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.

COVID-19 infection and complications according to ABO blood group in the elderly: A population-based subcohort and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: It is reported that ABO antibodies have a role in COVID-19 infection and severity; however, ABO antibody titres vary with advanced age. The aim was to analyse the association between ABO blood group and risk of COVID-19 infection and complications in elderly patients, and to contrast this data with findings in the overall adult population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective cohort study of the Navarre (Spain) population aged ≥60 years and a meta-analysis of published studies including participants of ≥60 years were carried out. RESULTS: In the Navarre elderly population, a higher risk of COVID-19 infection was identified in the A versus non-A and O group and lower risk in O versus non-O, with no significant association between hospitalization, intensive care unit admission or mortality and any of the blood groups, results that coincide with those of the overall Navarre adult population. The meta-analyses using studies that included participants of ≥60 years demonstrated a higher risk of hospitalization and mortality in A versus non-A and a lower mortality risk with B versus non-B. Similar mortality results were found in the meta-analyses of the overall adult population. CONCLUSION: There are no relevant differences between the overall adult population and population aged ≥60 years in the risk of COVID-19 infection and severity according to ABO blood groups, suggesting that age-related changes in ABO would be of limited clinical significance.

Role of the AB0 blood group in COVID-19 infection and complications: A population-based study.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the ABO blood group has been described as a possible biological marker of susceptibility for the disease. This study evaluates the role of ABO group on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and related complications in a population-based cohort including 87,090 subjects from the Navarre population (Northern Spain) with no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection and with known ABO blood group, after one year of the pandemic (May 2020 - May 2021). The risk of infection, hospitalization, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission and death was analyzed using multivariate logistic regression, adjusting for possible confounding variables. A lower risk of infection was observed in group 0 vs non-0 groups [OR 0.94 (95 %CI 0.90-0.99)], a higher risk of infection in group A vs non-A groups [OR 1.09 (95 %CI 1.04-1.15)] and a higher risk of infection in group A vs group 0 [OR 1.08 (95CI 1.03-1.14)] (when the 4 groups are analyzed separately). No association was observed between blood groups and hospitalization, ICU admission, or death in SARS-CoV-2 infected subjects. Regarding the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, we observed a protective role of group O and a greater risk in the A group.

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.

