Search

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, development of end-stage renal disease, and all-cause mortality. It affects around 10% of the population worldwide. The prevalence of hypertension in people with CKD ranges from 22% in stage 1 to 80% in stage 4. Elevated arterial blood pressure is one of the major independent risk factors for adverse cardiovascular events. Thereby, reducing blood pressure to below standard targets may be beneficial but could also increase the risk of adverse events. The optimal blood pressure target in people with hypertension and CKD remains unknown., Objectives: Primary: to compare the effects of standard and lower-than-standard blood pressure targets for hypertension in people with chronic kidney disease on mortality and morbidity outcomes. Secondary: to assess the magnitude of reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, the proportion of participants reaching blood pressure targets, and the number of drugs necessary to achieve the assigned target., Search Methods: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, one other database, and two trial registers up to 8 February 2023. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. We applied no language restrictions., Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in people with hypertension and CKD that provided at least twelve months' follow-up. Eligible interventions compared lower targets for systolic/diastolic blood pressure (130/80 mmHg or lower) to standard targets for blood pressure (140 to 160/90 to 100 mmHg or lower). Participants were adults with CKD and elevated blood pressure documented in a standard way on at least two occasions, or already receiving treatment for elevated blood pressure., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our critical outcomes were: total mortality, total serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, and progression to end-stage renal disease. Important outcomes were: participant withdrawals due to adverse effects, and number of participants with a doubling of serum creatinine level or at least a 50% reduction in the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) at the end of the study. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for the critical outcomes. This review received no funding., Main Results: We included six RCTs that contributed data for meta-analysis, involving 7348 participants overall (range 840 to 4733 people per study). The mean follow-up was 3.6 years (range 1.0 to 8.0 years). Three studies were publicly funded, two were privately funded, and one had both public and private funding. All RCTs provided individual participant data. None of the included studies blinded participants or clinicians because of the need to titrate antihypertensive drugs to reach a specific blood pressure target. However, an independent committee blinded to group allocation assessed clinical events in all studies. Critical outcomes. Compared with standard blood pressure targets, lower targets likely result in little to no difference in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.06; 6 studies, 7348 participants), total serious adverse events (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; 6 studies, 7348 participants), and total cardiovascular events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.15; 5 studies, 6508 participants), all with moderate-certainty evidence. Compared with standard blood pressure targets, lower targets may result in little to no difference in cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.16; 6 studies, 7348 participants) and progression to end-stage renal disease (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11; 4 studies, 4788 participants), both with low-certainty evidence. Important outcomes. We found little to no differences in: participant withdrawals due to adverse effects; and the number of participants with a doubling of serum creatinine level, or at least a 50% reduction in GFR at the end of the study. Exploratory outcomes. Compared to the standard blood pressure target groups, participants in the lower target groups achieved lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure values after one year, and required a higher number of antihypertensive drugs at the end of the studies. A higher proportion of participants in the standard blood pressure target groups achieved the targets they were assigned than did participants in the intensive target groups., Authors' Conclusions: Compared to a standard blood pressure target, lower blood pressure targets probably result in little to no difference in total mortality, total serious adverse events, and total cardiovascular events, and may result in little to no difference in total cardiovascular mortality or in the progression to end-stage renal disease in people with hypertension