-
Advances in Nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) Jan 2017Our aim was to assess the efficacy of dietary supplements in the primary prevention of cause-specific death, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer by using... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Our aim was to assess the efficacy of dietary supplements in the primary prevention of cause-specific death, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer by using meta-analytical approaches. Electronic and hand searches were performed until August 2016. Inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) minimum intervention period of 12 mo; 2) primary prevention trials; 3) mean age ≥18 y; 4) interventions included vitamins, fatty acids, minerals, supplements containing combinations of vitamins and minerals, protein, fiber, prebiotics, and probiotics; and 5) primary outcome of all-cause mortality and secondary outcomes of mortality or incidence from CVD or cancer. Pooled effects across studies were estimated by using random-effects meta-analysis. Overall, 49 trials (69 reports) including 287,304 participants met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-two trials were judged as low risk-, 15 trials as moderate risk-, and 2 trials as high risk-of-bias studies. Supplements containing vitamin E (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.80, 0.96) significantly reduced cardiovascular mortality risk, whereas supplements with folic acid reduced the risk of CVD (RR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.70, 0.94). Vitamins D, C, and K; selenium; zinc; magnesium; and eicosapentaenoic acid showed no significant risk reduction for any of the outcomes. On the contrary, vitamin A was linked to an increased cancer risk (RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.35). Supplements with β-carotene showed no significant effect; however, in the subgroup with β-carotene given singly, an increased risk of all-cause mortality by 6% (RR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.10) was observed. Taken together, we found insufficient evidence to support the use of dietary supplements in the primary prevention of cause-specific death, incidence of CVD, and incidence of cancer. The application of some supplements generated small beneficial effects; however, the heterogeneous types and doses of supplements limit the generalizability to the overall population.
Topics: Cardiovascular Diseases; Diet; Dietary Supplements; Humans; Incidence; Micronutrients; Neoplasms; Nutrition Assessment; Observational Studies as Topic; Primary Prevention; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28096125
DOI: 10.3945/an.116.013516 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021Diet plays a major role in the aetiology of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and as a modifiable risk factor is the focus of many prevention strategies. Recently vegan diets... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Diet plays a major role in the aetiology of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and as a modifiable risk factor is the focus of many prevention strategies. Recently vegan diets have gained popularity and there is a need to synthesise existing clinical trial evidence for their potential in CVD prevention.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of following a vegan dietary pattern for the primary and secondary prevention of CVD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases on 4 February 2020: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science Core Collection. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov in January 2021. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in healthy adults and adults at high risk of CVD (primary prevention) and those with established CVD (secondary prevention). A vegan dietary pattern excludes meat, fish, eggs, dairy and honey; the intervention could be dietary advice, provision of relevant foods, or both. The comparison group received either no intervention, minimal intervention, or another dietary intervention. Outcomes included clinical events and CVD risk factors. We included only studies with follow-up periods of 12 weeks or more, defined as the intervention period plus post-intervention follow-up.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risks of bias. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We conducted three main comparisons: 1. Vegan dietary intervention versus no intervention or minimal intervention for primary prevention; 2. Vegan dietary intervention versus another dietary intervention for primary prevention; 3. Vegan dietary intervention versus another dietary intervention for secondary prevention.