BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Currently, there is uncertainty as to whether blood pressure control in patients with type 2 diabetes should be treated to standard recommended levels or more intensively.
METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched between January 1, 2000 and April 20th, 2023. Outcomes considered were all-cause mortality, stroke, heart failure, cardiovascular disease, albuminuria, coronary heart disease, and renal outcomes. Random-effects meta-analyses estimated pooled relative risks and mean differences.
RESULTS: Nine trials enrolling 11,005 participants with type 2 diabetes were included. The pooled mean difference between the intensive and standard treatment groups at follow-up were -7.98 mmHg (95% CI: 12.19 to -3.76) in systolic blood pressure, and -5.08 mmHg (-7.00 to -3.17) in diastolic blood pressure; although between study heterogeneity was high for both meta-analyses (I2>85%). Intensive blood pressure lowering resulted in a reduction in risk of stroke (risk ratio 0.64; 0.52 to 0.79), and macro-albuminuria (0.77; 0.63 to 0.93). More intensive blood pressure control did not result in a statistically significant reduction in risk of all-cause mortality, heart failure, cardiovascular death, cardiovascular events, renal outcomes, and micro-albuminuria; although the direction of estimated effect was beneficial for all outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of intensive compared with standard blood pressure targets resulted in a significant reduction in blood pressure, stroke, and macro-albuminuria in patients with type 2 diabetes. The post-treatment blood pressure level in the intensive group was 125/73 mmHg, suggesting the current recommendations of 130/80 mmHg blood pressure or lower if tolerated, could be reduced further.
BACKGROUND: Previous meta-analyses using traditional pairwise comparisons did not support intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) control in patients with diabetes and included trials published before 2015. We aimed to identify the optimal SBP control targets in patients with type 2 diabetes using a systematic review and network meta-analysis of accumulating evidence.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to August 29, 2022 for randomized controlled trials comparing different blood pressure targets, antihypertensive agents against placebo, or dual antihypertensive agents against single agent in patients with type 2 diabetes. Network meta-analysis was used to obtain pooled results of direct and indirect comparisons of each 5 mm Hg SBP category in association with clinical outcomes adjusted for baseline risk and intervention duration (PROSPERO [International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews], CRD 42022316697).
RESULTS: We identified 30 trials including 59 934 patients with type 2 diabetes. The mean achieved SBP levels ranged from 117 mm Hg to 144 mm Hg among treatment groups. A total of 7799 major cardiovascular diseases events and 4130 deaths were reported. The lowest risk of major cardiovascular diseases was found in patients with achieved SBP level of 120 to 124 mm Hg. The hazard ratio and 95% CI were 0.73 (0.52-1.02) compared with 130 to 134 mm Hg, 0.60 (0.41-0.85) compared with 140 to 144 mm Hg, and 0.41 (0.26-0.63) compared with ≥150 mm Hg. Similar results were found for cardiovascular diseases components including stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and cardiovascular mortality. All-cause mortality was reduced at an achieved SBP <140 mm Hg but further reduction did not show additional benefits.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support an intensive blood pressure-lowering strategy to prevent major cardiovascular diseases in patients with type 2 diabetes.
BACKGROUND: East Asians have shown different risk profiles for both thrombophilia and bleeding than Western counterparts.
OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate the effect of low-dose aspirin for primary prevention between these populations.
METHODS: We searched randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for intervention with low-dose aspirin (≤100 mg once daily) in participants without symptomatic cardiovascular disease until December 31, 2021. The number of events between the arms was extracted for analysis. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) were analyzed in each population. Outcomes included a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and major bleeding (intracranial hemorrhage and major gastrointestinal bleeding).
