-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Despite the availability of effective drug therapies that reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol (LDL-C), cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains an important... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Despite the availability of effective drug therapies that reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol (LDL-C), cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains an important cause of mortality and morbidity. Therefore, additional LDL-C reduction may be warranted, especially for people who are unresponsive to, or unable to take, existing LDL-C-reducing therapies. By inhibiting the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) enzyme, monoclonal antibodies (PCSK9 inhibitors) reduce LDL-C and CVD risk.
OBJECTIVES
Primary To quantify the effects of PCSK9 inhibitors on CVD, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke, compared to placebo or active treatment(s) for primary and secondary prevention. Secondary To quantify the safety of PCSK9 inhibitors, with specific focus on the incidence of influenza, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and cancer, compared to placebo or active treatment(s) for primary and secondary prevention.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified studies by systematically searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science in December 2019. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in August 2020 and screened the reference lists of included studies. This is an update of the review first published in 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All parallel-group and factorial randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up of at least 24 weeks were eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently reviewed and extracted data. Where data were available, we calculated pooled effect estimates. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence and in 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 24 studies with data on 60,997 participants. Eighteen trials randomised participants to alirocumab and six to evolocumab. All participants received background lipid-lowering treatment or lifestyle counselling. Six alirocumab studies used an active treatment comparison group (the remaining used placebo), compared to three evolocumab active comparison trials. Alirocumab compared with placebo decreased the risk of CVD events, with an absolute risk difference (RD) of -2% (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 0.94; 10 studies, 23,868 participants; high-certainty evidence), decreased the risk of mortality (RD -1%; OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96; 12 studies, 24,797 participants; high-certainty evidence), and MI (RD -2%; OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.94; 9 studies, 23,352 participants; high-certainty evidence) and for any stroke (RD 0%; OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.91; 8 studies, 22,835 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared to active treatment the alirocumab effects, for CVD, the RD was 1% (OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.87; 3 studies, 1379 participants; low-certainty evidence); for mortality, RD was -1% (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.40; 5 studies, 1333 participants; low-certainty evidence); for MI, RD was 1% (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.28, 5 studies, 1734 participants; low-certainty evidence); and for any stroke, RD was less than 1% (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.13 to 5.61; 5 studies, 1734 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo the evolocumab, for CVD, the RD was -2% (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91; 3 studies, 29,432 participants; high-certainty evidence); for mortality, RD was less than 1% (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.19; 3 studies, 29,432 participants; high-certainty evidence); for MI, RD was -1% (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.82; 3 studies, 29,432 participants; high-certainty evidence); and for any stroke RD was less than -1% (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.94; 2 studies, 28,531 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared to active treatment, the evolocumab effects, for any CVD event RD was less than -1% (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.04; 1 study, 218 participants; very low-certainty evidence); for all-cause mortality, the RD was less than 1% (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.30; 3 studies, 5223 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and for MI, RD was less than 1% (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.85; 3 studies, 5003 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data on any stroke. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for the clinical endpoint effects of evolocumab and alirocumab were graded as high. There is a strong evidence base to prescribe PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies to people who might not be eligible for other lipid-lowering drugs, or to people who cannot meet their lipid goals on more traditional therapies, which was the main patient population of the available trials. The evidence base of PCSK9 inhibitors compared with active treatment is much weaker (low very- to low-certainty evidence) and it is unclear whether evolocumab or alirocumab might be effectively used as replacement therapies. Related, most of the available studies preferentially enrolled people with either established CVD or at a high risk already, and evidence in low- to medium-risk settings is minimal. Finally, there is very limited evidence on any potential safety issues of both evolocumab and alirocumab. While the current evidence synthesis does not reveal any adverse signals, neither does it provide evidence against such signals. This suggests careful consideration of alternative lipid lowering treatments before prescribing PCSK9 inhibitors.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Anticholesteremic Agents; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cause of Death; Cholesterol, LDL; Cholinergic Antagonists; Ezetimibe; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction; PCSK9 Inhibitors; Primary Prevention; Proprotein Convertase 9; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Stroke; Time Factors
PubMed: 33078867
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011748.pub3 -
Atencion Primaria 2019To assess the effectiveness of the interventions to prevent a pregnancy in adolescence.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness of the interventions to prevent a pregnancy in adolescence.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
The following databases were consulted: PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Cuiden Plus, LILACS, and IME, in order to identify interventions aimed at preventing a pregnancy in adolescence.