and CKD. However, the evidence underpinning these conclusions has several limitations. All studies were open design, blood pressure measurement was performed at a medical office, and there was scant information about adverse events. Future research should include high-quality adverse event data, report results for people with different levels of proteinuria, and consider out-of-office blood pressure monitoring. Several studies are ongoing, and may provide new evidence for this topic in the near future., (Copyright © 2024 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Interventions to address polypharmacy in community-dwelling older adults often focus on medication-related outcomes. The aim was to explore the impact of multidisciplinary interventions to manage polypharmacy on clinical outcomes for community-dwelling older adults. This systematic review and meta-analysis included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on interventions by at least a pharmacist and a physician, indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE or CENTRAL up to January 2023. Evidence certainty was assessed using the GRADE approach. Seventeen RCTs were included. Fifteen were rated as 'high' risk of bias. No relevant benefits were found in functional and cognitive status (primary outcomes), falls, mortality, quality of life, patient satisfaction, hospital admissions, emergency department or primary care visits. Interventions reduced medication costs, improved medication appropriateness (odds ratio [OR] 0.39), reduced number of medications (mean difference [MD] -0.57), resolved medication-related problems (MD -0.45), and improved medication adherence (relative risk [RR] 1.14). There was a low or very low certainty of the evidence for most outcomes. Multidisciplinary interventions to address polypharmacy appear effective in improving multiple dimensions of medication use. However, evidence for corresponding improvements in functional or cognitive status is scarce. New efficient models of multidisciplinary interventions to address polypharmacy impacting clinical outcomes should be explored., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None, (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of CAR-T therapy in the treatment of patients with hematologic malignancies, in comparison with other current therapies., Design: A living systematic review., Methods: We will include randomized trials evaluating the effect of CAR-T therapy versus other active treatments, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, best supportive care or any other intervention in patients with hematologic malignancies. Non-randomized primary studies will be searched in case we found no direct evidence from randomized controlled trials. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. Efficacy measures will include overall survival rate, overall response rate, complete response/remission (CR) rate, partial response/remission (PR) rate, relapse from CR, progression-free survival, and time from CAR-T infusion to transplantation. Safety measures will include serious adverse events, the incidence of cytokine release syndrome, graft-versus-host disease, neurotoxicity, and total adverse events. Quality of life will also be assessed. Meta-analyses will be carried out to summarize the results. We will apply the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available until there is solid evidence to respond to the review objective. We will resubmit it for publication every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2024 Leache L et al.)

Using 4 data-sources (Spain, Italy, United Kingdom) data and a 1:1 matched cohort study, we aimed to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections with hospitalisations (±30 days) and death (±56 days) in general population and clinical subgroups with homologous/heterologous booster schedules (Comirnaty-BNT and Spikevax-MOD original COVID-19 vaccines) by comparison with unboosted individuals, during Delta and beginning of Omicron variants. Hazard Ratio (HR, by Cox models) and VE ([1-HR]*100) were calculated by inverse probability weights. Between December 2020-February 2022, in adults without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, we matched 5.5 million people (>1 million with immunodeficiency, 343,727 with cancer) with a booster (3rd) dose by considering doses 1 and 2 vaccine brands and calendar time, age, sex, region, and comorbidities (immunodeficiency, cancer, severe renal disease, transplant recipient, Down Syndrome). We studied booster doses of BNT and MOD administered after doses 1 and 2 with BNT, MOD, or Oxford-AstraZeneca during a median follow-up between 9 and 16 weeks. BNT or MOD showed VE ranging from 70 to 86% across data sources as heterologous 3rd doses, whereas it was 42-88% as homologous 3rd doses. Depending