Interleukin-receptor antagonist and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors for the primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases.

BACKGROUND: Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ACVD) is worsened by chronic inflammatory diseases. Interleukin receptor antagonists (IL-RAs) and tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF) inhibitors have been studied to see if they can prevent cardiovascular events. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical benefits and harms of IL-RAs and TNF inhibitors in the primary and secondary prevention of ACVD. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Heart Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, EBSCO CINAHL plus, and clinical trial registries for ongoing and unpublished studies were searched in February 2024. The reference lists of relevant studies, reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports were searched to identify additional studies. No limitations on language, date of publication or study type were set. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs that recruited people with and without pre-existing ACVD, comparing IL-RAs or TNF inhibitors versus placebo or usual care, were selected. The primary outcomes considered were all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two or more review authors, working independently at each step, selected studies, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and used GRADE to judge the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 58 RCTs (22,053 participants; 21,308 analysed), comparing medication efficacy with placebo or usual care. Thirty-four trials focused on primary prevention and 24 on secondary prevention. The interventions included IL-1 RAs (anakinra, canakinumab), IL-6 RA (tocilizumab), TNF-inhibitors (etanercept, infliximab) compared with placebo or usual care. The certainty of evidence was low to very low due to biases and imprecision; all trials had a high risk of bias. Primary prevention: IL-1 RAs The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the intervention on all-cause mortality(RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.58, 1 trial), myocardial infarction (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.04 to 12.48, I² = 39%, 2 trials), unstable angina (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.11, I² = 0%, 2 trials), stroke (RR 2.42, 95% CI 0.12 to 50.15; 1 trial), adverse events (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.22, I² = 54%, 3 trials), or infection (rate ratio 0.84, 95% 0.55 to 1.29, I² = 0%, 4 trials). Evidence is very uncertain about whether anakinra and cankinumab may reduce heart failure (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.94, I² = 0%, 3 trials). Peripheral vascular disease (PVD) was not reported as an outcome. IL-6 RAs The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the intervention on all-cause mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.74, I² = 30%, 3 trials), myocardial infarction (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.04 to1.68, I² = 0%, 3 trials), heart failure (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.63, I² = 0%, 2 trials), PVD (RR 2.94, 95% CI 0.12 to 71.47, 1 trial), stroke (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.14, 1 trial), or any infection (rate ratio 1.10, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.37, I2 = 18%, 5 trials). Adverse events may increase (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.23, I² = 33%, 5 trials). No trial assessed unstable angina. TNF inhibitors The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the intervention on all-cause mortality (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.99, I² = 10%, 3 trials), myocardial infarction (RR 2.61, 95% CI 0.11 to 62.26, 1 trial), stroke (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.80, I² = 0%; 3 trials), heart failure (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.76, 1 trial). Adverse events may increase (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.25, I² = 51%, 13 trials). No trial assessed unstable angina or PVD. Secondary prevention: IL-1 RAs The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the intervention on all-cause mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.06, I² = 0%, 8 trials), unstable angina (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.19, I² = 0%, 3 trials), PVD (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.73, I² = 38%, 3 trials), stroke (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.2, I² = 0%; 7 trials), heart failure (RR 0.91, 95% 0.5 to 1.65, I² = 0%; 7 trials), or adverse events (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.09, I² = 3%, 4 trials). There may be little to no difference between the groups in myocardial infarction (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.0.75 to 1.04, I² = 0%, 6 trials). IL6-RAs The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the intervention on all-cause mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.96, I² = 0%, 2 trials), myocardial infarction (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.04, I² = 45%, 3 trials), unstable angina (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.02, 1 trial), stroke (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.25, 1 trial), adverse events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.05, I² = 0%, 2 trials), or any infection (rate ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.36, I² = 0%, 4 trials). No trial assessed PVD or heart failure. TNF inhibitors The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of the intervention on all-cause mortality (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.95, I² = 47%, 5 trials), heart failure (RR 0.92, 95% 0.75 to 1.14, I² = 0%, 4 trials), or adverse events (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.56, I² = 32%, 2 trials). No trial assessed myocardial infarction, unstable angina, PVD or stroke. Adverse events may be underestimated and benefits inflated due to inadequate reporting. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This Cochrane review assessed the benefits and harms of using interleukin-receptor antagonists and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors for primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic diseases compared with placebo or usual care. However, the evidence for the predetermined outcomes was deemed low or very low certainty, so there is still a need to determine whether these interventions provide clinical benefits or cause harm from this perspective. In summary, the different biases and imprecision in the included studies limit their external validity and represent a limitation to determining the effectiveness of the intervention for both primary and secondary prevention of ACVD.