Pharmacotherapy for hypertension-induced left ventricular hypertrophy.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is the leading preventable risk factor for cardiovascular disease and premature death worldwide. One of the clinical effects of hypertension is left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), a process of cardiac remodelling. It is estimated that over 30% of people with hypertension also suffer from LVH, although the prevalence rates vary according to the LVH diagnostic criteria. Severity of LVH is associated with a higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease and an increased risk of death. The role of antihypertensives in the regression of left ventricular mass has been extensively studied. However, uncertainty exists regarding the role of antihypertensive therapy compared to placebo in the morbidity and mortality of individuals with hypertension-induced LVH. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of antihypertensive pharmacotherapy compared to placebo or no treatment on morbidity and mortality of adults with hypertension-induced LVH. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Hypertension's Information Specialist searched the following databases for studies: Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register (to 26 September 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library; 2020, Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 22 September 2020), and Ovid Embase (1974 to 22 September 2020). We searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials. We also searched Epistemonikos (to 19 February 2021), LILACS BIREME (to 19 February 2021), and Clarivate Web of Science (to 26 February 2021), and contacted authors and funders of the identified trials to obtain additional information and individual participant data. There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least 12 months' follow-up comparing antihypertensive pharmacological therapy (monotherapy or in combination) with placebo or no treatment in adults (18 years of age or older) with hypertension-induced LVH were eligible for inclusion. The trials must have analysed at least one primary outcome (all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, or total serious adverse events) to be considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened the search results, with any disagreements resolved by consensus amongst all review authors. Two review authors carried out the data extraction and analyses. We assessed risk of bias of the included studies following Cochrane methodology. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included three multicentre RCTs. We selected 930 participants from the included studies for the analyses, with a mean follow-up of 3.8 years (range 3.5 to 4.3 years). All of the included trials performed an intention-to-treat analysis. We obtained evidence for the review by identifying the population of interest from the trials' total samples. None of the trials provided information on the cause of LVH. The intervention varied amongst the included trials: hydrochlorothiazide plus triamterene with the possibility of adding alpha methyldopa, spironolactone, or olmesartan. Placebo was administered to participants in the control arm in two trials, whereas participants in the control arm of the remaining trial did not receive any add-on treatment. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect of additional antihypertensive pharmacological therapy compared to placebo or no treatment on mortality (14.3% intervention versus 13.6% control; risk ratio (RR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.40; 3 studies; 930 participants; very low-certainty evidence); cardiovascular events (12.6% intervention versus 11.5% control; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.55; 3 studies; 930 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and hospitalisation for heart failure (10.7% intervention versus 12.5% control; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17; 2 studies; 915 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Although both arms yielded similar results for total serious adverse events (48.9% intervention versus 48.1% control; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.16; 3 studies; 930 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and total adverse events (68.3% intervention versus 67.2% control; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.34; 2 studies; 915 participants), the incidence of withdrawal due to adverse events may be significantly higher with antihypertensive drug therapy (15.2% intervention versus 4.9% control; RR 3.09, 95% CI 1.69 to 5.66; 1 study; 522 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analyses limited to blinded trials, trials with low risk of bias in core domains, and trials with no funding from the pharmaceutical industry did not change the results of the main analyses. Limited evidence on the change in left ventricular mass index prevented us from drawing any firm conclusions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain about the effects of adding additional antihypertensive drug therapy on the morbidity and mortality of participants with LVH and hypertension compared to placebo. Although the incidence of serious adverse events was similar between study arms, additional antihypertensive therapy may be associated with more withdrawals due to adverse events. Limited and low-certainty evidence requires that caution be used when interpreting the findings. High-quality clinical trials addressing the effect of antihypertensives on clinically relevant variables and carried out specifically in individuals with hypertension-induced LVH are warranted.

Effectiveness of adjunctive nebulized antibiotics in critically ill patients with respiratory tract infections.

The purpose of the study was to analyze the effectiveness of adding nebulized antibiotics to systemic antimicrobials in critically ill patients with respiratory tract infections (pneumonia or tracheobronchitis) and the effect on renal function. A retrospective observational cohort study including critically ill patients with respiratory tract infections during a 2-year period was conducted. Intervention group included patients that received nebulized and systemic antimicrobials. Patients in the control group received only systemic antimicrobials. Clinical resolution was the primary endpoint. Secondary outcomes included change in fever, inflammatory parameters, and creatinine clearance; length of hospital stay, systemic therapy, and mechanical ventilation; hospital readmission; and mortality. Regression models were performed to estimate the effect of nebulized antibiotics on outcome variables adjusted by potential confounders. A total of 136 patients were included (93 in control group and 43 in intervention group). The intervention group had higher odds of clinical resolution (adjusted odds ratio (OR): 7.1; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.2, 43.3). Nebulized antibiotic therapy was independently associated with reduction in procalcitonin (adjusted OR: 12.4; 95% CI: 1.4, 109.7). There were no significant differences in the rest of the secondary outcomes or in creatinine clearance reduction. Adding nebulized antibiotics for the management of respiratory tract infections has a positive impact on clinical resolution without increasing the risk of renal toxicity.

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.

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.

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.

