Hepatitis A immunisation in persons not previously exposed to hepatitis A.

This review is withdrawn because it is outdated. A new review is to be published by the end of 2019.

Impact of metformin on cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis of randomised trials among people with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Metformin is the most-prescribed oral medication to lower blood glucose worldwide. Yet previous systematic reviews have raised doubts about its effectiveness in reducing risk of cardiovascular disease, the most costly complication of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to systematically identify and pool randomised trials reporting cardiovascular outcomes in which the effect of metformin was 'isolated' through comparison to diet, lifestyle or placebo. METHODS: We performed an electronic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. We also manually screened the reference lists of previous meta-analyses of trials of metformin identified through a MEDLINE search. We included randomised controlled trials of adults with type 2 diabetes comparing any dose and preparation of oral metformin with no intervention, placebo or a lifestyle intervention and reporting mortality or a cardiovascular outcome. RESULTS: We included ten articles reporting 13 trials (including a total of 2079 individuals with type 2 diabetes allocated to metformin and a similar number to comparison groups) of which only four compared metformin with placebo and collected data on cardiovascular outcomes. Participants were mainly white, aged ≤65 years, overweight/obese and with poor glycaemic control. Summary estimates were based on a small number of events: 416 myocardial infarctions/ischaemic heart disease events in seven studies and 111 strokes in four studies. The UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) contributed the majority of data to the summary estimates, with weights ranging from 52.3% for myocardial infarction to 70.5% for stroke. All outcomes, with the exception of stroke, favoured metformin, with limited heterogeneity between studies, but none achieved statistical significance. Effect sizes (Mantel-Haenszel RR) were: all-cause mortality 0.96 (95% CI 0.84, 1.09); cardiovascular death 0.97 (95% CI 0.80, 1.16); myocardial infarction 0.89 (95% CI 0.75, 1.06); stroke 1.04 (95% CI 0.73, 1.48); and peripheral vascular disease 0.81 (95% CI 0.50, 1.31). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: There remains uncertainty about whether metformin reduces risk of cardiovascular disease among patients with type 2 diabetes, for whom it is the recommended first-line drug. Although this is mainly due to absence of evidence, it is unlikely that a definitive placebo-controlled cardiovascular endpoint trial among people with diabetes will be forthcoming. Alternative approaches to reduce the uncertainty include the use of electronic health records in long-term pragmatic evaluations, inclusion of metformin in factorial trials, publication of cardiovascular outcome data from adverse event reporting in trials of metformin and a cardiovascular endpoint trial of metformin among people without diabetes.

Interventions to increase or decrease the length of primary care physicians' consultation.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies have shown differences in process and outcome between the consultations of primary care physicians whose average consultation lengths differ. These differences may be due to self selection. This is the first update of the original review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions to alter the length of primary care physicians' consultations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases until 4 January 2016: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials of interventions to alter the length of primary care physicians' consultations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies using agreed criteria and resolved disagreements by discussion. We attempted to contact authors of primary studies with missing data. Given the heterogeneity of studies, we did not conduct a meta-analysis. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for the most important outcomes using the GRADE approach and have presented the results in a narrative summary. MAIN RESULTS: Five studies met the inclusion criteria. All were conducted in the UK, and tested short-term changes in the consultation time allocated to each patient. Overall, our confidence in the results was very low; most studies had a high risk of bias, particularly due to non-random allocation of participants and the absence of data on participants' characteristics and small sample sizes. We are uncertain whether altering appointment length increases primary care consultation length, number of referrals and investigations, prescriptions, or patient satisfaction based on very low-certainty evidence. None of the studies reported on the effects of altering the length of consultation on resources used. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find sufficient evidence to support or refute a policy of altering the lengths of primary care physicians' consultations. It is possible that these findings may change if high-quality trials are reported in the future. Further trials are needed that focus on health outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Pharmacological agents for the prevention of vestibular migraine.

