Effects of intensive interventions compared to standard care in people with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria on risk factors control and cardiovascular outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

AIMS: The effect of intensive glycaemic control, blood pressure control and lipid levels control alone or as part of a multifactorial intervention has not been fully evaluated. We aimed to estimate the effects of more intensive interventions, compared with standard care, on risk factor control and cardiovascular outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane library without language restrictions from inception to August 10, 2018. We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated intensive interventions in adults with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria. The review was registered on PROSPERO (registration number 42017055208). We used random effects meta-analysis to calculate overall pooled effect estimates across studies. RESULTS: A total of seven (n = 1210) randomised controlled trials were included, four studies (n = 758) reported HbA1c, six studies (n = 950) reported blood pressure measurements, and three studies (n = 896) examined non-fatal MI, non-fatal stroke, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality. Intensive interventions indicated statistically significant reductions in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and a nonsignificant trend for reduction in HbA1c, total cholesterol, LDL, triglycerides and urinary albumin excretion rate. There was no evidence to suggest that compared with standard care, intensive interventions reduced the risk of non-fatal MI [risk ratio (RR) 0·50; 95% CI 0·20, 1·22; P = 0·127], non-fatal stroke (RR 0·44; 95% CI 0·10, 1·91; P = 0·275), CV mortality (RR 0·95; 95% CI 0·48, 1·86; P = 0·874) or all-cause mortality (RR 0·80; 95% CI 0·51, 1·25; P = 0·324). CONCLUSIONS: Apart from blood pressure outcomes, there was no evidence that intensive interventions improve or worsen HbA1c, total cholesterol, LDL, triglycerides, urinary albumin excretion rate, risk of cardiovascular or mortality outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria. Results of this review are mainly influenced by one small trial, hence uncertainty surrounding the effect of intensive interventions in people with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria still exists. Large studies are urgently required in this high risk cardiovascular group of patients

Effects of intensive interventions compared to standard care in people with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria on risk factors control and cardiovascular outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

AIMS: The effect of intensive glycaemic control, blood pressure control and lipid levels control alone or as part of a multifactorial intervention has not been fully evaluated. We aimed to estimate the effects of more intensive interventions, compared with standard care, on risk factor control and cardiovascular outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane library without language restrictions from inception to August 10, 2018. We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated intensive interventions in adults with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria. The review was registered on PROSPERO (registration number 42017055208). We used random effects meta-analysis to calculate overall pooled effect estimates across studies. RESULTS: A total of seven (n = 1210) randomised controlled trials were included, four studies (n = 758) reported HbA1c, six studies (n = 950) reported blood pressure measurements, and three studies (n = 896) examined non-fatal MI, non-fatal stroke, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality. Intensive interventions indicated statistically significant reductions in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and a nonsignificant trend for reduction in HbA1c, total cholesterol, LDL, triglycerides and urinary albumin excretion rate. There was no evidence to suggest that compared with standard care, intensive interventions reduced the risk of non-fatal MI [risk ratio (RR) 0·50; 95% CI 0·20, 1·22; P = 0·127], non-fatal stroke (RR 0·44; 95% CI 0·10, 1·91; P = 0·275), CV mortality (RR 0·95; 95% CI 0·48, 1·86; P = 0·874) or all-cause mortality (RR 0·80; 95% CI 0·51, 1·25; P = 0·324). CONCLUSIONS: Apart from blood pressure outcomes, there was no evidence that intensive interventions improve or worsen HbA1c, total cholesterol, LDL, triglycerides, urinary albumin excretion rate, risk of cardiovascular or mortality outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria. Results of this review are mainly influenced by one small trial, hence uncertainty surrounding the effect of intensive interventions in people with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria still exists. Large studies are urgently required in this high risk cardiovascular group of patients

Standardised mortality ratio (SMR) and 95% confidence interval by follow-up time-since-entry, in years.

Reference line of SMR = 1 in red.</p

Risk of esophageal cancer in achalasia cardia: A meta-analysis.

Introduction: The association between cancer of the esophagus and achalasia has long been recognized. However, it has also been recognized that cancers themselves can give rise to achalasia-like syndromes. The risk of developing cancer is also a factor in assessing whether there is a potential role for surveillance in this disease. This paper uses published work to form the basis for a meta-analysis of the risk of developing esophageal cancer among patients with pre-existing achalasia. Methods: This paper considered cancer risk reported in a range of studies of achalasia published over a 50-year period. Twenty-seven potential studies were identified. In 16 reports, it was possible to extract information on both length of follow-up and duration of achalasia so that person-years duration (PYD) could be calculated. The analysis was stratified between cancers identified in the first year after diagnosis of achalasia and cancers identified in subsequent years. Results: From pooling the results of 16 studies, the incidence rate of esophageal cancer in achalasia patients was estimated to be 1.36 (95% CI: 0.56, 2.51) per 1000 person years. This is over 10 times higher than the general population incidence rates as reported by the lARC. Conclusions: Therefore, our meta-analysis shows that achalasia is a major risk factor for the development of esophageal cancer. This is supported by the results from the time-stratified analysis. Incidence of esophageal cancer per 1000 person years was lower in the first year after diagnosis of achalasia than in subsequent years. This is strong evidence against the idea that achalasia may be induced by esophageal cancer instead of vice versa

Patient characteristics of the full cohort (<i>W</i>≥0) and four sub-cohorts selected by a minimum lookback window requirement.

Patient characteristics of the full cohort (W≥0) and four sub-cohorts selected by a minimum lookback window requirement.</p

Standardised mortality ratio (SMR) by age group, over follow-up period in years.

Split to show initial high mortality rate trend (5a) and lower mortality rate after year 2 (5b). Reference line of SMR = 1 in red.</p

CPRD practice data contribution history for GP practices associated with the 1 million random patient sample, from <i>up-to-standard</i> date to date of <i>last data collection</i>.

The shaded region shows the follow-up period with the number of active practices by calendar year overlaid (right-hand y-axis).</p

S1 File -

(DOCX)</p

Standardised mortality ratio (SMR) and 95% confidence intervals by sub-cohorts selected by a minimum lookback window <i>W</i>≥<i>w</i>, over calendar year.

Reference line of SMR = 1 in red.</p