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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Restoring mortality data in the FOURIER cardiovascular outcomes trial of evolocumab in patients with cardiovascular disease: a reanalysis based on regulatory data.

OBJECTIVE: The FOURIER trial showed a benefit of the PCSK9 inhibitor evolocumab over placebo with respect to cardiovascular outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease. However, we observed some inconsistencies between the information in the Clinical Study Report (CSR) and that in the 2017 primary trial results publication. We aimed to restore the mortality data in the FOURIER trial based on the information contained in the death narratives in the CSR. METHODS: Mortality data in the primary results publication were compared with that in the CSR. In cases of discrepancy between the sources, an independent committee blindly readjudicated and restored the cause of death according to the information in the CSR narratives. RESULTS: For 360/870 deaths (41.4%), the cause of death adjudicated by the FOURIER clinical events committee differed from that declared by the local clinical investigator. When comparing the CSR information with the 2017 primary results publication, we found 11 more deaths from myocardial infarction in the evolocumab group (36 vs 25) and 3 less deaths in the placebo group (27 vs 30, respectively). In the CSR, the number of deaths due to cardiac failure in the evolocumab group was almost double those in the placebo group (31 vs 16). While cardiac and vascular deaths were not assessed as separate outcomes in the original trial analysis, after readjudication, we noted that cardiac deaths were numerically, but non-significantly, higher in the evolocumab group (113) than in the placebo group (88; relative risk (RR) 1.28, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.69, p=0.078), whereas non-cardiac vascular deaths were similar between groups (37 in each; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.58, p=0.999). The reported HR for cardiovascular mortality in the original trial analysis was 1.05 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.25); after readjudication, we found a greater (although still non-significant) relative increase in cardiovascular mortality in the evolocumab treatment group (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.51, p=0.13). CONCLUSION: After readjudication, deaths of cardiac origin were numerically higher in the evolocumab group than in the placebo group in the FOURIER trial, suggesting possible cardiac harm. At the time the trial was terminated early, a non-significantly higher risk of cardiovascular mortality was observed with evolocumab, which was numerically greater in our readjudication. A complete restoration of the FOURIER trial data is required. In the meantime, clinicians should be sceptical about prescribing evolocumab for patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT01764633.

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.

Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults.

INTRODUCTION: In 2020, prior to COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the Brighton Collaboration created a priority list, endorsed by the World Health Organization, of potential adverse events relevant to COVID-19 vaccines. We adapted the Brighton Collaboration list to evaluate serious adverse events of special interest observed in mRNA COVID-19 vaccine trials. METHODS: Secondary analysis of serious adverse events reported in the placebo-controlled, phase III randomized clinical trials of Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in adults (NCT04368728 and NCT04470427), focusing analysis on Brighton Collaboration adverse events of special interest. RESULTS: Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95 % CI -0.4 to 20.6 and -3.6 to 33.8), respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 2.1 to 22.9); risk ratio 1.43 (95 % CI 1.07 to 1.92). The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group; risk difference 18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 1.2 to 34.9); risk ratio 1.36 (95 % CI 1.02 to 1.83). The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group: risk difference 7.1 per 10,000 (95 % CI -23.2 to 37.4); risk ratio 1.06 (95 % CI 0.84 to 1.33). Combined, there was a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients: risk difference 13.2 (95 % CI -3.2 to 29.6); risk ratio 1.16 (95 % CI 0.97 to 1.39). DISCUSSION: The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. These analyses will require public release of participant level datasets.

Incidence of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Diagnoses in Navarre (Spain) from 2003 to 2019.

(1) Background: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) constitutes one of the leading mental health and behavioral disorders in childhood and adolescence. The main objective of this study was to analyze the time trend in the incidence of ADHD diagnoses in Navarre (Spain) from 2003 to 2019 in children and adolescents from 5 to 19 years old. Additionally, the seasonal trends of ADHD incidence and ADHD prevalence were determined. (2) Methods: A population-based observational retrospective study, which included people born between 1991 and 2011 and who attended compulsory education between 2007 and 2017 in Navarre (Spain), was carried out with data from both the Education and Health Department databases. (3) Results: The incidence rate increased from 4.18 cases per 1000 person-years in 2003 to 7.43 cases per 1000 person-years in 2009, before decreasing progressively to 2.1 cases per 1000 person-years in 2019. A peak incidence rate at 7-8 years of age was observed, which is consistent across the study period and for both genders. Males were more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than females, with similar time trends in both. A seasonal pattern in ADHD diagnosis was found, with peaks in February-March and the lowest rates in the summer months. Inattentive cases were much more frequent than hyperactive cases, whereas combined cases remained low across the study period. (4) Conclusions: In this age-period-cohort analysis, a clear period and age effect was observed. We found a decreasing trend in the ADHD incidence rate since 2015. Further research is needed to confirm whether a change of trend is occurring globally.

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 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.