on the severity and available follow-up, 3rd-dose effectiveness lasted between 1 and 5 months. In people with immunodeficiency and cancer, protection across data sources was detected with both heterologous (VE = 54-83%) and homologous (VE = 49-80%) 3rd doses. Overall, both heterologous and homologous 3rd doses with BTN or MOD showed additional protection against the severe effects of SARS-CoV-2 infections for the general population and for patients at potentially high risk of severe COVID-19 (elderly, people with immunodeficiency and cancer) in comparison with two doses schemes during Delta or early Omicron periods. The early VE after vaccination may be due to less testing among vaccinated pairs and unknown confounders, deserving cautious interpretation. The VE wane over time needs further in-depth research to properly envisage when or whether a booster of those vaccines should be administered., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All the authors declare financial support was provided by European Medicines Agency and the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Elisa Martin Merino (corresponding author): Agencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios (AEMPS) and Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo (AECID) paid a presentation in a course ‘Farmacovigilancia de las vacunas frente a la COVID-19’; Unpaid collaboration in observational studies with Agencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios (AEMPS) for the “Grupo de Trabajo de Efectividad Vacunación COVID-19. Spanish Ministry of Health. ISCIII.CNE. Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices.” Riefolo Fabio is an employee of TEAMIT Institute, consulting research company that participates in financially supported studies for European Medicines Agency and related healthcare authorities, pharmaceutical companies, and the European Union. Ylenia Ingrasciotta is the CEO of the academic spin-off “INSPIRE srl” of the University of Messina, which has received funding for conducting observational studies from contract research organizations (RTI Health Solutions, Pharmo Institute N.V.) and from pharmaceutical Companies (Chiesi Italia, Kyowa Kirin s.r.l., Daiichi Sankyo Italia S.p.A.). Karin Swart-Polinder is an employee of the PHARMO Institute for Drug Outcomes Research. This independent research institute performs financially supported studies for the government and related healthcare authorities and several pharmaceutical companies., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objectives: N-Acetylcysteine (NAC) may confer protection against post-contrast acute kidney injury (PC-AKI), although evidence is sparse and conflicting. The objective was to analyse the evidence on the efficacy and safety of NAC vs no administration of NAC in preventing PC-AKI in patients with pre-existing kidney impairment undergoing a non-interventional radiological examination requiring intravenous (IV) contrast media (CM) administration., Methods: We carried out a systematic review including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Clinicaltrials.gov up to May 2022. The primary outcome was PC-AKI. Secondary outcomes included the requirement of renal replacement therapy, all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and length of hospital stay. We conducted the meta-analyses using the Mantel-Haenszel method and following a random-effects model., Results: NAC was not associated with a significant reduction in PC-AKI (RR 0.47, 95%CI 0.20 to 1.11; 8 studies; 545 participants; I 2 : 56%; low certainty), all-cause mortality (RR 0.67, 95%CI 0.29 to 1.54; 2 studies; 129 participants; very low certainty), or length of hospital stay (mean difference 9.2 days, 95%CI - 20.08 to 38.48; 1 study; 42 participants; very low certainty). The impact on other outcomes could not be determined., Conclusions: NAC may not reduce the risk of PC-AKI or all-cause mortality in people with kidney impairment who receive an IV CM prior to radiological imaging, although the certainty of the evidence is very low or low., Clinical Relevance Statement: Our review concludes that prophylactic administration of N-acetylcysteine may not significantly reduce the risk of acute kidney injury in patients with kidney impairment receiving an intravenous contrast media prior to non-interventional radiological imaging, which may support decision making in this common clinical scenario., Key Points: • N-Acetylcysteine may not significantly reduce the risk of acute kidney injury in patients with kidney impairment receiving an intravenous contrast media prior to non-interventional radiological imaging. • All-cause mortality and length of hospital stay would not be decreased with the administration of N-Acetylcysteine in this setting., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology.)

