Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality events in diabetes:Updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS: To evaluate the benefits and harms of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality events in people with diabetes by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials of aspirin compared with placebo (or no treatment) in people with diabetes with no history of cardiovascular disease were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and a manual search of bibliographies to November 2015. Study-specific relative risks with 95% CIs were aggregated using random effects models. RESULTS: A total of 10 randomized trials were included in the review. There was a significant reduction in risk of major adverse cardiovascular events: relative risk of 0.90 (95% CI 0.81-0.99) in groups taking aspirin compared with placebo or no treatment. Limited subgroup analyses suggested that the effect of aspirin on major adverse cardiovascular events differed by baseline cardiovascular disease risk, medication compliance and sex (P for interaction for all > 0.05).There was no significant reduction in the risk of myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease, stroke, cardiovascular mortality or all-cause mortality. Aspirin significantly reduced the risk of myocardial infarction for a treatment duration of ≤ 5 years. There were differences in the effect of aspirin by dosage and treatment duration on overall stroke outcomes (P for interaction for all < 0.05). There was an increase in risk of major or gastrointestinal bleeding events, but estimates were imprecise and not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The emerging data do not clearly support guidelines that encourage the use of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults with diabetes who are at increased cardiovascular disease risk

Systematic review of risk prediction scores for surgical site infection or periprosthetic joint infection following joint arthroplasty

Accurate identification of individuals at high risk of surgical site infections (SSIs) or periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) influences clinical decisions and development of preventive strategies. We aimed to determine progress in the development and validation of risk prediction models for SSI or PJI using a systematic review. We searched for studies that have developed or validated a risk prediction tool for SSI or PJI following joint replacement in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane databases; trial registers and reference lists of studies up to September 2016. Nine studies describing 16 risk scores for SSI or PJI were identified. The number of component variables in a risk score ranged from 4 to 45. The C-index ranged from 0·56 to 0·74, with only three risk scores reporting a discriminative ability of >0·70. Five risk scores were validated internally. The National Healthcare Safety Network SSIs risk models for hip and knee arthroplasties (HPRO and KPRO) were the only scores to be externally validated. Except for HPRO which shows some promise for use in a clinical setting (based on predictive performance and external validation), none of the identified risk scores can be considered ready for use. Further research is urgently warranted within the field

GlycA, a novel pro-inflammatory glycoprotein biomarker is associated with mortality:results from the PREVEND study and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Chronic diseases are associated with an inflammatory response. We determined the association of two inflammatory markers, GlycA and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), with overall and cause-specific mortality in a cohort of men and women.METHODS: Cox regression analyses were used to examine associations of GlycA and hsCRP with all-cause, cancer and cardiovascular mortality in 5526 subjects (PREVEND cohort; average follow-up 12.6 years).RESULTS: GlycA was associated with all-cause mortality (n = 838), independent of clinical risk factors and hsCRP (hazard ratio 1.43 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09-1.87] for top versus bottom quartiles). For hsCRP, the association with all-cause mortality was nonsignificant after adjustment for GlycA. GlycA and hsCRP were associated with cancer mortality in men (n = 248), but not in women (n = 132). Neither GlycA nor hsCRP was independently associated with cardiovascular mortality (n = 201). In a meta-analysis of seven population-based studies, including 8153 deaths, the pooled multivariable-adjusted relative risk of GlycA for all-cause mortality was 1.74 (95% CI: 1.40-2.17) for top versus bottom quartiles. The association of GlycA with all-cause mortality was somewhat stronger than that of hsCRP. GlycA and hsCRP were not independently associated with cardiovascular mortality. The associations of GlycA and hsCRP with cancer mortality were present in men, but not in women.CONCLUSIONS: GlycA is significantly associated with all-cause mortality. GlycA and hsCRP were each not independently associated with cardiovascular mortality. The association of GlycA and hsCRP with cancer mortality appears to be driven by men.</p