STUDY SELECTION
A total of 24 primary investigations, in which an educational program to prevent a pregnancy in the adolescence was evaluated, were selected. The quality of the selected studies was assessed according to the CASPe scale.
RESULTS
Educational programs for the modification of the teenage pregnancy rate show inconclusive results, as there are 2 studies that find a reduction, and 2 that find that there are no significant changes. For secondary outcomes, it was found that educational programs are effective for increasing the knowledge level about sexuality and contraceptive methods and changing attitudes about the risk of a teenage pregnancy or the use of contraceptive methods. There are no statistically significant differences between the studies with a positive and negative outcome (P>.05) for any of the results analysed in this review.
CONCLUSION
There is no a single intervention modality that is the most effective for prevention of a teenage pregnancy. More research is needed with a longitudinal approach that assess not only intermediate results, but also a modification in the pregnancy rate.
Topics: Adolescent; Female; Health Education; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy in Adolescence; Primary Prevention; Program Evaluation
PubMed: 29903543
DOI: 10.1016/j.aprim.2018.04.003 -
Medicine Oct 2021Intra-hospital falls have become an important public health problem globally. The use of movement sensors with alarms has been studied as elements with predictive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Intra-hospital falls have become an important public health problem globally. The use of movement sensors with alarms has been studied as elements with predictive capacity for falls at hospital level. However, in spite of their use in some hospitals throughout the world, evidence is lacking about their effectiveness in reducing intra-hospital falls. Therefore, this study aims to develop a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing scientific literature exploring the impact of using sensors for fall prevention in hospitalized adults and the elderly population.
METHODS
We explored literature based on clinical trials in Spanish, English, and Portuguese, assessing the impact of devices used for hospital fall prevention in adult and elderly populations. The search included databases such as IEEE Xplore, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Science Direct databases. The critical appraisal was performed independently by two researchers. Methodological quality was assessed based on the ratings of individual biases. We performed the sum of the results, generating an estimation of the grouped effect (Relative Risk, 95% CI) for the outcome first fall for each patient. We assessed heterogeneity and publication bias. The study followed PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
Results were assessed in three randomized controlled clinical trials, including 29,691 patients. A total of 351 (3%) patients fell among 11,769 patients assigned to the intervention group, compared with 426 (2.4%) patients who fell among 17,922 patients assigned to the control group (general estimation RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.04, 1.37, P = .02, I2 = 0%; Moderate GRADE).
CONCLUSION
Our results show an increase of 19% in falls among elderly patients who are users of sensors located in their bed, bed-chair, or chair among their hospitalizations. Other types of sensors such as wearable sensors can be explored as coadjutants for fall prevention care in hospitals.