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen RCTs (38 papers, 7 trial registrations) and eight ongoing trials met our inclusion criteria. Most trials contributed to primary prevention: comparisons 1 (four trials, 466 participants randomised) and comparison 2 (eight trials, 409 participants randomised). We included only one secondary prevention trial for comparison 3 (63 participants randomised). None of the trials reported on clinical endpoints. Other primary outcomes included lipid levels and blood pressure. For comparison 1 there was moderate-certainty evidence from four trials with 449 participants that a vegan diet probably led to a small reduction in total cholesterol (mean difference (MD) -0.24 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.36 to -0.12) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (MD -0.22 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.11), a very small decrease in high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels (MD -0.08 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.04) and a very small increase in triglyceride levels (MD 0.11 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.21). The very small changes in HDL and triglyceride levels are in the opposite direction to that expected. There was a lack of evidence for an effect with the vegan dietary intervention on systolic blood pressure (MD 0.94 mmHg, 95% CI -1.18 to 3.06; 3 trials, 374 participants) and diastolic blood pressure (MD -0.27 mmHg, 95% CI -1.67 to 1.12; 3 trials, 372 participants) (low-certainty evidence). For comparison 2 there was a lack of evidence for an effect of the vegan dietary intervention on total cholesterol levels (MD -0.04 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.20; 4 trials, 163 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was probably little or no effect of the vegan dietary intervention on LDL (MD -0.05 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.11; 4 trials, 244 participants) or HDL cholesterol levels (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.05; 5 trials, 256 participants) or triglycerides (MD 0.21 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.49; 5 trials, 256 participants) compared to other dietary interventions (moderate-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about any effect of the vegan dietary intervention on systolic blood pressure (MD 0.02 mmHg, 95% CI -3.59 to 3.62) or diastolic blood pressure (MD 0.63 mmHg, 95% CI -1.54 to 2.80; 5 trials, 247 participants (very low-certainty evidence)). Only one trial (63 participants) contributed to comparison 3, where there was a lack of evidence for an effect of the vegan dietary intervention on lipid levels or blood pressure compared to other dietary interventions (low- or very low-certainty evidence). Four trials reported on adverse events, which were absent or minor.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Studies were generally small with few participants contributing to each comparison group. None of the included studies report on CVD clinical events. There is currently insufficient information to draw conclusions about the effects of vegan dietary interventions on CVD risk factors. The eight ongoing studies identified will add to the evidence base, with all eight reporting on primary prevention. There is a paucity of evidence for secondary prevention.
Topics: Adult; Bias; Blood Pressure; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cholesterol; Diet, Vegan; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Primary Prevention; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Secondary Prevention; Triglycerides
PubMed: 33629376
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013501.pub2 -
Cardiology Journal 2011Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have demonstrated the efficacy of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in reducing sudden cardiac death (SCD) in specific... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have demonstrated the efficacy of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in reducing sudden cardiac death (SCD) in specific patient populations. However, patients ≥ 65 years were under-represented in these trials and the overall benefit of ICDs may be diminished in older patients due to competing risks for death. We evaluate the published data on ICD efficacy at reducing all-cause mortality in patients ≥ 65 years and in patients ≥ 75 years.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE to identify RCTs and observational studies of ICDs that provided age-based outcome data for primary prevention of SCD. The primary endpoint was mortality evaluated by a meta-analysis of the RCTs using a random-effects model. Secondary endpoints included operative mortality, long-term complications and quality of life.
RESULTS
The enrollment of patients ≥ 65 years in RCTs was limited (range: 33% in DEFINITE to 56% in MUSTT). Combining data from four RCTs (n = 3,562) revealed that primary prevention ICD therapy is efficacious in reducing all-cause mortality in patients ≥ 65 years (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.50-0.87; test of heterogeneity: X(2) = 5.26; p = 0.15). For patients ≥ 75 years, combining data from four RCTs (n = 579) revealed that primary prevention ICD therapy remains efficacious in reducing all-cause mortality (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.51-0.974; p = 0.03). There appears to be no difference in ICD-related, operative, in-hospital, or long- -term complications among older patients compared to younger patients, although it remains unclear if older patients have a better quality of life with an ICD than younger patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the overall evidence regarding ICD efficacy in patients ≥ 65 years is limited and divergent, and the evidence available for patients ≥ 75 years is even more sparse, our meta-analysis suggests that primary prevention ICDs may be beneficial in older patients. Our findings need to be validated by future studies, particularly ones examining ICD complications and quality of life.