Background: Thiopurines' toxicity often leads to dose reduction or discontinuation. This systematic review aims to synthesize the evidence on the effect of genotype-based dosing of thiopurines on treatment efficacy and safety in inflammatory bowel disease (objective #1), and the association between genotype status and the efficacy and safety profile (objective #2)., Methods: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched in August 2021. A total of 80 studies (19,859 individuals) were included. Meta-analyses for mortality, different types of adverse events (AEs), withdrawal due to AE, change in disease activity and clinical remission were performed following mainly a fixed-effects model. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020148130., Results: Genotype-based dosing was associated to a significantly lower incidence of hematologic AEs (risk ratio=0.71; 95% CI: 0.56-0.90; I2 : 47%; 4 randomized controlled trials; moderate quality), which may be attributable to nudix hydrolase 15 (NUDT15) testing more than to thiopurine methyltransferase (TPMT) genotyping. No differences were found in other outcomes. Mutations in TPMT and NUDT15 genes were associated to a higher probability of serious AEs [odds ratio (OR) TPMT=4.98; OR NUDT15=11.44], hematologic AEs (OR TPMT=3.18), and serious hematologic AEs (OR TPMT=7.88; OR NUDT15=12.83). TPMT was also associated with a higher risk of withdrawals due to AEs (OR=3.38), and NUDT15 with gastrointestinal AEs (OR=2.04). Mutations in the ITPA gene did not lead to significant differences. Evidence of an association between other genes and clinical outcomes is still scarce., Conclusions: Mutations in TPMT and NUDT15 genes predispose patients to suffer thiopurine-induced toxicity, and genotype-guided treatment has been shown to contribute to the prevention of thiopurine-induced toxicity, especially in the case of NUDT15 in Asians., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Concomitant use of diuretics, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or metamizole, known as 'triple whammy' (TW), has been associated with an increased risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). Nevertheless, there is still uncertainty on its impact in hospitalisation and mortality. The aim of the study was to analyse the association between exposure to TW and the risk of hospitalisation for AKI, all-cause mortality and the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT)., Methods: A case-control study nested in a cohort of adults exposed to at least one diuretic or RAAS inhibitor between 2009 and 2018 was carried out within the Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database for Public Health Systems (BIFAP). Patients hospitalised for AKI between 2010 and 2018 (cases) were matched with up to 10 patients of the same age, sex and region of Spain who had not been hospitalised for AKI as of the date of hospitalisation for AKI of the matching case (controls). The association between TW exposure versus non-exposure to TW and outcome variables was analysed using logistic regression models., Results: A total of 480 537 participants (44 756 cases and 435 781 controls) were included (mean age: 79 years). The risk of hospitalisation for AKI was significantly higher amongst those exposed to TW [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) 1.32-1.40], being higher with current (aOR 1.60, 95%CI 1.52-1.69) and prolonged exposure (aOR 1.65, 95%CI 1.55-1.75). No significant association was found with the need of RRT. Unexpectedly, mortality was lower in those exposed to TW (aOR 0.81, 95%CI 0.71-0.93), which may be influenced by other causes., Conclusion: Vigilance should be increased when diuretics, RAAS inhibitors, and NSAIDs or metamizole are used concomitantly, especially in patients at risk such as elderly patients., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) cell therapies have been claimed to be curative in responsive patients. Nonetheless, response rates can vary according to different characteristics, and these therapies are associated with important adverse events such as cytokine release syndrome, neurologic adverse events, and B-cell aplasia., Objectives: This living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated synthesis of the evidence available on the role of CAR-T therapy for the treatment of patients with hematologic malignancies., Design: A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI), evaluating the effect of CAR-T therapy versus other active treatments, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, standard of care (SoC) or any other intervention, was performed in patients with hematologic malignancies. The primary outcome is overall survival (OS). Certainty of the evidence was determined using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach., Data Sources and Methods: Searches were performed in the Epistemonikos database, which collates information from multiple sources to identify systematic reviews and their included primary studies, including Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, DARE, HTA Database, Campbell database, JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, EPPI-Centre Evidence Library. A manual search was also carried out. We included the evidence published up to 1 July 2022., Results: We included the evidence published up to 1 July 2022. We considered 139 RCTs and 1725 NRSI as potentially eligible. Two RCTs ( N  = 681) comparing CAR-T therapy with SoC in patients with recurrent/relapsed (R/R) B-cell lymphoma were included. RCTs did not show statistical differences in OS, serious adverse events, or total adverse events with grade ⩾ 3. Higher complete response with substantial heterogeneity [risk ratio = 1.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) = (1.30-1.93); I 2  = 89%; 2 studies; 681 participants; very low certainty evidence] and higher progression-free survival [hazard ratio for progression or death = 0.49; 95% CI = (0.37-0.65); 1 study; 359 participants; moderate certainty evidence] were reported with CAR-T therapies. Nine NRSI ( N  = 540) in patients with T or B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia or R/R B-cell lymphoma were also included, providing secondary data. In general, the GRADE certainty of the evidence for main outcomes was mostly low or very low., Conclusion: So far, assuming important limitations in the level of certainty due to scarce and heterogenous comparative studies, CAR-T therapies have shown some benefit in terms of progression-free survival, but no overall survival, in patients with R/R B-cell lymphoma. Despite one-arm trials have already facilitated approval of CAR-T cell treatments, additional evidence from large comparative studies is still needed to better characterize the benefit-harm ratio of the use of CAR-T in a variety of patient populations with hematological malignancies., Registration: https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.14390.1., Prospero/osf Preregistration: 10.17605/OSF.IO/V6HDX., Competing Interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s), 2023.)