Topics: Accidental Falls; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Case-Control Studies; Data Management; Female; Hospital Design and Construction; Hospitalization; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Primary Prevention; Protective Devices; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34731123
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000027467 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015Evidence from systematic reviews of observational studies suggests that hormone therapy may have beneficial effects in reducing the incidence of cardiovascular disease... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Evidence from systematic reviews of observational studies suggests that hormone therapy may have beneficial effects in reducing the incidence of cardiovascular disease events in post-menopausal women, however the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have had mixed results. This is an updated version of a Cochrane review published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of hormone therapy for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in post-menopausal women, and whether there are differential effects between use in primary or secondary prevention. Secondary aims were to undertake exploratory analyses to (i) assess the impact of time since menopause that treatment was commenced (≥ 10 years versus < 10 years), and where these data were not available, use age of trial participants at baseline as a proxy (≥ 60 years of age versus < 60 years of age); and (ii) assess the effects of length of time on treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 25 February 2014: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS. We also searched research and trials registers, and conducted reference checking of relevant studies and related systematic reviews to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs of women comparing orally administered hormone therapy with placebo or a no treatment control, with a minimum of six months follow-up.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome. We combined results using random effects meta-analyses, and undertook further analyses to assess the effects of treatment as primary or secondary prevention, and whether treatment was commenced more than or less than 10 years after menopause.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified six new trials through this update. Therefore the review includes 19 trials with a total of 40,410 post-menopausal women. On the whole, study quality was good and generally at low risk of bias; the findings are dominated by the three largest trials. We found high quality evidence that hormone therapy in both primary and secondary prevention conferred no protective effects for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, angina, or revascularisation. However, there was an increased risk of stroke in those in the hormone therapy arm for combined primary and secondary prevention (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.41). Venous thromboembolic events were increased (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.69), as were pulmonary emboli (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.48) on hormone therapy relative to placebo.The absolute risk increase for stroke was 6 per 1000 women (number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) = 165; mean length of follow-up: 4.21 years (range: 2.0 to 7.1)); for venous thromboembolism 8 per 1000 women (NNTH = 118; mean length of follow-up: 5.95 years (range: 1.0 to 7.1)); and for pulmonary embolism 4 per 1000 (NNTH = 242; mean length of follow-up: 3.13 years (range: 1.0 to 7.1)).We performed subgroup analyses according to when treatment was started in relation to the menopause. Those who started hormone therapy less than 10 years after the menopause had lower mortality (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.95, moderate quality evidence) and coronary heart disease (composite of death from cardiovascular causes and non-fatal myocardial infarction) (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; moderate quality evidence), though they were still at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.73, high quality evidence) compared to placebo or no treatment. There was no strong evidence of effect on risk of stroke in this group. In those who started treatment more than 10 years after the menopause there was high quality evidence that it had little effect on death or coronary heart disease between groups but there was an increased risk of stroke (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.38, high quality evidence) and venous thromboembolism (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.80, high quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our review findings provide strong evidence that treatment with hormone therapy in post-menopausal women overall, for either primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease events has little if any benefit and causes an increase in the risk of stroke and venous thromboembolic events.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cause of Death; Estrogen Replacement Therapy; Female; Hormone Replacement Therapy; Humans; Middle Aged; Postmenopause; Primary Prevention; Secondary Prevention; Stroke; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 25754617
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002229.pub4 -
JAMA Aug 2022A 2016 review for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found use of statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) was associated with reduced...
IMPORTANCE
A 2016 review for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found use of statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) was associated with reduced mortality and cardiovascular outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
To update the 2016 review on statins for primary prevention of CVD to inform the USPSTF.
DATA SOURCES
Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (to November 2021); surveillance through May 20, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials on statins vs placebo or no statin and statin intensity in adults without prior cardiovascular events; large cohort studies on harms.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently rated study quality.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
All-cause and cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, composite cardiovascular outcomes, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Twenty-six studies were included: 22 trials (N = 90 624) with 6 months to 6 years of follow-up compared statins vs placebo or no statin, 1 trial (n = 5144) compared statin intensities, and 3 observational studies (n = 417 523) reported harms. Statins were significantly associated with decreased risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.92 [95% CI, 0.87 to 0.98]; absolute risk difference [ARD], -0.35% [95% CI, -0.57% to -0.14%]), stroke (RR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.90]; ARD, -0.39% [95% CI, -0.54% to -0.25%]), myocardial infarction (RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.75]; ARD, -0.85% [95% CI, -1.22% to -0.47%]), and composite cardiovascular outcomes (RR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.81]; ARD, -1.28% [95% CI, -1.61% to -0.95%]); the association with cardiovascular mortality was not statistically significant (RR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.81 to 1.02]; ARD, -0.13%). Relative benefits were consistent in groups defined by demographic and clinical characteristics, although data for persons older than 75 years were sparse. Statin therapy was not significantly associated with increased risk of serious adverse events (RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.93 to 1.01]), myalgias (RR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.86 to 1.11]), or elevated alanine aminotransferase level (RR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.78 to 1.13]). Statin therapy was not significantly associated with increased diabetes risk overall (RR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.19]), although 1 trial found high-intensity statin therapy was significantly associated with increased risk (RR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.05 to 1.49]). Otherwise, there were no clear differences in outcomes based on statin intensity.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In adults at increased CVD risk but without prior CVD events, statin therapy for primary prevention of CVD was associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality and CVD events. Benefits of statin therapy appear to be present across diverse demographic and clinical populations, with consistent relative benefits in groups defined by demographic and clinical characteristics.