Topics: Age Factors; Aged; Aging; Chi-Square Distribution; Death, Sudden, Cardiac; Defibrillators, Implantable; Electric Countershock; Evidence-Based Medicine; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Primary Prevention; Prosthesis Design; Quality of Life; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 21947985
DOI: 10.5603/cj.2011.0005 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2019General health checks are common elements of health care in some countries. They aim to detect disease and risk factors for disease with the purpose of reducing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
General health checks are common elements of health care in some countries. They aim to detect disease and risk factors for disease with the purpose of reducing morbidity and mortality. Most of the commonly used individual screening tests offered in general health checks have been incompletely studied. Also, screening leads to increased use of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, which can be harmful as well as beneficial. It is therefore important to assess whether general health checks do more good than harm. This is the first update of the review published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To quantify the benefits and harms of general health checks.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trials registers on 31 January 2018. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed papers for eligibility and read reference lists. One review author used citation tracking (Web of Knowledge) and asked trial authors about additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised trials comparing health checks with no health checks in adults unselected for disease or risk factors. We did not include geriatric trials. We defined health checks as screening for more than one disease or risk factor in more than one organ system.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the trials. We contacted trial authors for additional outcomes or trial details when necessary. When possible, we analysed the results with a random-effects model meta-analysis; otherwise, we did a narrative synthesis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 trials, 15 of which reported outcome data (251,891 participants). Risk of bias was generally low for our primary outcomes. Health checks have little or no effect on total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.03; 11 trials; 233,298 participants and 21,535 deaths; high-certainty evidence, I = 0%), or cancer mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.12; 8 trials; 139,290 participants and 3663 deaths; high-certainty evidence, I = 33%), and probably have little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.16; 9 trials; 170,227 participants and 6237 deaths; moderate-certainty evidence; I = 65%). Health checks have little or no effect on fatal and non-fatal ischaemic heart disease (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.03; 4 trials; 164,881 persons, 10,325 events; high-certainty evidence; I = 11%), and probably have little or no effect on fatal and non-fatal stroke (RR 1.05 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17; 3 trials; 107,421 persons, 4543 events; moderate-certainty evidence, I = 53%).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
General health checks are unlikely to be beneficial.
Topics: Adult; Cause of Death; Diagnosis; Disease; Health Promotion; Humans; Morbidity; Primary Prevention; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30699470
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009009.pub3 -
Preventive Medicine Mar 2019The objectives of this systematic review were to: 1) identify evidence-based youth (i.e., infancy, pre-school age, school age, and adolescence) mental and behavioral...
The objectives of this systematic review were to: 1) identify evidence-based youth (i.e., infancy, pre-school age, school age, and adolescence) mental and behavioral health disorder preventive interventions conducted in or offered by primary care settings, and 2) describe these interventions' characteristics, efficacy, and clinical involvement. Randomized controlled trials that targeted the prevention of mental or behavioral health outcomes for youth and had a connection to primary care were included. The PRISMA guidelines were utilized for two phases: 1) searching PubMed, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases in January 2017; and 2) searching United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Systematic Reviews in November 2017. The two phases revealed 504 and 58 potential articles, respectively. After removal of duplicates, screening of abstracts, and full-text reviews, 19 interventions (infancy: n = 2, pre-school age: n = 3, school age: n = 6, adolescence: n = 8) were included: 1) 10 interventions described in 17 articles from the databases, and 2) 9 interventions described in 11 articles from the USPSTF reviews. The included interventions capitalized on primary care settings as a natural entry point to engage youth and families into interventions without requiring a large amount of clinic involvement. Commonalities of efficacious interventions and recommendations for future research are discussed. The authors encourage primary care providers, mental and behavioral health providers, and/or public health researchers to continue developing and testing preventive interventions, or adapting existing interventions, to be implemented in primary care.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Health Services Needs and Demand; Humans; Male; Mental Disorders; Mental Health; Preventive Health Services; Primary Prevention; Program Evaluation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; United States; Young Adult
PubMed: 30610888