BACKGROUND: Vestibular migraine is a common cause of episodic vertigo. Many preventive treatments have been proposed for this condition, including calcium antagonists, beta-blockers, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, selective 5-HT1 agonists, serotonin antagonists and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological agents for the prevention of vestibular migraine. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group (CENTDG) Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the CENTDG Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 5); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Clinicaltrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 5 June 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults (over 18 years) with a diagnosis of vestibular migraine orprobable vestibular migraine according to the Bárány Society/International Headache Society (IHS) criteria, treated in any setting, comparing pharmacological treatments used in the prevention of vestibular migraine, including beta-blockers, calcium antagonists, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, serotonin antagonists and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) against placebo or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: Our literature search identified 558 reports, however only 11 were sufficiently relevant for further assessment. We excluded two studies because they did not use the IHS diagnostic criteria for vestibular migraine. We excluded a further eight studies for various reasons related to their design (e.g. lack of placebo or no treatment comparator), aim (e.g. treatment of vestibular migraine rather than prevention) or conduct (e.g. early termination). We identified one ongoing study comparing metoprolol to placebo. The results of this study are awaited; recruitment of the last patient is expected by the end of 2016. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence from RCTs to answer the question set out in the review objectives. This review has identified the need for well-designed randomised controlled trials to answer questions about the efficacy of current and new treatments.

Colchicine for pericarditis.

BACKGROUND: Pericarditis is the inflammation of the pericardium, the membranous sac surrounding the heart. Recurrent pericarditis is the most common complication of acute pericarditis, causing severe and disabling chest pains. Recurrent pericarditis affects one in three patients with acute pericarditis within the first 18 months. Colchicine has been suggested to be beneficial in preventing recurrent pericarditis. OBJECTIVES: To review all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assess the effects of colchicine alone or combined, compared to any other intervention to prevent further recurrences of pericarditis, in people with acute or recurrent pericarditis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following bibliographic databases on 4 August 2014: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 7 of 12, 2014 on The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OVID, 1946 to July week 4, 2014), EMBASE (OVID, 1947 to 2014 week 31), and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on Web of Science (Thomson Reuters) 1990 to 1 Aug 2014. We did not apply any language or time restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs of people with acute or recurrent pericarditis who are receiving colchicine compared to any other treatment, in order to prevent recurrences. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The first primary outcome was the time to recurrence, measured by calculating the hazard ratios (HRs). The second primary outcome was the adverse effects of colchicine. Secondary outcomes were the rate of recurrences at 6, 12 and 18 months, and symptom relief. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs, involving 564 participants in this review. We compared the effects of colchicine in addition to a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) such as ibuprofen, aspirin or indomethacin to the effects of the NSAID alone. Two comparable trials studied the effects of colchicine in 204 participants with recurrent pericarditis and two trials studied 360 people with acute pericarditis. All trials had a moderate quality for the primary outcomes. We identified two on-going trials; one of these trials examines acute pericarditis and the other assesses recurrent pericarditis.There was moderate quality evidence that colchicine reduces episodes of pericarditis in people with recurrent pericarditis over 18 months follow-up (HR 0.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 0.58). It is expected that at 18 months, the number needed to treat (NNT) is 4. In people with acute pericarditis, there was moderate quality evidence that colchicine reduces recurrence (HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.61) at 18 months follow-up. Colchicine led to a greater chance of symptom relief at 72 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.4; 95% CI 1.26 to 1.56; low quality evidence). Adverse effects were mainly gastrointestinal and included abdominal pain and diarrhoea. The pooled RR for adverse events was 1.26 (95% CI 0.75 to 2.12). While the number of people experiencing adverse effects was higher in the colchicine than the control groups (9% versus 7%), the quality of evidence was low owing to imprecision, and there was no statistically significant difference between the treatment groups (P = 0.42). There was moderate quality evidence that treatment with colchicine led to more people stopping treatment due to adverse events (RR 1.87; 95% CI 1.02 to 3.41). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Colchicine, as adjunctive therapy to NSAIDs, is effective in reducing the number of pericarditis recurrences in patients with recurrent pericarditis or acute pericarditis. However, evidence is based on a limited number of small trials. Patients with multiple resistant recurrences were not represented in any published or on-going trials, and it is these patients that are in the most need for treatment.