Topics: Adult; Advisory Committees; Cardiovascular Diseases; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Myocardial Infarction; Preventive Health Services; Primary Prevention; Stroke; United States
PubMed: 35997724
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2022.12138 -
Journal of Youth and Adolescence Sep 2019Given the recent rise in adolescent mental health issues, many researchers have turned to school-based mental health programs as a way to reduce stress, anxiety, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Given the recent rise in adolescent mental health issues, many researchers have turned to school-based mental health programs as a way to reduce stress, anxiety, and depressive symptoms among large groups of adolescents. The purpose of the current systematic review and meta-analysis is to identify and evaluate the efficacy of school-based programming aimed at reducing internalizing mental health problems of adolescents. A total of 42 articles, including a total of 7310 adolescents, ages 11-18, met inclusion for the meta-analyses. Meta-analyses were completed for each of the three mental health outcomes (stress, depression, and anxiety) and meta-regression was used to determine the influence of type of program, program dose, sex, race, and age on program effectiveness. Overall, stress interventions did not reduce stress symptoms, although targeted interventions showed greater reductions in stress than universal programs. Overall, anxiety interventions significantly reduced anxiety symptoms, however higher doses may be necessary for universal programs. Lastly, depression interventions significantly reduced depressive symptoms, but this reduction was moderated by a combination of program type, dose, race, and age group. Although, school-based programs aimed at decreasing anxiety and depression were effective, these effects are not long-lasting. Interventions aimed at reducing stress were not effective, however very few programs targeted or included stress as an outcome variable. Implications for practice, policy and research are discussed.
Topics: Adolescent; Anxiety; Child; Depression; Female; Humans; Male; Primary Prevention; Program Evaluation; School Health Services; Stress, Psychological; Students
PubMed: 31346924
DOI: 10.1007/s10964-019-01085-0 -
BMC Medicine Apr 2022Higher dietary fibre intakes are associated with a reduced risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD), and increasing intake has been shown to reduce blood pressure... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Higher dietary fibre intakes are associated with a reduced risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD), and increasing intake has been shown to reduce blood pressure and other cardiometabolic risk factors. The extent to which dietary fibre can further reduce risk for those with CVD and treated with cardioprotective drugs has not been clearly established. We have examined the evidence for dietary fibre as adjunct therapy in those with CVD or hypertension.
METHODS
Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and CENTRAL were searched to June 2021. Prospective observational studies reporting on fibre intakes and mortality in those with pre-existing CVD and controlled trials of increasing fibre intakes on cardiometabolic risk factors in those with CVD or hypertension were eligible. Outcomes were mortality (studies) and cardiometabolic risk factors (trials). Data synthesis was with random effects and dose response. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.