Re-Infection Outcomes following One- and Two-Stage Surgical Revision of Infected Hip Prosthesis:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The two-stage revision strategy has been claimed as being the "gold standard" for treating prosthetic joint infection. The one-stage revision strategy remains an attractive alternative option; however, its effectiveness in comparison to the two-stage strategy remains uncertain.To compare the effectiveness of one- and two-stage revision strategies in treating prosthetic hip infection, using re-infection as an outcome.Systematic review and meta-analysis.MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, manual search of bibliographies to March 2015, and email contact with investigators.Cohort studies (prospective or retrospective) conducted in generally unselected patients with prosthetic hip infection treated exclusively by one- or two-stage revision and with re-infection outcomes reported within two years of revision. No clinical trials were identified.Data were extracted by two independent investigators and a consensus was reached with involvement of a third. Rates of re-infection from 38 one-stage studies (2,536 participants) and 60 two-stage studies (3,288 participants) were aggregated using random-effect models after arcsine transformation, and were grouped by study and population level characteristics.In one-stage studies, the rate (95% confidence intervals) of re-infection was 8.2% (6.0-10.8). The corresponding re-infection rate after two-stage revision was 7.9% (6.2-9.7). Re-infection rates remained generally similar when grouped by several study and population level characteristics. There was no strong evidence of publication bias among contributing studies.Evidence from aggregate published data suggest similar re-infection rates after one- or two-stage revision among unselected patients. More detailed analyses under a broader range of circumstances and exploration of other sources of heterogeneity will require collaborative pooling of individual participant data.PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015016559

Clinical and cost effectiveness of single stage compared with two stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection (INFORM):pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether patient reported outcomes improve after single stage versus two stage revision surgery for prosthetic joint infection of the hip, and to determine the cost effectiveness of these procedures. DESIGN: Pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: High volume tertiary referral centres or orthopaedic units in the UK (n=12) and in Sweden (n=3), recruiting from 1 March 2015 to 19 December 2018. PARTICIPANTS: 140 adults (aged ≥18 years) with a prosthetic joint infection of the hip who required revision (65 randomly assigned to single stage and 75 to two stage revision). INTERVENTIONS: A computer generated 1:1 randomisation list stratified by hospital was used to allocate participants with prosthetic joint infection of the hip to a single stage or a two stage revision procedure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary intention-to-treat outcome was pain, stiffness, and functional limitations 18 months after randomisation, measured by the Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score. Secondary outcomes included surgical complications and joint infection. The economic evaluation (only assessed in UK participants) compared quality adjusted life years and costs between the randomised groups. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 71 years (standard deviation 9) and 51 (36%) were women. WOMAC scores did not differ between groups at 18 months (mean difference 0.13 (95% confidence interval -8.20 to 8.46), P=0.98); however, the single stage procedure was better at three months (11.53 (3.89 to 19.17), P=0.003), but not from six months onwards. Intraoperative events occurred in five (8%) participants in the single stage group and 20 (27%) in the two stage group (P=0.01). At 18 months, nine (14%) participants in the single stage group and eight (11%) in the two stage group had at least one marker of possible ongoing infection (P=0.62). From the perspective of healthcare providers and personal social services, single stage revision was cost effective with an incremental net monetary benefit of £11 167 (95% confidence interval £638 to £21 696) at a £20 000 per quality adjusted life years threshold (£1.0; $1.1; €1.4). CONCLUSIONS: At 18 months, single stage revision compared with two stage revision for prosthetic joint infection of the hip showed no superiority by patient reported outcome. Single stage revision had a better outcome at three months, fewer intraoperative complications, and was cost effective. Patients prefer early restoration of function, therefore, when deciding treatment, surgeons should consider patient preferences and the cost effectiveness of single stage surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN10956306.RD&E staff can access the full-text of this article by clicking on the 'Additional Link' above and logging in with NHS OpenAthens if prompted.Unknow