Introduction: Albumin is used in multiple situations in patients with cirrhosis, but the evidence of its benefit is not always clear. The aim was to synthesise the evidence on the efficacy and safety of albumin compared to other treatments or no active intervention in cirrhotic patients., Materials and Methods: We conducted a systematic review including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL up to May 2022. We assessed all-cause mortality, liver transplant, cirrhosis complications of any type and serious adverse events (SAEs). Second, AEs, hospital readmission, length of hospital stay, need for paracentesis and quality of life (QoL) were evaluated. Meta-analyses with Mantel-Haenszel method and random-effects model were performed., Results: Fifty studies (5118 participants) were included. Albumin was associated with a reduction in mortality in cirrhotic patients with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.32-0.75; low certainty) and hepatic encephalopathy (HE) (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34-0.83; low certainty) when compared to no administration of albumin, but not in other scenarios. In general, no additional benefit of albumin was found in liver transplants, SAEs or cirrhosis complications (low/very low certainty). Long-term administration (>3 months) of albumin led to a reduction in cirrhosis complications (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57-0.97; low certainty), hospital readmissions, length of hospital stay, need for paracentesis and improvement of QoL., Conclusion: Albumin may reduce mortality risk in cirrhotic patients with SBP or HE. No benefit was identified in reducing liver transplants or SAEs. Long-term administration may be associated with a lower risk of cirrhosis complications and need for paracentesis., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: A randomized clinical trial assessing plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) versus hyaluronic acid for knee osteoarthritis was published in 2012 (sponsor trial ID BTI-01-EC/07/ART). Evidence of misreporting was discovered following access to unpublished materials. In accordance with the principles of the Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials (RIAT) initiative, we sought to re-analyse Study PRGF based on the unpublished trial materials., Methods: Reanalysis was made possible primarily based on two unpublished study documents (original trial protocol and final report) obtained from the authors of the original publication. A call to action, calling on the authors to correct the original publication, was publicly issued. The involved ethics committee was repeatedly approached and extensive discussion with the authors ensued. After no agreement to correct the paper was reached, we embarked on this restoration. Reanalysis was focused on providing updated analyses for efficacy and safety., Results: The efficacy of PRGF was not statistically different from hyaluronic acid for any prespecified primary or secondary efficacy outcomes. For the primary endpoint, the percent of patients on PRGF compared to hyaluronic acid with a decrease >40% in WOMAC pain subscale score was 5.4% higher; 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.4% to 21.3%; p = 0.505. This differs from the original publication that reported a non-prespecified primary endpoint (decrease >50% in WOMAC pain subscale score) which was 14.1% higher; 95% CI 0.5 to 27.6%; p=0.044. Furthermore, in contrast to the article statement that all the adverse events disappeared in 48 h, at least two patients in the hyaluronic arm and five patients in the PRGF arm reported persistent adverse events. Inadequate disclosure of conflicts of interest in the original publication was also noted., Conclusions: This reanalysis of Study PRGF found no clinically or statistically significant benefit from PRGF compared to hyaluronic acid. The restoration of Study PRGF shows the urgency of important changes to trial reporting and oversight practices. In the future, timely access to all clinical trial documents is needed to minimize the risk of reporting bias. Similarly, ethics committees should be ready to intervene whenever a case of potential misconduct arises., Trial Registration: This is a RIAT project, whose original trial was approved and registered on 19 December 2007 by the Ethics Committee of the Basque Country, Spain, as BTI-01-EC/07/ART., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: The FOURIER trial showed a benefit of the PCSK9 inhibitor evolocumab over placebo with respect to cardiovascular outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease. However, we observed some inconsistencies between the information in the Clinical Study Report (CSR) and that in the 2017 primary trial results publication. We aimed to restore the mortality data in the FOURIER trial based on the information contained in the death narratives in the CSR., Methods: Mortality data in the primary results publication were compared with that in the CSR. In cases of discrepancy between the sources, an independent committee blindly readjudicated and restored the cause of death according to the information in the CSR