RESULTS: Two RCTs included 17,003 East Asians, and 9 RCTs had 117,467 Western participants. Aspirin treatment showed a similar effect in reducing the MACE rate (RR of East Asians: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.71-1.05; RR of Westerners: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.85-0.95) (Pinteraction = 0.721). In contrast, the risk of major bleeding during aspirin vs control was greater in the East Asian population (RR: 2.48; 95% CI: 1.86-3.30) compared with the Western population (RR: 1.45; 95% CI: 1.26-1.66) (Pinteraction = 0.001), which was driven by more frequent gastrointestinal bleeding (RR of East Asians: 3.29; 95% CI: 2.26-4.80 vs RR of Westerners: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.29-1.88) (Pinteraction < 0.001). The net RDs (RD of MACE plus RD of major bleeding) were 8.04 and 0.72 per 1,000 persons in East Asian and Western participants, indicating 124 and 1,389 of the net number needed to harm, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose aspirin for primary prevention in East Asians must be cautiously prescribed because of the increased risk of major bleeding relative to Western counterparts.
IMPORTANCE: Low-dose aspirin is used for primary cardiovascular disease prevention and may have benefits for colorectal cancer prevention.
OBJECTIVE: To review the benefits and harms of aspirin in primary cardiovascular disease prevention and colorectal cancer prevention to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.
DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through January 2021; literature surveillance through January 21, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION: English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of low-dose aspirin (≤100 mg/d) compared with placebo or no intervention in primary prevention populations.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Single extraction, verified by a second reviewer. Quantitative synthesis using Peto fixed-effects meta-analysis.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Cardiovascular disease events and mortality, all-cause mortality, colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, major bleeding, and hemorrhagic stroke.
RESULTS: Eleven RCTs (N = 134 470) and 1 pilot trial (N = 400) of low-dose aspirin for primary cardiovascular disease prevention were included. Low-dose aspirin was associated with a significant decrease in major cardiovascular disease events (odds ratio [OR], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.85-0.95]; 11 RCTs [n = 134 470]; I2 = 0%; range in absolute effects, -2.5% to 0.1%). Results for individual cardiovascular disease outcomes were significant, with similar magnitude of benefit. Aspirin was not significantly associated with reductions in cardiovascular disease mortality or all-cause mortality. There was limited trial evidence on benefits for colorectal cancer, with the findings highly variable by length of follow-up and statistically significant only when considering long-term observational follow-up beyond randomized trial periods. Low-dose aspirin was associated with significant increases in total major bleeding (OR, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.32-1.57]; 10 RCTs [n = 133 194]; I2 = 4.7%; range in absolute effects, 0.1% to 1.0%) and in site-specific bleeding, with similar magnitude.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Low-dose aspirin was associated with small absolute risk reductions in major cardiovascular disease events and small absolute increases in major bleeding. Colorectal cancer results were less robust and highly variable.
BACKGROUND: The main complications of elevated systemic blood pressure (BP), coronary heart disease, ischaemic stroke, and peripheral vascular disease, are related to thrombosis rather than haemorrhage. Therefore, it is important to investigate if antithrombotic therapy may be useful in preventing thrombosis-related complications in patients with elevated BP.
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of the role of antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulation in patients with elevated BP, including elevations in systolic or diastolic BP alone or together. To assess the effects of antiplatelet agents on total deaths or major thrombotic events or both in these patients versus placebo or other active treatment. To assess the effects of oral anticoagulants on total deaths or major thromboembolic events or both in these patients versus placebo or other active treatment.
SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up to January 2021: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 12), Ovid MEDLINE (from 1946), and Ovid Embase (from 1974). The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs in patients with elevated BP were included if they were ≥ 3 months in duration and compared antithrombotic therapy with control or other active treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data for inclusion criteria, our prespecified outcomes, and sources of bias. They assessed the risks and benefits of antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants by calculating odds ratios (OR), accompanied by the 95% confidence intervals (CI). They assessed risks of bias and applied GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials (61,015 patients) met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Four trials were primary prevention (41,695 patients; HOT, JPAD, JPPP, and TPT), and two secondary prevention (19,320 patients, CAPRIE and Huynh). Four trials (HOT, JPAD, JPPP, and TPT) were placebo-controlled and two studies (CAPRIE and Huynh) included active comparators. Four studies compared acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) versus placebo and found no evidence of a difference for all-cause mortality (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.08; 3 studies, 35,794 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference for cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.17; 3 studies, 35,794 participants; low-certainty evidence). ASA reduced the risk of all non-fatal cardiovascular events (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.87; 1 study (missing data in 3 studies), 2540 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of all cardiovascular events (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.96; 3 studies, 35,794 participants; low-certainty evidence). ASA increased the risk of major bleeding events (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.32; 2 studies, 21,330 participants; high-certainty evidence). One study (CAPRIE; ASA versus clopidogrel) included patients diagnosed with hypertension (mean age 62.5 years, 72% males, 95% Caucasians, mean follow-up: 1.91 years). It showed no evidence of a difference for all-cause mortality (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.15; 1 study, 19,143 participants; high-certainty evidence) and for cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.26; 1 study, 19,143 participants; high-certainty evidence). ASA probably reduced the risk of non-fatal cardiovascular events (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.22; 1 study, 19,143 participants; high-certainty evidence) and the risk of all cardiovascular events (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.17; 1 study, 19,143 participants; high-certainty evidence) when compared to clopidogrel. Clopidogrel increased the risk of major bleeding events when compared to ASA (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.61; 1 study, 19,143 participants; high-certainty evidence). In one study (Huynh; ASA verus warfarin) patients with unstable angina or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, with prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) were included (mean age 68 years, 79.8% males, mean follow-up: 1.1 year). There was no evidence of a difference for all-cause mortality (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 16.12; 1 study, 91 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal cardiovascular events, and all cardiovascular events were not available. There was no evidence of a difference for major bleeding events (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.60; 1 study, 91 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that antiplatelet therapy modifies mortality in patients with elevated BP for primary prevention. ASA reduced the risk of cardiovascular events and increased the risk of major bleeding events. Antiplatelet therapy with ASA probably reduces the risk of non-fatal and all cardiovascular events when compared to clopidogrel. Clopidogrel increases the risk of major bleeding events compared to ASA in patients with elevated BP for secondary prevention. There is no evidence that warfarin modifies mortality in patients with elevated BP for secondary prevention. The benefits and harms of the newer drugs glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor, and non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for patients with high BP have not been studied in clinical trials. Further RCTs of antithrombotic therapy including newer agents and complete documentation of all benefits and harms are required in patients with elevated BP.
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death and colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of death in the United States.
PURPOSE: To systematically review evidence for the effectiveness of aspirin to prevent myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality in those without a history of CVD. In addition, to review evidence for CRC incidence and mortality associated with aspirin use in primary and secondary CVD populations. To further review harms associated with aspirin use.
DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Collaboration Registry of Controlled Trials to identify literature that was published between January 2014 and January 14, 2021. We supplemented our searches with reference lists from the previous review, relevant existing systematic reviews, suggestions from experts, and Clinicaltrials.gov to identify ongoing trials. We conducted ongoing surveillance for relevant literature through January 21, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION: Two investigators independently reviewed identified abstracts and full text articles against a set of a priori inclusion and quality criteria.
DATA ANALYSIS: One investigator abstracted data into an evidence table and a second investigator checked these data. We conducted Peto fixed effects meta-analyses to estimate the effect size of aspirin in preventing MI, stroke, CVD-related death and all-cause mortality, CRC incidence and mortality, major bleeding, major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, intracranial bleeding, hemorrhagic stroke, and extracranial bleeding. Additionally, we conducted sensitivity analyses using Mantel-Haenszel fixed effects and Restricted Maximum Likelihood random effects.