Hepatitis A immunisation in persons not previously exposed to hepatitis A.

BACKGROUND: In many parts of the world, hepatitis A infection represents a significant cause of morbidity and socio-economic loss. Whilst hepatitis A vaccines have the potential to prevent disease, the degree of protection afforded against clinical outcomes and within different populations remains uncertain. There are two types of hepatitis A virus (HAV) vaccine, inactivated and live attenuated. It is important to determine the efficacy and safety for both vaccine types. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical protective efficacy, sero-protective efficacy, and safety and harms of hepatitis A vaccination in persons not previously exposed to hepatitis A. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) up to November 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing HAV vaccine with placebo, no intervention, or appropriate control vaccines in participants of all ages. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were undertaken by two authors and verified by a third author. Where required, authors contacted investigators to obtain missing data. The primary outcome was the occurrence of clinically apparent hepatitis A (infectious hepatitis). The secondary outcomes were lack of sero-protective anti-HAV immunoglobulin G (IgG), and number and types of adverse events. Results were presented as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Dichotomous outcomes were reported as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), using intention-to-treat analysis. We conducted assessment of risk of bias to evaluate the risk of systematic errors (bias) and trial sequential analyses to estimate the risk of random errors (the play of chance). MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 11 clinical studies, of which only three were considered to have low risk of bias; two were quasi-randomised studies in which we only addressed harms. Nine randomised trials with 732,380 participants addressed the primary outcome of clinically confirmed hepatitis A. Of these, four trials assessed the inactivated hepatitis A vaccine (41,690 participants) and five trials assessed the live attenuated hepatitis A vaccine (690,690 participants). In the three randomised trials with low risk of bias (all assessing inactivated vaccine), clinically apparent hepatitis A occurred in 9/20,684 (0.04%) versus 92/20,746 (0.44%) participants in the HAV vaccine and control groups respectively (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.30). In all nine randomised trials, clinically apparent hepatitis A occurred in 31/375,726 (0.01%) versus 505/356,654 (0.18%) participants in the HAV vaccine and control groups respectively (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.17). These results were supported by trial sequential analyses. Subgroup analyses confirmed the clinical effectiveness of both inactivated hepatitis A vaccines (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.30) and live attenuated hepatitis A vaccines (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.17) on clinically confirmed hepatitis A. Inactivated hepatitis A vaccines had a significant effect on reducing the lack of sero-protection (less than 20 mIU/L) (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.03). No trial reported on a sero-protective threshold less than 10 mIU/L. The risk of both non-serious local and systemic adverse events was comparable to placebo for the inactivated HAV vaccines. There were insufficient data to draw conclusions on adverse events for the live attenuated HAV vaccine. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Hepatitis A vaccines are effective for pre-exposure prophylaxis of hepatitis A in susceptible individuals. This review demonstrated significant protection for at least two years with the inactivated HAV vaccine and at least five years with the live attenuated HAV vaccine. There was evidence to support the safety of the inactivated hepatitis A vaccine. More high quality evidence is required to determine the safety of live attenuated vaccines.

