An overview of the benefits and drawbacks of inhaled corticosteroids in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Sonal Singh1, Yoon K Loke21Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; 2School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich, EnglandBackground: The benefit harm profile of inhaled corticosteroids, and their effect on patient oriented outcomes and comorbid pneumonia, osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease remain uncertain.Methods: An overview of the evidence on the risks and benefits of inhaled corticosteroids (fluticasone and budesonide) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from recent randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews. Observational studies on adverse effects were also evaluated.Results: Evidence from recent meta-analysis suggests a modest benefit from inhaled corticosteroid long-acting beta-agonist combination inhalers on the frequency of exacerbations, (rate ratio [RR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78 to 0.88), in improvements in quality of life measures, and forced expiratory volume in one second when compared to long-acting beta-agonists alone. On the outcome of pneumonia, our updated meta-analysis of trials (n = 24 trials; RR, 1.56; 95% CI: 1.40–1.74, P < 0.0001) and observational studies (n = 4 studies; RR, 1.44; 95% CI: 1.20–1.75, P = 0.0001) shows a significant increase in the risk of pneumonia with the inhaled corticosteroids currently available (fluticasone and budesonide). Evidence for any intraclass differences in the risk of pneumonia between currently available formulations is inconclusive due to the absence of head to head trials. Inhaled corticosteroids have no cardiovascular effects.Conclusions: Among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, clinicians should carefully balance these long-term risks of inhaled corticosteroid against their symptomatic benefits.Keywords: inhaled corticosteroids, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, cardiovascular event

Safety of short-term dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stents:An updated meta-analysis with direct and adjusted indirect comparison of randomized control trials

Background: Duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) following drug-eluting stents (DES) remains controversial and is a topic of ongoing research. Methods: Direct and adjusted indirect comparisons of all the recent randomized control trials (RCTs) were performed to evaluate the safety of short-term versus long-term DAPT following DES. Results: 8 RCTs were identified and 7 (16,318 subjects) were included. 4 groups of 3 vs 12 months, 6 vs 12 months, 6 vs 24 months and 12 vs 24 months of DAPT were used for direct comparison. There was no significant difference in stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and revascularization, cardiovascular and all-cause mortality between the different durations in all 4 groups. Pooling trials of 3–6 months of DAPT against 12 months, we found a significant reduction in the risk of total bleeding (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43–0.87). Adjusted indirect comparison between 3 vs 6 months, 3 vs 24 months and 6 vs 24 month duration of DAPT showed no significant differences in risk of death or MI, or revascularization between 3 or 6 months and 24 months. However, 24 months of DAPT was associated with significantly more bleeding than 3 or 6 months. Conclusions: 3 to 6 months of DAPT following second generation DES and above is safe with no increased risk of thrombotic complications and mortality, and lower bleeding risk. However a tailored approach may be more appropriate for high-risk patients. Keywords: Percutaneous coronary intervention; Drug-eluting stent; Acute coronary syndrome; Dual antiplatelet treatment; Duration of therap

Efficacy and safety profile of statins in patients with cancer: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

PURPOSE: A growing body of preclinical and observational research suggests that statins have potential as a therapeutic strategy in patients with cancer. This systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with solid tumours aimed to determine the efficacy of statin therapy on mortality outcomes, their safety profile and the risk of bias of included studies. METHODS: Full-text articles comparing statin therapy versus control in solid tumours and reporting mortality outcomes were identified from Medline and Embase from conception to February 2020. A systematic review with qualitative (primarily) and quantitative synthesis was conducted. This systematic review was prospectively registered (Prospero registration CRD42018116364). RESULTS: Eleven trials of 2165 patients were included. Primary tumour sites investigated included lung, colorectal, gastro-oesophageal, pancreatic and liver. Most trials recruited patients with advanced malignancy and used sub-maximal statin doses for relatively short durations. Aside from one trial which demonstrated benefit with allocation to pravastatin 40 mg in hepatocellular carcinoma, the remaining ten trials did not demonstrate efficacy with statins. The pooled hazard ratio for all-cause mortality with allocation to pravastatin in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in two trials was 0.69 (95% confidence interval CI 0.30-1.61). Study estimates were imprecise. There were no clinically important differences in statin-related adverse events between groups. Overall, included trials were deemed low risk of bias. CONCLUSION: The trial evidence is not sufficiently robust to confirm or refute the efficacy and safety of statins in patients with solid malignant tumours. Study and patient characteristics may explain this uncertainty. The potential role of high-dose statins in adjuvant settings deserves further research

Meta-Analysis: Association Between Hypoglycemia and Serious Adverse Events in Older Patients Treated With Glucose-Lowering Agents