RESULTS: We included 13 fair- to good-quality randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) (N=161,680) examining the effectiveness of aspirin for the primary prevention of CVD. Based on pooled analysis of 11 primary CVD prevention trials using aspirin ≤100 mg/day, low-dose aspirin reduces the risk of major CVD events (total MI, total stroke, CVD mortality) by 10 percent (k=11, N=134,470; Peto odds ratio [OR], 0.90 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.85 to 0.95]), MI by 11 percent (k=11, N=134,470; Peto OR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.82 to 0.96]), and ischemic stroke by 18 percent (k=5, N=79,334; Peto OR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.72 to 0.92]) with no differences in CVD mortality (k=11, N=134,470; Peto OR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05]) or all-cause mortality (k=11, N=134,470; Peto OR 0.98 [95% CI, 0.93 to 1.03]). Absolute risk reductions in major CVD events in the trials ranged from 0.08 to 2.5 percent. Aspirin’s benefits were similar when trials of all doses were pooled. Sensitivity analyses restricted to more recent trials where usual care includes aggressive risk factor modification including statin therapy show diminished effects of aspirin for major CVD events and total MI but larger effects for total ischemic stroke compared to older trials. A small subset of the trials reporting CVD outcomes also reported CRC outcomes. Based on 4 low-dose aspirin trials (N=86,137) recruiting primary CVD prevention populations, there was no statistically significant association between aspirin and CRC incidence when analyzing randomized trial periods (Peto OR 1.07 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.24]; trial period 5-10 years). Analysis including post-trial observation periods up to 20 years and including trials with high-dose aspirin up to 500 mg/day (k=2; N=45,015) in primary prevention populations show statistically significant reductions in CRC incidence (0.70 [95% CI, 0.50 to 0.98] and 0.82 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.98]). Two low-dose aspirin RCTs (N=59,020) in primary CVD prevention populations report CRC mortality during the trial period (5-10 years) showing results concerning for possible harm with one trial demonstrating a statistically significant increase in CRC mortality in older adults. At 18 years of followup, including post-trial observational periods, three primary CVD prevention trials with mean daily aspirin doses ranging from 75 to 500 mg showed aspirin was associated with a decreased risk of CRC mortality (Peto OR 0.76 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.94]). Low-dose aspirin is associated with a 31 percent increase in intracranial bleeding events (k=11; N=134,470; Peto OR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.11 to 1.54]), and 53 percent increase in extracranial bleeding events (k=10; N=133,194; Peto OR 1.53 [95% CI, 1.39 to 1.70]). The absolute increases ranged from −0.2 to 0.4 percent for intracranial bleeding events and 0.2 to 0.9 percent for extracranial bleeding events. There is no compelling evidence to suggest that aspirin has a different relative CVD benefit or bleeding risk in specific populations defined by age, sex, race and ethnicity, diabetes status, or baseline 10-year CVD risk. Aspirin’s CVD benefits appear to begin within the first 1-2 years of administration and the bleeding harms begin soon after aspirin initiation; there are limited data for more precise time increments or longer durations.
LIMITATIONS: Primary CVD prevention trials used different aspirin doses in heterogeneous populations with relatively short study followup, with duration mostly ranging from 4-6 years. Trials reporting CRC incidence and mortality outcomes are limited by short trial duration and multiple comparisons; observational followup of trials are limited by heterogeneity of aspirin doses, duration, indications, and populations with risk of biases and confounding. Estimates of rare bleeding harms are imprecise.
CONCLUSIONS: In primary prevention populations, low-dose aspirin reduces major CVD events, MI and ischemic stroke, but also increases major GI bleeding, extracranial bleeding, and intracranial bleeding. Our evidence suggests aspirin is associated with a possible long-term reduction in CRC incidence and mortality based on post-trial period observation, but the results are limited for low-dose aspirin among primary CVD prevention populations. More precise real-world U.S.-based estimates for bleeding events in the general population and specific populations with elevated CVD risk are necessary to accurately estimate the net benefit. Depending on CVD risk, this absolute CVD benefit in specific populations could potentially outweigh the bleeding risks. Models to identify these populations are needed.