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.12.009 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2013There is increasing evidence that both green and black tea are beneficial for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There is increasing evidence that both green and black tea are beneficial for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of green and black tea on the primary prevention of CVD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases on 12 October 2012 without language restrictions: CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID) and Web of Science (Thomson Reuters). We also searched trial registers, screened reference lists and contacted authors for additional information where necessary.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) lasting at least three months involving healthy adults or those at high risk of CVD. Trials investigated the intake of green tea, black tea or tea extracts. The comparison group was no intervention, placebo or minimal intervention. The outcomes of interest were CVD clinical events and major CVD risk factors. Any trials involving multifactorial lifestyle interventions or focusing on weight loss were excluded to avoid confounding.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Trials of green tea were analysed separately from trials of black tea.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 11 RCTs with a total of 821 participants, two trials awaiting classification and one ongoing trial. Seven trials examined a green tea intervention and four examined a black tea intervention. Dosage and form of both green and black tea differed between trials. The ongoing trial is examining the effects of green tea powder capsules.No studies reported cardiovascular events.Black tea was found to produce statistically significant reductions in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (mean difference (MD) -0.43 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.56 to -0.31) and blood pressure (systolic blood pressure (SBP): MD -1.85 mmHg, 95% CI -3.21 to -0.48. Diastolic blood pressure (DBP): MD -1.27 mmHg, 95% CI -3.06 to 0.53) over six months, stable to sensitivity analysis, but only a small number of trials contributed to each analysis and studies were at risk of bias.Green tea was also found to produce statistically significant reductions in total cholesterol (MD -0.62 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.46), LDL cholesterol (MD -0.64 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.52) and blood pressure (SBP: MD -3.18 mmHg, 95% CI -5.25 to -1.11; DBP: MD -3.42, 95% CI -4.54 to -2.30), but only a small number of studies contributed to each analysis, and results were not stable to sensitivity analysis. When both tea types were analysed together they showed favourable effects on LDL cholesterol (MD -0.48 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.35) and blood pressure (SBP: MD -2.25 mmHg, 95% CI -3.39 to -1.11; DBP: MD -2.81 mmHg, 95% CI -3.77 to -1.86). Adverse events were measured in five trials and included a diagnosis of prostate cancer, hospitalisation for influenza, appendicitis and retinal detachment but these are unlikely to be directly attributable to the intervention.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There are very few long-term studies to date examining green or black tea for the primary prevention of CVD. The limited evidence suggests that tea has favourable effects on CVD risk factors, but due to the small number of trials contributing to each analysis the results should be treated with some caution and further high quality trials with longer-term follow-up are needed to confirm this.
Topics: Beverages; Blood Pressure; Camellia sinensis; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cholesterol; Humans; Phytotherapy; Primary Prevention; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tea
PubMed: 23780706
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009934.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2018Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune disease characterised by the presence of antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies that have prothrombotic activity.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune disease characterised by the presence of antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies that have prothrombotic activity. Antiphospholipid antibodies are associated with an increased risk of pregnancy complications (recurrent miscarriage, premature birth, intrauterine growth retardation) and thrombotic events (both arterial and venous). The most common thrombotic events include brain ischaemia (stroke or transient ischaemic attack) and deep vein thrombosis. To diagnose APS, the presence of aPL antibodies in two measurements and at least one thrombotic event or pregnancy complication are required. It is unclear if people with positive aPL antibodies but without any previous thrombotic events should receive primary antithrombotic prophylaxis.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents versus placebo or no intervention or other intervention on the development of thrombosis in people with aPL antibodies who have not had a thrombotic event. We did not address obstetric outcomes in this review as these have been thoroughly addressed by other Cochrane Reviews.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (4 December 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (last search 29 November 2017), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, CINAHL, and AMED (searched 4 December 2017), and trials registries (searched 29 November 2017). We also checked reference lists of included studies, systematic reviews, and practice guidelines, and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents, or their combinations, at any dose and mode of delivery with placebo, no intervention, or other intervention. We also included RCTs that compared antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents with each other or that compared two different doses of the same drug. We included studies performed in people of any age and with no history of thrombosis (as defined by APS Sapporo classification criteria or updated Sydney classification criteria), but with aPL antibodies confirmed on at last two separate measurements. The studies included both pregnant women who tested positive for aPL antibodies and had a history of recurrent obstetric complications, as well as non-pregnancy related cases with positive screening for antibodies, in accordance with the criteria mentioned above.