narratives., Results: For 360/870 deaths (41.4%), the cause of death adjudicated by the FOURIER clinical events committee differed from that declared by the local clinical investigator. When comparing the CSR information with the 2017 primary results publication, we found 11 more deaths from myocardial infarction in the evolocumab group (36 vs 25) and 3 less deaths in the placebo group (27 vs 30, respectively). In the CSR, the number of deaths due to cardiac failure in the evolocumab group was almost double those in the placebo group (31 vs 16). While cardiac and vascular deaths were not assessed as separate outcomes in the original trial analysis, after readjudication, we noted that cardiac deaths were numerically, but non-significantly, higher in the evolocumab group (113) than in the placebo group (88; relative risk (RR) 1.28, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.69, p=0.078), whereas non-cardiac vascular deaths were similar between groups (37 in each; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.58, p=0.999). The reported HR for cardiovascular mortality in the original trial analysis was 1.05 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.25); after readjudication, we found a greater (although still non-significant) relative increase in cardiovascular mortality in the evolocumab treatment group (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.51, p=0.13)., Conclusion: After readjudication, deaths of cardiac origin were numerically higher in the evolocumab group than in the placebo group in the FOURIER trial, suggesting possible cardiac harm. At the time the trial was terminated early, a non-significantly higher risk of cardiovascular mortality was observed with evolocumab, which was numerically greater in our readjudication. A complete restoration of the FOURIER trial data is required. In the meantime, clinicians should be sceptical about prescribing evolocumab for patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease., Trial Registration Numbers: NCT01764633., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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., (Copyright © 2022 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Falls in the hospital setting are a major health problem due to their high prevalence and their physical, functional, psychological or economic consequences. Since 1990s, different fall risk assessment scales have been developed to detect high-risk patients, which are also applied in the hospital setting. The aim of this review is to analyse the validity of different scales for assessing fall risk in adults in the hospital setting, especially in elderly patients. Following a literature search in April 2021, 36 primary studies were found that analysed the validity of the Downton, Morse, HendrichII, Stratify and Tinetti scales. Meta-analyses of sensitivity and specificity showed a high heterogeneity that does not allow recommending a specific tool that can be considered as standard in acute inpatients., (Copyright © 2022 SEGG. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To investigate concerns surrounding the benefits of antiresorptive drugs in older adults, a systematic review was carried out to evaluate the efficacy of these treatments in the prevention of osteoporotic hip fractures in older adults., Design: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials., Setting and Participants: older adults ≥65 years with osteoporosis, with or without a previous fragility fracture. Studies with cancer-related and corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis, participants <65 years and no reported hip fracture were not included., Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ISI Web of Science and Scopus databases were searched. The primary outcome was hip fracture, and subgroup analysis (≥75 years, with different drug types and secondary prevention) and sensitivity analysis was carried out using a GRADE evaluation. Secondary outcomes were any type of fractures, vertebral fracture, bone markers and adverse events. The risk of bias was assessment with the Cochrane risk of bias tool., Results: A total of 12 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) qualified for this meta-analysis, with 36,196 participants. Antiresorptive drugs have a statistically significant effect on the prevention of hip fracture (RR=0.70; 95%CI 0.60 to 0.81), but with a moderate GRADE quality of evidence and a high number needed to treat (NNT) of 186. For other outcomes, there is a statistically significant effect, but with a low to moderate quality of evidence. Antiresorptives showed no reduction in the risk of hip fracture in people ≥75 years. The results for different drug types, secondary prevention and sensitivity analysis are similar to the main analyses and have the same concerns., Conclusions: Antiresorptive drugs have a statistically significant effect on preventing hip fracture but with a moderate quality (unclear/high risk of bias) and high NNT (186). This small benefit disappears in those ≥75 years, but increases in secondary prevention. More RCTs in very old osteoporotic adults are needed., Competing Interests: None declared.