BACKGROUND: This is the third update of the review first published in 2017. Hypertension is a prominent preventable cause of premature morbidity and mortality. People with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease are at particularly high risk, so reducing blood pressure to below standard targets may be beneficial. This strategy could reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity but could also increase adverse events. The optimal blood pressure target in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease remains unknown.
OBJECTIVES: To determine if lower blood pressure targets (systolic/diastolic 135/85 mmHg or less) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity compared with standard blood pressure targets (140 mmHg to 160mmHg/90 mmHg to 100 mmHg or less) in the treatment of people with hypertension and a history of cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, peripheral vascular occlusive disease).
SEARCH METHODS: For this updated review, we used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was January 2022. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with more than 50 participants per group that provided at least six months' follow-up. Trial reports had to present data for at least one primary outcome (total mortality, serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality). Eligible interventions involved lower targets for systolic/diastolic blood pressure (135/85 mmHg or less) compared with standard targets for blood pressure (140 mmHg to 160 mmHg/90 mmHg to 100 mmHg or less). Participants were adults with documented hypertension and adults receiving treatment for hypertension with a cardiovascular history for myocardial infarction, stroke, chronic peripheral vascular occlusive disease, or angina pectoris.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTs that involved 9595 participants. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (range 1.0 to 4.7 years). Six of seven RCTs provided individual participant data. None of the included studies was blinded to participants or clinicians because of the need to titrate antihypertensive drugs to reach a specific blood pressure goal. However, an independent committee blinded to group allocation assessed clinical events in all trials. Hence, we assessed all trials at high risk of performance bias and low risk of detection bias. We also considered other issues, such as early termination of studies and subgroups of participants not predefined, to downgrade the certainty of the evidence. We found there is probably little to no difference in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.23; 7 studies, 9595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.29; 6 studies, 9484 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Similarly, we found there may be little to no differences in serious adverse events (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; 7 studies, 9595 participants; low-certainty evidence) or total cardiovascular events (including myocardial infarction, stroke, sudden death, hospitalization, or death from congestive heart failure (CHF)) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; 7 studies, 9595 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about withdrawals due to adverse effects. However, studies suggest more participants may withdraw due to adverse effects in the lower target group (RR 8.16, 95% CI 2.06 to 32.28; 3 studies, 801 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings were lower in the lower target group (systolic: mean difference (MD) -8.77 mmHg, 95% CI -12.82 to -4.73; 7 studies, 8657 participants; diastolic: MD -4.50 mmHg, 95% CI -6.35 to -2.65; 6 studies, 8546 participants). More drugs were needed in the lower target group (MD 0.56, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.96; 5 studies, 7910 participants), but blood pressure targets at one year were achieved more frequently in the standard target group (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.23; 7 studies, 8699 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found there is probably little to no difference in total mortality and cardiovascular mortality between people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease treated to a lower compared to a standard blood pressure target. There may also be little to no difference in serious adverse events or total cardiovascular events. This suggests that no net health benefit is derived from a lower systolic blood pressure target. We found very limited evidence on withdrawals due to adverse effects, which led to high uncertainty. At present, evidence is insufficient to justify lower blood pressure targets (135/85 mmHg or less) in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease. Several trials are still ongoing, which may provide an important input to this topic in the near future.