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Pairs of authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias for the included studies and quality of evidence using GRADE. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion or by consulting a third review author when necessary. In addition, one review author checked all the extracted numerical data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine studies involving 1044 randomised participants. The studies took place in several countries and had different funding sources. No study was at low risk of bias in all domains. We classified all included studies as at unclear or high risk of bias in two or more domains. Seven included studies focused mainly on obstetric outcomes. One study included non-pregnancy-related cases, and one study included both pregnancy-related cases and other patients with positive results for aPL antibodies. The remaining studies concerned women with aPL antibodies and a history of pregnancy failure. Four studies compared anticoagulant with or without acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) versus ASA only and observed no clear difference in thrombosis risk (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 3.77; 4 studies; 493 participants; low-quality evidence). No major bleeding was reported, but minor bleeding risk (nasal bleeding, menorrhagia) was higher in the anticoagulant with ASA group as compared with ASA alone in one study (RR 22.45, 95% CI 1.34 to 374.81; 1 study; 164 participants; low-quality evidence). In one study ASA was compared with placebo, and there were no clear differences in thrombosis (RR 5.21, 95% CI 0.63 to 42.97; 1 study; 98 participants; low-quality evidence) or minor bleeding risk between the groups (RR 3.13, 95% CI 0.34 to 29.01; 1 study; 98 participants; low-quality evidence), and no major bleeding was observed. Two studies compared ASA with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) versus placebo or intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), and no thrombotic events were observed in any of the groups. Moreover, there were no clear differences in the risk of bleeding requiring transfusion (RR 9.0, 95% CI 0.49 to 164.76; 1 study; 180 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or postpartum bleeding (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.81; 1 study; 180 participants; moderate-quality evidence) between the groups. Two studies compared ASA with high-dose LMWH versus ASA with low-dose LMWF or unfractionated heparin (UFH); no thrombotic events or major bleeding was reported. Mortality and quality of life data were not reported for any of the comparisons.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate benefit or harm of using anticoagulants with or without ASA versus ASA alone in people with aPL antibodies and a history of recurrent pregnancy loss and with no such history; ASA versus placebo in people with aPL antibodies; and ASA with LMWH versus placebo or IVIG, and ASA with high-dose LMWH versus ASA with low-dose LMWH or UFH, in women with aPL antibodies and a history of recurrent pregnancy loss, for the primary prevention of thrombotic events. In a mixed population of people with a history of previous pregnancy loss and without such a history treated with anticoagulant combined with ASA, the incidence of minor bleeding (nasal bleeding, menorrhagia) was increased when compared with ASA alone. Studies that are adequately powered and that focus mainly on thrombotic events are needed to draw any firm conclusions on the primary prevention of thrombotic events in people with antiphospholipid antibodies.
Topics: Antibodies, Antiphospholipid; Anticoagulants; Antiphospholipid Syndrome; Humans; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Primary Prevention; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thrombosis
PubMed: 30004572
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012534.pub2 -
European Heart Journal Dec 2016The efficacy and safety of different statins for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive patients in the primary prevention setting remain to be established. In the... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
The efficacy and safety of different statins for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive patients in the primary prevention setting remain to be established. In the present meta-analysis, 18 studies with 736 HIV-positive patients receiving combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) and treated with statins in the primary prevention setting were included (21.0% women, median age 44.1 years old). The primary endpoint was the effect of statin therapy on total cholesterol (TC) levels. Rosuvastatin 10 mg and atorvastatin 10 mg provided the largest reduction in TC levels [mean -1.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-1.99, -1.35) mmol/L; and mean -1.44, 95% CI (-1.85, -1.02) mmol/L, respectively]. Atorvastatin 80 mg and simvastatin 20 mg provided the largest reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) [mean -2.10, 95% CI (-3.39, -0.81) mmol/L; and mean -1.57, 95% CI (-2.67, -0.47) mmol/L, respectively]. Pravastatin 10-20 mg [mean 0.24, 95% CI (0.10, 0.38) mmol/L] and atorvastatin 10 mg [mean 0.15, 95% CI (0.007, 0.23) mmol/L] had the largest increase in high-density lipoprotein, whereas atorvastatin 80 mg [mean -0.60, 95% CI (-1.09, -0.11) mmol/L] and simvastatin 20 mg [mean -0.61, 95% CI (-1.14, -0.08) mmol/L] had the largest reduction in triglycerides. The mean discontinuation rate was 0.12 per 100 person-years [95% CI (0.05, 0.20)], and was higher with atorvastatin 10 mg [26.5 per 100 person-years, 95% CI (-13.4, 64.7)]. Meta-regression revealed that nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors-sparing regimens were associated with reduced efficacy for statin's ability to lower TC. Statin therapy significantly lowers plasma TC and LDL levels in HIV-positive patients and is associated with low rates of adverse events. Statins are effective and safe when dose-adjusted for drug-drug interactions with cART.