Aims: We conducted a meta-analysis of serious adverse events (dementia, macro- and micro-vascular events, falls and fractures, and death) associated with hypoglycemia in older patients treated with glucose lowering drugs. Materials and Methods: Meta-analysis of studies reporting on hypoglycemia and adverse events. The search included studies from two previously published systematic reviews, and an updated search of MEDLINE and EMBASE from April 2014 to November 2019. We assessed study validity based on ascertainment of hypoglycemia, adverse events and adjustment for confounders, and conducted a random effects meta-analyses, assessing heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. Results: We included 44 studies involving 2,507,434 participants. Most of the studies used adjusted analysis for confounders and hypoglycaemic events were typically identified based on healthcare databases (severe events). Hypoglycemia was associated with increased likelihood of death in a meta-analysis of eighteen studies, pooled OR 2.02 (95% Confidence Interval 1.75–2.32). Studies assessing mortality signal a time-response relationship with a higher risk of adverse events occurring within the first 90 days after hypoglycemia. Our meta-analysis of nine studies demonstrated that hypoglycaemic episodes were associated with dementia – pooled OR 1.50 (95% CI 1.29–1.74). Our meta-analysis of nineteen studies demonstrated associations between hypoglycaemia and macrovascular complications, pooled OR 1.81 (95% CI 1.70–1.94), and microvascular complications (two studies) pooled OR 1.77 (95% CI 1.49–2.10). There is also an association between hypoglycemia and cardiovascular death (six studies) – pooled OR 2.11 (95% CI 1.55 to 2.87). Similarly, our meta-analysis of six studies demonstrated an association between hypoglycemia and falls and fractures, pooled OR 1.78 (95% CI 1.44–2.21) and 1.68 (95% CI 1.37–2.07) respectively. Conclusion: This meta-analysis confirms previously reported concerns of serious harm following hypoglycemia, especially in the immediate time period after a hypoglycaemic event. Avoidance of hypoglycaemic episodes should be a priority in this vulnerable population

Clinical benefit of adenosine as an adjunct to reperfusion in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background: Adenosine administered as an adjunct to reperfusion can reduce coronary no-reflow and limit myocardial infarct (MI) size in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. Whether adjunctive adenosine therapy can improve clinical outcomes in reperfused STEMI patients is not clear and is investigated in this meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: We performed an up-to-date search for all RCTs investigating adenosine as an adjunct to reperfusion in STEMI patients. We calculated pooled relative risks using a fixed-effect meta-analysis assessing the impact of adjunctive adenosine therapy on major clinical endpoint including all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and heart failure. Surrogate markers of reperfusion were also analyzed. Results: 13 RCTs (4273 STEMI patients) were identified and divided into 2 subgroups: intracoronary adenosine versus control (8 RCTs) and intravenous adenosine versus control (5 RCTs). In patients administered intracoronary adenosine, the incidence of heart failure was significantly lower (risk ratio [RR] 0.44 [95% CI 0.25–0.78], P = 0.005) and the incidence of coronary no-reflow was reduced (RR for TIMI flow<3 postreperfusion 0.68 [95% CI 0.47–0.99], P = 0.04). There was no difference in heart failure incidence in the intravenous adenosine group but most RCTs in this subgroup were from the thrombolysis era. There was no difference in non-fatal MI or all-cause mortality in both subgroups. Conclusion: We find evidence of improved clinical outcome in terms of less heart failure in STEMI patients administered intracoronary adenosine as an adjunct to reperfusion. This finding will need to be confirmed in a large adequately powered prospective RCT

Efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in secondary prevention following lacunar stroke:Pooled analysis of randomized trials

Background and Purpose: Lacunar stroke accounts for ≈25% of ischemic stroke, but optimal antiplatelet regimen to prevent stroke recurrence remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of antiplatelet agents in secondary stroke prevention after a lacunar stroke. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane library for randomized controlled trials that reported risk of recurrent stroke or death with antiplatelet therapy in patients with lacunar stroke. We used random effects meta-analysis and evaluated heterogeneity with I2. Results: We included 17 trials with 42 234 participants (mean age 64.4 years, 65% male) and follow up ranging from 4 weeks to 3.5 years. Compared with placebo, any single antiplatelet agent was associated with a significant reduction in recurrence of any stroke (risk ratio [RR] 0.77, 0.62–0.97, 2 studies) and ischemic stroke (RR 0.48, 0.30–0.78, 2 studies), but not for the composite outcome of any stroke, myocardial infarction, or death (RR 0.89, 0.75–1.05, 2 studies). When other antiplatelet agents (ticlodipine, cilostazol, and dipyridamole) were compared with aspirin, there was no consistent reduction in stroke recurrence (RR 0.91, 0.75–1.10, 3 studies). Dual antiplatelet therapy did not confer clear benefit over monotherapy (any stroke RR 0.83, 0.68–1.00, 3 studies; ischemic stroke RR 0.80, 0.62–1.02, 3 studies; composite outcome RR 0.90, 0.80–1.02, 3 studies). Conclusions: Our results suggest that any of the single antiplatelet agents compared with placebo in the included trials is adequate for secondary stroke prevention after lacunar stroke. Dual antiplatelet therapy should not be used for long-term stroke prevention in this stroke subtype