BACKGROUND: Antiplatelet agents are widely used to prevent cardiovascular events. The risks and benefits of antiplatelet agents may be different in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) for whom occlusive atherosclerotic events are less prevalent, and bleeding hazards might be increased. This is an update of a review first published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of antiplatelet agents in people with any form of CKD, including those with CKD not receiving renal replacement therapy, patients receiving any form of dialysis, and kidney transplant recipients.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 13 July 2021 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials of any antiplatelet agents versus placebo or no treatment, or direct head-to-head antiplatelet agent studies in people with CKD. Studies were included if they enrolled participants with CKD, or included people in broader at-risk populations in which data for subgroups with CKD could be disaggregated.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four authors independently extracted data from primary study reports and any available supplementary information for study population, interventions, outcomes, and risks of bias. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated from numbers of events and numbers of participants at risk which were extracted from each included study. The reported RRs were extracted where crude event rates were not provided. Data were pooled using the random-effects model. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 113 studies, enrolling 51,959 participants; 90 studies (40,597 CKD participants) compared an antiplatelet agent with placebo or no treatment, and 29 studies (11,805 CKD participants) directly compared one antiplatelet agent with another. Fifty-six new studies were added to this 2021 update. Seven studies originally excluded from the 2013 review were included, although they had a follow-up lower than two months. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were at low risk of bias in 16 and 22 studies, respectively. Sixty-four studies reported low-risk methods for blinding of participants and investigators; outcome assessment was blinded in 41 studies. Forty-one studies were at low risk of attrition bias, 50 studies were at low risk of selective reporting bias, and 57 studies were at low risk of other potential sources of bias. Compared to placebo or no treatment, antiplatelet agents probably reduces myocardial infarction (18 studies, 15,289 participants: RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99, I² = 0%; moderate certainty). Antiplatelet agents has uncertain effects on fatal or nonfatal stroke (12 studies, 10.382 participants: RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.59, I² = 37%; very low certainty) and may have little or no effect on death from any cause (35 studies, 18,241 participants: RR 0.94, 95 % CI 0.84 to 1.06, I² = 14%; low certainty). Antiplatelet therapy probably increases major bleeding in people with CKD and those treated with haemodialysis (HD) (29 studies, 16,194 participants: RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.65, I² = 12%; moderate certainty). In addition, antiplatelet therapy may increase minor bleeding in people with CKD and those treated with HD (21 studies, 13,218 participants: RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.90, I² = 58%; low certainty). Antiplatelet treatment may reduce early dialysis vascular access thrombosis (8 studies, 1525 participants) RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.70; low certainty). Antiplatelet agents may reduce doubling of serum creatinine in CKD (3 studies, 217 participants: RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.86, I² = 8%; low certainty). The treatment effects of antiplatelet agents on stroke, cardiovascular death, kidney failure, kidney transplant graft loss, transplant rejection, creatinine clearance, proteinuria, dialysis access failure, loss of primary unassisted patency, failure to attain suitability for dialysis, need of intervention and cardiovascular hospitalisation were uncertain. Limited data were available for direct head-to-head comparisons of antiplatelet drugs, including prasugrel, ticagrelor, different doses of clopidogrel, abciximab, defibrotide, sarpogrelate and beraprost.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antiplatelet agents probably reduced myocardial infarction and increased major bleeding, but do not appear to reduce all-cause and cardiovascular death among people with CKD and those treated with dialysis. The treatment effects of antiplatelet agents compared with each other are uncertain.
Background: Whether aspirin use can decrease or increase cancer risk remains controversial. In this study, a meta-analysis of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted to evaluate the effect of aspirin use on common cancer risk. Method: Medline and Embase databases were searched to identify relevant studies. Meta-analyses of cohort studies and RCTs were performed to assess the effect of aspirin use on the risk of colorectal, gastric, breast, prostate and lung cancer. Cochran Q test and the I square metric were calculated to detect potential heterogeneity among studies. Subgroup meta-analyses according to exposure categories (frequency and duration) and timing of aspirin use (whether aspirin was used before and after cancer diagnosis) were also performed. A dose-response analysis was carried out to evaluate and quantify the association between aspirin dose and cancer risk. Results: A total of 88 cohort studies and seven RCTs were included in the final analysis. Meta-analyses of cohort studies revealed that regular aspirin use reduced the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) (RR=0.85, 95%CI: 0.78-0.92), gastric cancer (RR=0.67, 95%CI: 0.52-0.87), breast cancer (RR=0.93, 95%CI: 0.87-0.99) and prostate cancer (RR=0.92, 95%CI: 0.86-0.98), but showed no association with lung cancer risk. Additionally, meta-analyses of RCTs showed that aspirin use had a protective effect on CRC risk (OR=0.74, 95%CI: 0.56-0.97). When combining evidence from meta-analyses of cohorts and RCTs, consistent evidence was found for the protective effect of aspirin use on CRC risk. Subgroup analysis showed that high frequency aspirin use was associated with increased lung cancer risk (RR=1.05, 95%CI: 1.01-1.09). Dose-response analysis revealed that high-dose aspirin use may increase prostate cancer risk. Conclusions: This study provides evidence for low-dose aspirin use for the prevention of CRC, but not other common cancers. High frequency or high dose use of aspirin should be prescribed with caution because of their associations with increased lung and prostate cancer risk, respectively. Further studies are warranted to validate these findings and to find the minimum effective dose required for cancer prevention.
BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common diagnosed cancer and the third leading cause of all cancer deaths in the USA. Some evidences are shown that aspirin can reduce the morbidity and mortality of different cancers, including CRC. Aspirin has become a new focus of cancer prevention and treatment research so far; clinical studies, however, found conflicting conclusions of its anti-cancer characteristics. This study is to summarize the latest evidence of correlation between aspirin use and CRC and/or colorectal adenomas.
METHODS: Databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the salvage setting. The pooled relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to estimate the effect of aspirin on colorectal cancer and/or colorectal adenomas. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were also conducted.
RESULTS: The result showed that aspirin use was not associated with incidence of CRC (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.84-1.12; P = 0.66; I2 = 34%), aspirin use was found to be associated with reduced recurrence of colorectal adenomas (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.72-0.95; P = 0.006; I2 = 63%) and reduced mortality of CRC (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.64-0.97; P = 0.02; I2 = 14%). Subgroup analysis found a statistically significant association in low dose with a pooled RR of 0.85 (95% CI 0.74-0.99; P = 0.03; I2 = 31%).
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial data indicates that aspirin reduces the overall risk of recurrence and mortality of CRC and/or colorectal adenomas. Incidence of CRC was also reduced with low-dose aspirin. The emerging evidence on aspirin's cancer protection role highlights an exciting time for cancer prevention through low-cost interventions.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov no: CRD42020208852; August 18, 2020; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020208852 ).
Currently, there is uncertainty as to whether blood pressure control in patients with type 2 diabetes should be treated to standard recommended levels or more intensively.
METHODS:
Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched between January 1, 2000 and April 20th, 2023. Outcomes considered were all-cause mortality, stroke, heart failure, cardiovascular disease, albuminuria, coronary heart disease, and renal outcomes. Random-effects meta-analyses estimated pooled relative risks and mean differences.
RESULTS:
Nine trials enrolling 11,005 participants with type 2 diabetes were included. The pooled mean difference between the intensive and standard treatment groups at follow-up were -7.98 mmHg (95% CI.: 12.19 to -3.76) in systolic blood pressure, and -5.08 mmHg (-7.00 to -3.17) in diastolic blood pressure; although between study heterogeneity was high for both meta-analyses (I2>85%). Intensive blood pressure lowering resulted in a reduction in risk of stroke (risk ratio 0.64; 0.52 to 0.79), and macro-albuminuria (0.77; 0.63 to 0.93). More intensive blood pressure control did not result in a statistically significant reduction in risk of all-cause mortality, heart failure, cardiovascular death, cardiovascular events, renal outcomes, and micro-albuminuria; although the direction of estimated effect was beneficial for all outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS:
The use of intensive compared with standard blood pressure targets resulted in a significant reduction in blood pressure, stroke, and macro-albuminuria in patients with type 2 diabetes. The post-treatment blood pressure level in the intensive group was 125/73 mmHg, suggesting the current recommendations of 130/80 mmHg blood pressure or lower if tolerated, could be reduced further.
Pregunta de la revisión sistemática»Revisión sistemática de intervenciones