Topics: Adult; Anticholesteremic Agents; Atorvastatin; Cholesterol, LDL; Female; HIV Infections; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Male; Primary Prevention; Pyrroles; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Simvastatin
PubMed: 26851703
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv734 -
Current Vascular Pharmacology 2021The increasing incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) threatens the Middle Eastern population. Several epidemiological studies have assessed CVD and its risk factors... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The increasing incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) threatens the Middle Eastern population. Several epidemiological studies have assessed CVD and its risk factors in terms of the primary prevention of CVD in the Middle East. Therefore, summarizing the information from these studies is essential.
AIM
We conducted a systematic review to assess the prevalence of CVD and its major risk factors among Middle Eastern adults based on the literature published between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2018, and carried out a meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched electronic databases such as PubMed/Medline, ScienceDirect, Embase and Google Scholar to identify literature published from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2018. All the original articles that investigated the prevalence of CVD and reported at least one of the following factors were included: hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidaemia, smoking and family history of CVD. To summarize CVD prevalence, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 41 potentially relevant articles were included, and 32 were included in the metaanalysis (n=191,979). The overall prevalence of CVD was 10.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 7.1- 14.3%, p<0.001) in the Middle East. A high prevalence of CVD risk factors, such as dyslipidaemia (43.3%; 95% CI: 21.5-68%), hypertension (26.2%; 95% CI: 19.6-34%) and diabetes (16%; 95% CI: 9.9- 24.8%), was observed. The prevalence rates of other risk factors, such as smoking (12.4%; 95% CI: 7.7- 19.4%) and family history of CVD (18.7%; 95% CI: 15.4-22.5%), were also high.
CONCLUSION
The prevalence of CVD is high (10.1%) in the Middle East. The burden of dyslipidaemia (43.3%) in this region is twice as high as that of hypertension (26.2%) and diabetes mellitus (16%). Multifaceted interventions are urgently needed for the primary prevention of CVD in this region.
Topics: Cardiovascular Diseases; Heart Disease Risk Factors; Humans; Middle East; Primary Prevention
PubMed: 32525775
DOI: 10.2174/1573406416666200611104143 -
International Journal of Environmental... Apr 2010This systematic review aims to assess the characteristics of, and the clinical and economic evidence provided by, economic evaluations of primary preventive physical... (Review)
Review
This systematic review aims to assess the characteristics of, and the clinical and economic evidence provided by, economic evaluations of primary preventive physical exercise interventions, and to analyse their transferability to Germany using recommended checklists. Fifteen economic evaluations from seven different countries met eligibility criteria, with seven of the fifteen providing high economic evidence in the special country context. Most of the identified studies conclude that the investigated intervention provide good value for money compared with alternatives. However, this review shows a high variability of the costing methods between the studies, which limits comparability, generalisability and transferability of the results.
Topics: Costs and Cost Analysis; Germany; Primary Prevention
PubMed: 20617050
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph7041622