Conservative and Surgical Modalities in the Management of Pediatric Parapneumonic Effusion and Empyema: A Living Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment for community-acquired childhood pneumonia complicated by empyema remains unclear. RESEARCH QUESTION: In children with parapneumonic effusion or empyema, do hospital length of stay and other key clinical outcomes differ according to the treatment modality used? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A living systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Ovid MEDLINE, and Web of Science Core Collection databases. Eligible RCTs included patients aged < 18 years and compared two of the following treatment modalities: antibiotics alone, chest tube insertion with or without fibrinolytics, video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), and decortication via thoracotomy. A network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate treatment effects on hospital length of stay (LOS), the primary outcome. RESULTS: Eleven trials including a total of 590 patients were selected for the network meta-analysis. Compared with a chest tube alone, a chest tube with fibrinolytics, thoracotomy, and VATS were all associated with shorter LOS, with a mean difference of 5.05 days (95% CI, 2.46-7.64), 6.33 days (95% CI, 3.17-9.50), and 5.86 days (95% CI, 3.38-8.35), respectively. No substantial differences in LOS were observed between the latter three interventions. None of the 11 RCTs compared antibiotics alone vs other types of treatment. Most trials reported peri-procedural complications and the need for reintervention, but the descriptions differed significantly between trials, preventing meta-analysis. In trials reporting health care-associated costs, fibrinolytics had cost advantages compared with VATS. Short- and long-term morbidity and mortality were very low, regardless of the treatment modality. INTERPRETATION: The results of this network meta-analysis showed that a chest tube alone was associated with a longer LOS compared with other treatment modalities. The lower cost associated with a chest tube plus fibrinolytics warrants consideration when choosing between treatment options, given similar LOS and clinical outcomes compared with the other modalities.

Effectiveness of homologous/heterologous booster COVID-19 vaccination schedules against severe illness in general population and clinical subgroups in three European countries.

Using 4 data-sources (Spain, Italy, United Kingdom) data and a 1:1 matched cohort study, we aimed to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections with hospitalisations (±30 days) and death (±56 days) in general population and clinical subgroups with homologous/heterologous booster schedules (Comirnaty-BNT and Spikevax-MOD original COVID-19 vaccines) by comparison with unboosted individuals, during Delta and beginning of Omicron variants. Hazard Ratio (HR, by Cox models) and VE ([1-HR]*100) were calculated by inverse probability weights. Between December 2020-February 2022, in adults without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, we matched 5.5 million people (>1 million with immunodeficiency, 343,727 with cancer) with a booster (3rd) dose by considering doses 1 and 2 vaccine brands and calendar time, age, sex, region, and comorbidities (immunodeficiency, cancer, severe renal disease, transplant recipient, Down Syndrome). We studied booster doses of BNT and MOD administered after doses 1 and 2 with BNT, MOD, or Oxford-AstraZeneca during a median follow-up between 9 and 16 weeks. BNT or MOD showed VE ranging from 70 to 86% across data sources as heterologous 3rd doses, whereas it was 42-88% as homologous 3rd doses. Depending on the severity and available follow-up, 3rd-dose effectiveness lasted between 1 and 5 months. In people with immunodeficiency and cancer, protection across data sources was detected with both heterologous (VE = 54-83%) and homologous (VE = 49-80%) 3rd doses. Overall, both heterologous and homologous 3rd doses with BTN or MOD showed additional protection against the severe effects of SARS-CoV-2 infections for the general population and for patients at potentially high risk of severe COVID-19 (elderly, people with immunodeficiency and cancer) in comparison with two doses schemes during Delta or early Omicron periods. The early VE after vaccination may be due to less testing among vaccinated pairs and unknown confounders, deserving cautious interpretation. The VE wane over time needs further in-depth research to properly envisage when or whether a booster of those vaccines should be administered.

[Review of the validity of fall risk assessment scales in hospitalised patients]. / Revisión de la validez de las escalas de valoración del riesgo de caídas en pacientes hospitalizados.

Falls in the hospital setting are a major health problem due to their high prevalence and their physical, functional, psychological or economic consequences. Since 1990s, different fall risk assessment scales have been developed to detect high-risk patients, which are also applied in the hospital setting. The aim of this review is to analyse the validity of different scales for assessing fall risk in adults in the hospital setting, especially in elderly patients. Following a literature search in April 2021, 36 primary studies were found that analysed the validity of the Downton, Morse, HendrichII, Stratify and Tinetti scales. Meta-analyses of sensitivity and specificity showed a high heterogeneity that does not allow recommending a specific tool that can be considered as standard in acute inpatients.