Bacteremia following different oral procedures: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

To evaluate the timing, duration and incidence of bacteremia following invasive dental procedures (IDPs) or activities of daily living (ADL). Eight databases were searched for randomized (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled trials (nRCTs) evaluating bacteremia before and after IDPs or ADL in healthy individuals. The risk of bias was assessed by RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I. For the meta-analysis, the primary outcomes were the timing and duration of bacteremia. The secondary outcome was the incidence of bacteremia, measuring the proportion of patients with bacteremia within 5 min after the end of the procedure compared with baseline. We included 64 nRCTs and 25 RCTs. Peak bacteremia occurred within 5 min after the procedure and then decreased over time. Dental extractions showed the highest incidence of bacteremia (62%-66%), followed by scaling and root planing (SRP) (44%-36%) and oral health procedures (OHP) (e.g., dental prophylaxis and dental probing without SRP) (27%-28%). Other ADL (flossing and chewing) (16%) and toothbrushing (8%-26%) resulted in bacteremia as well. The majority of studies had some concerns RCTs or moderate risk of bias nRCTs. Dental extractions, SRP and OHP, are associated with the highest frequency of bacteremia. Toothbrushing, flossing, and chewing also caused bacteremia in lower frequency.

A comparison of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but due to the differences in presentation, populations affected, and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible, their use is not standardised. This is an update of a review previously published in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 6 January 2020. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating definitive infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates, and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. We described the included studies narratively. MAIN RESULTS: Six small RCTs involving 1143 allocated/632 analysed participants met the inclusion criteria of this first update. The included trials had a high risk of bias. Three trials were sponsored by drug companies. Due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and different antibiotics used data could not be pooled. The included trials compared miscellaneous antibiotic schedules having uncertain effects for all of the prespecified outcomes in this review. Evidence was either low or very low quality due to high risk of bias and very low number of events and small sample size. The results for all-cause mortality were as follows: one trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (antistaphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin), and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone and reported 8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.56. One trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem 3/4 (75%) versus vancomycin 0/4 (0%) (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 103.27), and one trial compared partial oral treatment 7/201 (3.5%) versus conventional intravenous treatment 13/199 (6.53%) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.31). The results for rates of cure with or without surgery were as follows: one trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an antistaphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin, or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin and reported 9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus antistaphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89. One trial compared glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin with cloxacillin plus gentamicin (13/23 (56%) versus 11/11 (100%); RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85). One trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone (15/34 (44%) versus 21/33 (64%); RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10), and one trial compared fosfomycin plus imipenem versus vancomycin (1/4 (25%) versus 2/4 (50%); RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55). The included trials reported adverse events, the need for cardiac surgical interventions, and rates of uncontrolled infection, congestive heart failure, relapse of endocarditis, and septic emboli, and found no conclusive differences between groups (very low-quality evidence). No trials assessed quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This first update confirms the findings of the original version of the review. Limited and low to very low-quality evidence suggests that the comparative effects of different antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes are uncertain. The conclusions of this updated Cochrane Review were based on few RCTs with a high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of infective endocarditis.

Homocysteine-lowering interventions for preventing cardiovascular events.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease, which includes coronary artery disease, stroke and peripheral vascular disease, is a leading cause of death worldwide. Homocysteine is an amino acid with biological functions in methionine metabolism. A postulated risk factor for cardiovascular disease is an elevated circulating total homocysteine level. The impact of homocysteine-lowering interventions, given to patients in the form of vitamins B6, B9 or B12 supplements, on cardiovascular events has been investigated. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009, 2013, and 2015. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether homocysteine-lowering interventions, provided to patients with and without pre-existing cardiovascular disease are effective in preventing cardiovascular events, as well as reducing all-cause mortality, and to evaluate their safety. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1946 to 1 June 2017), Embase (1980 to 2017 week 22) and LILACS (1986 to 1 June 2017). We also searched Web of Science (1970 to 1 June 2017). We handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We also contacted researchers in the field. There was no language restriction in the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of homocysteine-lowering interventions for preventing cardiovascular events with a follow-up period of one year or longer. We considered myocardial infarction and stroke as the primary outcomes. We excluded studies in patients with end-stage renal disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction in duplicate. We estimated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. We calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). We measured statistical heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. We used a random-effects model. We conducted trial sequential analyses, Bayes factor, and fragility indices where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: In this third update, we identified three new randomised controlled trials, for a total of 15 randomised controlled trials involving 71,422 participants. Nine trials (60%) had low risk of bias, length of follow-up ranged from one to 7.3 years. Compared with placebo, there were no differences in effects of homocysteine-lowering interventions on myocardial infarction (homocysteine-lowering = 7.1% versus placebo = 6.0%; RR 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.10, I2 = 0%, 12 trials; N = 46,699; Bayes factor 1.04, high-quality evidence), death from any cause (homocysteine-lowering = 11.7% versus placebo = 12.3%, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.06, I2 = 0%, 11 trials, N = 44,817; Bayes factor = 1.05, high-quality evidence), or serious adverse events (homocysteine-lowering = 8.3% versus comparator = 8.5%, RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.14, I2 = 0%, eight trials, N = 35,788; high-quality evidence). Compared with placebo, homocysteine-lowering interventions were associated with reduced stroke outcome (homocysteine-lowering = 4.3% versus comparator = 5.1%, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.99, I2 = 8%, 10 trials, N = 44,224; high-quality evidence). Compared with low doses, there were uncertain effects of high doses of homocysteine-lowering interventions on stroke (high = 10.8% versus low = 11.2%, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.22, I2 = 72%, two trials, N = 3929; very low-quality evidence).We found no evidence of publication bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this third update of the Cochrane review, there were no differences in effects of homocysteine-lowering interventions in the form of supplements of vitamins B6, B9 or B12 given alone or in combination comparing with placebo on myocardial infarction, death from any cause or adverse events. In terms of stroke, this review found a small difference in effect favouring to homocysteine-lowering interventions in the form of supplements of vitamins B6, B9 or B12 given alone or in combination comparing with placebo.There were uncertain effects of enalapril plus folic acid compared with enalapril on stroke; approximately 143 (95% CI 85 to 428) people would need to be treated for 5.4 years to prevent 1 stroke, this evidence emerged from one mega-trial.Trial sequential analyses showed that additional trials are unlikely to increase the certainty about the findings of this issue regarding homocysteine-lowering interventions versus placebo. There is a need for additional trials comparing homocysteine-lowering interventions combined with antihypertensive medication versus antihypertensive medication, and homocysteine-lowering interventions at high doses versus homocysteine-lowering interventions at low doses. Potential trials should be large and co-operative.