Treatment as required versus regular monthly treatment in the management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: To investigate whether treatment as required ‘pro re nata’ (PRN) versus regular monthly treatment regimens lead to differences in outcomes in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Regular monthly administration of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors is an established gold standard treatment, but this approach is costly. Replacement of monthly by PRN treatment can only be justified if there is no difference in patient relevant outcomes. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis. The intervention was PRN treatment and the comparator was monthly treatment with VEGF-inhibitors. Four bibliographic databases were searched for randomised controlled trials comparing both treatment regimens directly (head-to-head studies). The last literature search was conducted in December 2014. Risk of bias assessment was performed after the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Findings: We included 3 head-to-head studies (6 reports) involving more than 2000 patients. After 2 years, the weighted mean difference in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was 1.9 (95% CI 0.5 to 3.3) ETDRS letters in favour of monthly treatment. Systemic adverse events were higher in PRN treated patients, but these differences were not statistically significant. After 2 years, the total number of intravitreal injections required by the patients in the PRN arms were 8.4 (95% CI 7.9 to 8.9) fewer than those having monthly treatment. The studies were considered to have a moderate risk of bias. Conclusions: PRN treatment resulted in minor but statistically significant decrease in mean BCVA which may not be clinically meaningful. There is a small increase in risk of systemic adverse events for PRN treated patients. Overall, the results indicate that an individualized treatment approach with anti-VEGF using visual acuity and OCT-guided re-treatment criteria may be appropriate for most patients with nAMD

Risk prediction models for mortality in community-acquired pneumonia : a systematic review

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Communication skills training for mental health professionals working with people with severe mental illness

Background: Research evidence suggests that both mental health professionals and people with severe mental health illness such as schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder find it difficult to communicate with each other effectively about symptoms, treatments and their side effects so that they reach a shared understanding about diagnosis, prognosis and treatment. Effective use of communication skills in mental health interactions could be associated with increased patient satisfaction and adherence to treatment. Objectives: To review the effectiveness of communication skills training for mental health professionals who work with people with severe mental illness. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Trials Register (latest search 17 February, 2016) which is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including AMED, BIOSIS, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register. Selection criteria: All relevant randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that focused on communication skills training (CST) for mental health professionals who work with people with severe mental illness compared with those who received standard or no training. We sought a number of primary (patient adherence to treatment and attendance at scheduled appointments as well as mental health professionals' satisfaction with the training programme) and secondary outcomes (patients' global state, service use, mental state, patient satisfaction, social functioning, quality of life). RCTs where the unit of randomisation was by cluster (e.g. healthcare facility) were also eligible for inclusion. We included one trial that met our inclusion criteria and reported useable data. Data collection and analysis: We independently selected studies, quality assessed them and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we planned to calculate standard estimates of the risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For continuous outcomes, we planned to estimate the mean difference (MD) between groups, or obtain the adjusted mean difference (aMD) where available for cluster-randomised trials. If heterogeneity had been identified, we would have explored this using a random-effects model. We used GRADE to create a 'Summary of findings' table and we assessed risk of bias for the one included study. Main results: We included one pilot cluster-RCT that recruited a total of 21 psychiatrists and 97 patients. The psychiatrists were randomised to a training programme in communication skills, compared to a no specific training (NST) programme. The trial provided useable data for only one of our prestated outcomes of interest, patient satisfaction. The trial did not report global state but did report mental state and, as global state data were not available, we included these mental state data in the 'Summary of findings' table. There was high risk of bias from attrition because of substantial losses to follow-up and incomplete outcome data. Patient satisfaction was measured as satisfaction with treatment and 'experience of therapeutic relationship' at medium term (five months). Satisfaction with treatment was similar between the CST and NST group using the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) (1 RCT, n = 66/97*, aMD 1.77 95% CI - 0.13 to 3.68, low-quality evidence). When comparing patient experience of the therapeutic relationship using the STAR-P scale, participants in the CST group rated the therapeutic relationship more positively than participants in the NST group (1 RCT, n = 63/97, aMD 0.21 95% CI 0.01 to 0.41, low-quality evidence). Mental state scores on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) were similar between treatment groups for general symptoms (1 RCT, n = 59/97, aMD 4.48 95% CI -2.10 to 11.06, low-quality evidence), positive symptoms (1 RCT, n = 59/97, aMD -0.23, 95% CI -2.91 to 2.45, low-quality evidence) and negative symptoms (1 RCT, n = 59/97, aMD 3.42, 95%C CI -0.24 to 7.09, low-quality evidence). No data were available for adherence to treatment, service use or quality of life. * Of the total of 97 randomised participants, 66 provided data. Authors' conclusions: The evidence available is from one pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial, it is not adequate enough to draw any robust conclusions. There were relatively few good quality data and the trial is too small to highlight differences in most outcome measures. Adding a CST programme appears to have a modest positive effect on patients' experiences of the therapeutic relationship. More high-quality research is needed in this area

Bariatric surgery and its impact on cardiovascular disease and mortality : A systematic review and meta-analysis

Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.Peer reviewedPostprin