RESULTS
Three prospective studies including 7469 adults with CVD, and 12 trials of 878 adults with CVD or hypertension were identified. Moderate certainty evidence indicates reduced all-cause mortality (relative risk, RR0.75 (95% confidence interval, CI 0.58-0.97)) when comparing higher with lower fibre intakes. Low certainty evidence from trials of adults with cardiovascular disease indicates increasing fibre intakes reduced total (mean difference, MD - 0.42 mmol/L (95%CI - 0.78 to - 0.05) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (MD - 0.47mmol/L (95%CI - 0.85 to - 0.10)). High certainty evidence from trials of adults with hypertension indicates increasing fibre intakes reduces systolic (MD 4.3 mmHg (95% CI 2.2 to 5.8)) and diastolic blood pressure (MD 3.1 mmHg (95% CI 1.7 to 4.4)). Moderate and low certainty evidence indicated improvements in fasting blood glucose (MD 0.48 mmol/L (- 0.91 to - 0.05)) and LDL cholesterol (MD 0.29 mmol/L (95% CI 0.17 to 0.40)). Benefits were observed irrespective of cardioprotective drug use.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings emphasise the likely benefits of promoting greater dietary fibre intakes for patients with CVD and hypertension. Further trials and cohort analyses in this area would increase confidence in these results.
Topics: Adult; Cardiovascular Diseases; Dietary Fiber; Humans; Hypertension; Observational Studies as Topic; Primary Prevention; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 35449060
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-022-02328-x -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Aug 2019To assess effects of increasing omega-3, omega-6, and total polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) on diabetes diagnosis and glucose metabolism. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Omega-3, omega-6, and total dietary polyunsaturated fat for prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
OBJECTIVE
To assess effects of increasing omega-3, omega-6, and total polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) on diabetes diagnosis and glucose metabolism.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analyses.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Clinicaltrials.gov, and trials in relevant systematic reviews.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of at least 24 weeks' duration assessing effects of increasing α-linolenic acid, long chain omega-3, omega-6, or total PUFA, which collected data on diabetes diagnoses, fasting glucose or insulin, glycated haemoglobin (HbA), and/or homoeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR).
DATA SYNTHESIS
Statistical analysis included random effects meta-analyses using relative risk and mean difference, and sensitivity analyses. Funnel plots were examined and subgrouping assessed effects of intervention type, replacement, baseline risk of diabetes and use of antidiabetes drugs, trial duration, and dose. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool and quality of evidence with GRADE.
RESULTS
83 randomised controlled trials (mainly assessing effects of supplementary long chain omega-3) were included; 10 were at low summary risk of bias. Long chain omega-3 had little or no effect on likelihood of diagnosis of diabetes (relative risk 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.17; 58 643 participants, 3.7% developed diabetes) or measures of glucose metabolism (HbA mean difference -0.02%, 95% confidence interval -0.07% to 0.04%; plasma glucose 0.04, 0.02 to 0.07, mmol/L; fasting insulin 1.02, -4.34 to 6.37, pmol/L; HOMA-IR 0.06, -0.21 to 0.33). A suggestion of negative outcomes was observed when dose of supplemental long chain omega-3 was above 4.4 g/d. Effects of α-linolenic acid, omega-6, and total PUFA on diagnosis of diabetes were unclear (as the evidence was of very low quality), but little or no effect on measures of glucose metabolism was seen, except that increasing α-linolenic acid may increase fasting insulin (by about 7%). No evidence was found that the omega-3/omega-6 ratio is important for diabetes or glucose metabolism.
CONCLUSIONS
This is the most extensive systematic review of trials to date to assess effects of polyunsaturated fats on newly diagnosed diabetes and glucose metabolism, including previously unpublished data following contact with authors. Evidence suggests that increasing omega-3, omega-6, or total PUFA has little or no effect on prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42017064110.
Topics: Adult; Blood Glucose; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Dietary Fats, Unsaturated; Dietary Supplements; Fasting; Fatty Acids, Omega-3; Fatty Acids, Omega-6; Fatty Acids, Unsaturated; Female; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Insulin; Insulin Resistance; Male; Primary Prevention; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 31434641
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l4697 -
British Journal of Sports Medicine Dec 2018This review aims to analyse strength training-based sports injury prevention randomised controlled trials (RCT) and present best evidence recommendations for athletes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This review aims to analyse strength training-based sports injury prevention randomised controlled trials (RCT) and present best evidence recommendations for athletes and future research. A priori PROSPERO registration; CRD42015006970.
