Although there is broad consensus about the benefits of proton pump inhibitors in acute upper peptic bleeding, there is still controversy over their optimal dosing. Searching in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening 30 databases, we identified six systematic reviews including 27 randomized trials addressing this question. We combined the evidence using meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table following the GRADE approach. We concluded high-dose proton pump inhibitors probably result in little or no difference in re-bleeding rate or mortality. The risk/benefit and cost/benefit balance probably favor use of low-doses.
Broad synthesis/ Overview of systematic reviews/ Systematic review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Apparently conflicting meta-analysis results have led to renewed debate about the role of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. We review the results of meta-analyses comparing aspirin with placebo or no aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and critically evaluate whether aspirin provides a net benefit.
RECENT FINDINGS: The results of four independently conducted meta-analyses between 2009 and 2012 involving between 95 000 and 102 621 individuals at low risk of cardiovascular disease are consistent with the results of the 2002 Antithrombotic Trialists' Collaboration meta-analysis, which found that aspirin reduces cardiovascular events primarily by reducing nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI). There is no convincing evidence that aspirin reduces cardiovascular mortality, but estimates from all of the meta-analyses suggest a modest reduction in all-cause mortality. Aspirin reduces ischaemic stroke but increases haemorrhagic stroke and major bleeding.
SUMMARY: The meta-analysis results consistently indicate that, in individuals at low risk for cardiovascular disease, aspirin reduces the risk of MI at the cost of an increase in major bleeding and produces a modest nominally significant reduction in total mortality. These results suggest that recommendations for primary prevention with aspirin should be individualized, taking into account the balance between benefits and risks and individual values and preferences.
BACKGROUND: The use of anticoagulant therapy during pregnancy is challenging because of the potential for both fetal and maternal complications. This guideline focuses on the management of VTE and thrombophilia as well as the use of antithrombotic agents during pregnancy.
METHODS: The methods of this guideline follow the Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines in this supplement.
RESULTS: We recommend low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention and treatment of VTE in pregnant women instead of unfractionated heparin (Grade 1B). For pregnant women with acute VTE, we suggest that anticoagulants be continued for at least 6 weeks postpartum (for a minimum duration of therapy of 3 months) compared with shorter durations of treatment (Grade 2C). For women who fulfill the laboratory criteria for antiphospholipid antibody (APLA) syndrome and meet the clinical APLA criteria based on a history of three or more pregnancy losses, we recommend antepartum administration of prophylactic or intermediate-dose unfractionated heparin or prophylactic low-molecular-weight heparin combined with low-dose aspirin (75-100 mg/d) over no treatment (Grade 1B). For women with inherited thrombophilia and a history of pregnancy complications, we suggest not to use antithrombotic prophylaxis (Grade 2C). For women with two or more miscarriages but without APLA or thrombophilia, we recommend against antithrombotic prophylaxis (Grade 1B).
CONCLUSIONS: Most recommendations in this guideline are based on observational studies and extrapolation from other populations. There is an urgent need for appropriately designed studies in this population.
BACKGROUND: This guideline focuses on long-term administration of antithrombotic drugs designed for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, including two new antiplatelet therapies.
METHODS: The methods of this guideline follow those described in Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines in this supplement.
RESULTS: We present 23 recommendations for pertinent clinical questions. For primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, we suggest low-dose aspirin (75-100 mg/d) in patients aged > 50 years over no aspirin therapy (Grade 2B). For patients with established coronary artery disease, defined as patients 1-year post-acute coronary syndrome, with prior revascularization, coronary stenoses > 50% by coronary angiogram, and/or evidence for cardiac ischemia on diagnostic testing, we recommend long-term low-dose aspirin or clopidogrel (75 mg/d) (Grade 1A). For patients with acute coronary syndromes who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent placement, we recommend for the first year dual antiplatelet therapy with low-dose aspirin in combination with ticagrelor 90 mg bid, clopidogrel 75 mg/d, or prasugrel 10 mg/d over single antiplatelet therapy (Grade 1B). For patients undergoing elective PCI with stent placement, we recommend aspirin (75-325 mg/d) and clopidogrel for a minimum duration of 1 month (bare-metal stents) or 3 to 6 months (drug-eluting stents) (Grade 1A). We suggest continuing low-dose aspirin plus clopidogrel for 12 months for all stents (Grade 2C). Thereafter, we recommend single antiplatelet therapy over continuation of dual antiplatelet therapy (Grade 1B).
CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations continue to favor single antiplatelet therapy for patients with established coronary artery disease. For patients with acute coronary syndromes or undergoing elective PCI with stent placement, dual antiplatelet therapy for up to 1 year is warranted.
OBJECTIVES: To update a previous report on the comparative benefits and harms of oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, over-the-counter supplements (chondroitin and glucosamine), and topical agents (NSAIDs and rubefacients, including capsaicin) for osteoarthritis.
DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE (1996–January 2011), the Cochrane Database (through fourth quarter 2010), and reference lists.
REVIEW METHODS: We included randomized trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and systematic reviews that met predefined inclusion criteria. For each study, investigators abstracted details about the study population, study design, data analysis, followup, and results, and they assessed quality using predefined criteria. We assessed the overall strength of each body of evidence using predefined criteria, which included the type and number of studies; risk of bias; consistency; and precision of estimates. Meta-analyses were not performed, though pooled estimates from previously published studies were reported.
RESULTS: A total of 273 studies were included. Overall, we found no clear differences in efficacy for pain relief associated with different NSAIDs. Celecoxib was associated with a lower risk of ulcer complications (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.76) compared to nonselective NSAIDs. Coprescribing of proton pump inhibitors, misoprostol, and H2-antagonists reduce the risk of endoscopically detected gastroduodenal ulcers compared to placebo in persons prescribed NSAIDs. Celecoxib and most nonselective, nonaspirin NSAIDs appeared to be associated with an increased risk of serious cardiovascular (CV) harms. There was no clear association between longer duration of NSAID use or higher doses and increased risk of serious CV harms. There were no clear differences between glucosamine or chondroitin and oral NSAIDs for pain or function, though evidence from a systematic review of higher-quality trials suggests that glucosamine had some very small benefits over placebo for pain. Head-to-head trials showed no difference between topical and oral NSAIDs for efficacy in patients with localized osteoarthritis, lower risk of gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events, and higher risk of dermatological adverse events, but serious GI and CV harms were not evaluated. No head-to-head trials compared topical salicylates or capsaicin to oral NSAIDs.
CONCLUSIONS: Each of the analgesics evaluated in this report was associated with a unique set of risks and benefits. Choosing the optimal analgesic for an individual with osteoarthritis requires careful consideration and thorough discussion of the relevant tradeoffs.
Although there is broad consensus about the benefits of proton pump inhibitors in acute upper peptic bleeding, there is still controversy over their optimal dosing. Searching in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening 30 databases, we identified six systematic reviews including 27 randomized trials addressing this question. We combined the evidence using meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table following the GRADE approach. We concluded high-dose proton pump inhibitors probably result in little or no difference in re-bleeding rate or mortality. The risk/benefit and cost/benefit balance probably favor use of low-doses.