Long-term effects of intensive multifactorial therapy in individuals with screen-detected type 2 diabetes in primary care: 10-year follow-up of the ADDITION-Europe cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The multicentre, international ADDITION-Europe study investigated the effect of promoting intensive treatment of multiple risk factors among people with screen-detected type 2 diabetes over 5 years. Here we report the results of a post-hoc 10-year follow-up analysis of ADDITION-Europe to establish whether differences in treatment and cardiovascular risk factors have been maintained and to assess effects on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: As previously described, general practices from four centres (Denmark, Cambridge [UK], Leicester [UK], and the Netherlands) were randomly assigned by computer-generated list to provide screening followed by routine care of diabetes, or screening followed by intensive multifactorial treatment. Population-based stepwise screening programmes among people aged 40-69 years (50-69 years in the Netherlands), between April, 2001, and December, 2006, identified patients with type 2 diabetes. Allocation was concealed from patients. Following the 5-year follow-up, no attempts were made to maintain differences in treatment between study groups. In this report, we did a post-hoc analysis of cardiovascular and renal outcomes over 10 years following randomisation, including a 5 years post-intervention follow-up. As in the original trial, the primary endpoint was a composite of first cardiovascular event, including cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular morbidity (non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke), revascularisation, and non-traumatic amputation, up to Dec 31, 2014. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. ADDITION-Europe is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00237549. FINDINGS: 343 general practices were randomly assigned to routine diabetes care (n=176) or intensive multifactorial treatment (n=167). 317 of these general practices (157 in the routine care group, 161 in the intensive treatment group) included eligible patients between April, 2001, and December, 2006. Of the 3233 individuals with screen-detected diabetes, 3057 agreed to participate (1379 in the routine care group, 1678 in the intensive treatment group), but at the 10-year follow-up 14 were lost to follow-up and 12 withdrew, leaving 3031 to enter 10-year follow-up analysis. Mean duration of follow-up was 9·61 years (SD 2·99). Sustained reductions over 10 years following diagnosis were apparent for bodyweight, HbA1c, blood pressure, and cholesterol in both study groups, but between-group differences identified at 1 and 5 years were attenuated at the 10-year follow-up. By 10 years, 443 participants had a first cardiovascular event and 465 died. There was no significant difference between groups in the incidence of the primary composite outcome (16·1 per 1000 person-years in the routine care group vs 14·3 per 1000 person-years in the intensive treatment group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·87, 95% CI 0·73-1·04; p=0·14) or all-cause mortality (15·6 vs 14·3 per 1000 person-years; HR 0·90, 0·76-1·07). INTERPRETATION: Sustained reductions in glycaemia and related cardiovascular risk factors over 10 years among people with screen-detected diabetes managed in primary care are achievable. The differences in prescribed treatment and cardiovascular risk factors in the 5 years following diagnosis were not maintained at 10 years, and the difference in cardiovascular events and mortality remained non-significant. FUNDING: National Health Service Denmark, Danish Council for Strategic Research, Danish Research Foundation for General Practice, Novo Nordisk, Novo Nordisk Foundation, Danish Centre for Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment, Danish National Board of Health, Danish Medical Research Council, Aarhus University Research Foundation, Astra, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Servier, HemoCue, Wellcome Trust, UK Medical Research Council, UK National Institute for Health Research, UK National Health Service, Merck, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, UK Department of Health, and Nuts-OHRA.

CapA, an autotransporter protein of Campylobacter jejuni, mediates association with human epithelial cells and colonization of the chicken gut.

Two putative autotransporter proteins, CapA and CapB, were identified in silico from the genome sequence of Campylobacter jejuni NCTC11168. The genes encoding each protein contain homopolymeric tracts, suggestive of phase variation mediated by a slipped-strand mispairing mechanism; in each case the gene sequence contained frameshifts at these positions. The C-terminal two-thirds of the two genes, as well as a portion of the predicted signal peptides, were identical; the remaining N-terminal portions were gene specific. Both genes were cloned and expressed; recombinant polypeptides were purified and used to raise rabbit polyclonal monospecific antisera. Using immunoblotting, expression of the ca.116-kDa CapA protein was demonstrated for in vitro-grown cells of strain NCTC11168, for 4 out of 11 recent human fecal isolates, and for 2 out of 8 sequence-typed strains examined. Expression of CapB was not detected for any of the strains tested. Surface localization of CapA was demonstrated by subcellular fractionation and immunogold electron microscopy. Export of CapA was inhibited by globomycin, reinforcing the bioinformatic prediction that the protein is a lipoprotein. A capA insertion mutant had a significantly reduced capacity for association with and invasion of Caco-2 cells and failed to colonize and persist in chickens, indicating that CapA plays a role in host association and colonization by Campylobacter. In view of this demonstrated role, we propose that CapA stands for Campylobacter adhesion protein A.