DESIGN
Systematic review, qualitative analysis and meta-analysis. Sorting of studies and quality assessments were performed by two independent authors. Qualitative analyses, relative risk (RR) estimate with robustness and strength of evidence tests, formal tests of publication bias and post-hoc meta-regression were performed.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and SPORTDiscus were searched to July 2017.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
RCTs on strength training exercises as primary prevention of sports injuries.
RESULTS
Six studies analysed five different interventions with four distinct outcomes. 7738 participants aged 12-40 years were included and sustained 177 acute or overuse injuries. Studies were published in 2003-2016, five from Europe and one from Africa. Cluster-adjusted intention-to-treat analysis established RR 0.338 (0.238-0.480). The result was consistent across robustness tests and strength of evidence was high. A 10% increase in strength training volume reduced the risk of injury by more than four percentage points. Formal tests found no publication bias.
CONCLUSION
The included studies were generally well designed and executed, had high compliance rates, were safe, and attained consistently favourable results across four different acute and overuse injury outcomes despite considerable differences in populations and interventions. Increasing strength training volume and intensity were associated with sports injury risk reduction. Three characteristically different approaches to prevention mechanisms were identified and incorporated into contemporary strength training recommendations.
Topics: Athletic Injuries; Cumulative Trauma Disorders; Humans; Primary Prevention; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Resistance Training
PubMed: 30131332
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099078 -
JAMA Internal Medicine Jan 2018High blood pressure (BP) is the most important risk factor for death and cardiovascular disease (CVD) worldwide. The optimal cutoff for treatment of high BP is debated. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
High blood pressure (BP) is the most important risk factor for death and cardiovascular disease (CVD) worldwide. The optimal cutoff for treatment of high BP is debated.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the association between BP lowering treatment and death and CVD at different BP levels.
DATA SOURCES
Previous systematic reviews were identified from PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect. Reference lists of these reviews were searched for randomized clinical trials. Randomized clinical trials published after November 1, 2015, were also searched for in PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials during February 2017.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials with at least 1000 patient-years of follow-up, comparing BP-lowering drugs vs placebo or different BP goals were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data were extracted from original publications. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaborations assessment tool. Relative risks (RRs) were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses with Knapp-Hartung modification. Results are reported according to PRISMA guidelines.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Prespecified outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, major cardiovascular events, coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, heart failure, and end-stage renal disease.
RESULTS
Seventy-four unique trials, representing 306 273 unique participants (39.9% women and 60.1% men; mean age, 63.6 years) and 1.2 million person-years, were included in the meta-analyses. In primary prevention, the association of BP-lowering treatment with major cardiovascular events was dependent on baseline systolic BP (SBP). In trials with baseline SBP 160 mm Hg or above, treatment was associated with reduced risk for death (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-1.00) and a substantial reduction of major cardiovascular events (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70-0.87). If baseline SBP ranged from 140 to 159 mm Hg, the association of treatment with mortality was similar (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75-1.00), but the association with major cardiovascular events was less pronounced (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96). In trials with baseline SBP below 140 mm Hg, treatment was not associated with mortality (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.90-1.06) and major cardiovascular events (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90-1.04). In trials including people with previous CHD and mean baseline SBP of 138 mm Hg, treatment was associated with reduced risk for major cardiovascular events (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.97), but was not associated with survival (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89-1.07).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Primary preventive BP lowering is associated with reduced risk for death and CVD if baseline SBP is 140 mm Hg or higher. At lower BP levels, treatment is not associated with any benefit in primary prevention but might offer additional protection in patients with CHD.
Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Pressure; Cardiovascular Diseases; Global Health; Humans; Incidence; Primary Prevention; Risk Factors; Survival Rate
PubMed: 29131895
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.6015