A comparison of different antibiotic regimens for the treatment of infective endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: Infective endocarditis is a microbial infection of the endocardial surface of the heart. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of treatment, but their use is not standardised, due to the differences in presentation, populations affected and the wide variety of micro-organisms that can be responsible. OBJECTIVES: To assess the existing evidence about the clinical benefits and harms of different antibiotics regimens used to treat people with infective endocarditis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE Classic and EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index on 30 April 2015. We also searched three trials registers and handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of antibiotic regimens for treating possible infective endocarditis diagnosed according to modified Duke's criteria. We considered all-cause mortality, cure rates and adverse events as the primary outcomes. We excluded people with possible infective endocarditis and pregnant women. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction in duplicate. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of studies. We described the included studies narratively. MAIN RESULTS: Four small randomised controlled trials involving 728 allocated/224 analysed participants met our inclusion criteria. These trials had a high risk of bias. Drug companies sponsored two of the trials. We were unable to pool the data due to the heterogeneity in outcome definitions and the different antibiotics used.The included trials compared the following antibiotic schedules. The first trial compared quinolone (levofloxacin) plus standard treatment (anti-staphylococcal penicillin (cloxacillin or dicloxacillin), aminoglycoside (tobramycin or netilmicin) and rifampicin) versus standard treatment alone reporting uncertain effects on all-cause mortality (8/31 (26%) with levofloxacin plus standard treatment versus 9/39 (23%) with standard treatment alone; RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.56, very low quality evidence). The second trial compared daptomycin versus low-dose gentamicin plus an anti-staphylococcal penicillin (nafcillin, oxacillin or flucloxacillin) or vancomycin. This showed uncertain effects in terms of cure rates (9/28 (32.1%) with daptomycin versus 9/25 (36%) with low-dose gentamicin plus anti-staphylococcal penicillin or vancomycin, RR 0.89 95% CI 0.42 to 1.89; very low quality evidence). The third trial compared cloxacillin plus gentamicin with a glycopeptide (vancomycin or teicoplanin) plus gentamicin. In participants receiving gentamycin plus glycopeptide only 13/23 (56%) were cured versus 11/11 (100%) receiving cloxacillin plus gentamicin (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85; very low quality evidence). The fourth trial compared ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus ceftriaxone alone and found no conclusive differences in terms of cure (15/34 (44%) with ceftriaxone plus gentamicin versus 21/33 (64%) with ceftriaxone alone, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.10; very low quality evidence).The trials reported adverse events, need for cardiac surgical interventions, uncontrolled infection and relapse of endocarditis and found no conclusive differences between comparison groups (very low quality evidence). No trials assessed septic emboli or quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Limited and very low quality evidence suggested that there were no conclusive differences between antibiotic regimens in terms of cure rates or other relevant clinical outcomes. However, because of the very low quality evidence, this needs confirmation. The conclusion of this Cochrane review was based on randomised controlled trials with high risk of bias. Accordingly, current evidence does not support or reject any regimen of antibiotic therapy for treatment of infective endocarditis.