumin in the prevention and treatment of complications in patients with cirrhosis.

INTRODUCTION: Albumin is used in multiple situations in patients with cirrhosis, but the evidence of its benefit is not always clear. The aim was to synthesise the evidence on the efficacy and safety of albumin compared to other treatments or no active intervention in cirrhotic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL up to May 2022. We assessed all-cause mortality, liver transplant, cirrhosis complications of any type and serious adverse events (SAEs). Second, AEs, hospital readmission, length of hospital stay, need for paracentesis and quality of life (QoL) were evaluated. Meta-analyses with Mantel-Haenszel method and random-effects model were performed. RESULTS: Fifty studies (5118 participants) were included. Albumin was associated with a reduction in mortality in cirrhotic patients with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.32-0.75; low certainty) and hepatic encephalopathy (HE) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34-0.83; low certainty) when compared to no administration of albumin, but not in other scenarios. In general, no additional benefit of albumin was found in liver transplants, SAEs or cirrhosis complications (low/very low certainty). Long-term administration (>3 months) of albumin led to a reduction in cirrhosis complications (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57-0.97; low certainty), hospital readmissions, length of hospital stay, need for paracentesis and improvement of QoL. CONCLUSION: Albumin may reduce mortality risk in cirrhotic patients with SBP or HE. No benefit was identified in reducing liver transplants or SAEs. Long-term administration may be associated with a lower risk of cirrhosis complications and need for paracentesis.