Background: Lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) are one of the leading causes of infectious disease mortality worldwide. The aims of the study were to determine the incidence of hospitalizations due to LRTIs, and to analyze the clinical outcomes of the hospitalized patients., Methods: An observational study of hospitalizations due to LRTIs (pneumonia and acute bronchitis/bronchiolitis) in Spain from 1997 to 2018 was carried out. Data were extracted from the national information system for hospital data., Results: Overall, 3.5% (IQR: 3.4-3.5%) of total hospitalizations were caused by LRTIs, with a median incidence of 31.2 (IQR: 27.8-33.0) per 10,000 inhabitants/year. The median incidence was higher for pneumonia than for acute bronchitis/bronchiolitis cases (22.2; IQR: 19.1-23.5 vs. 9.0; IQR: 8.4-9.6 per 10,000 inhabitants/year; p<0.001) and increased by 65.7% from 1997 to 2018. A 41.2% of the hospitalizations due to LRTIs took place amongst people over 74 years. The median length of stay was 8.9 days (IQR: 7.6-10.4) and was higher for hospitalizations due to pneumonia than for acute bronchitis/bronchiolitis (9.5 days; IQR: 8.3-10.6 vs. 5.7; IQR: 5.5-6.2; p<0,001). In 89.1% of total hospitalizations due to LRTIs, patients were discharged home. In-hospital mortality was 6.8%, with 9,380 deaths (IQR: 8,192-10,157) per year. Mortality was higher for pneumonia (9.0 vs. 1.7%; p

Background: Although intermittent androgen deprivation therapy was introduced many years ago to improve patients' quality of life with the same carcinologic efficiency as continuous hormonal therapy, recent data suggest that intermittency could be underutilised. This study aims to estimate the prevalence of prostate cancer patients receiving intermittent androgen deprivation therapy in Spain. Methods: A retrospective, longitudinal study was conducted using electronic drug dispensation data from four Spanish autonomous communities, which encompass 17.23 million inhabitants (36.22% of the total population in Spain). We estimated intermittent androgen therapy use (%IAD) and the prevalence of patients under intermittent androgen therapy in reference to the total number of PC patients using hormonal therapy (P IAD ) and stratified by region. Other outcome variables included the pharmaceutical forms dispensed and the total direct annual expenditure on androgen deprivation therapy-associated medications. Results: A total of 863,005 dispensations corresponding to a total of 65,752 men were identified, treated with either luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analogues (353,162) administered alone or in combination with anti-androgens (509,843). Overall, the mean (±SD) age of the patients was 76.9 (±10.4) years. Results revealed that the mean annual P IAD along the study was 6.6% in the total population studied, and the overall %IAD during the five-year study period was 5.6%. The mean cost of hormonal therapy per year was 25 million euros for LHRH analogues and 6.3 million euros for anti-androgens. Conclusions:  Few prostate cancer patients in Spain use the intermittent androgen deprivation therapy suggesting underutilization of a perfectly valid option for a significant proportion of patients, missing the opportunity to improve their quality of life and to reduce costs for the National Health Service with comparable overall survival rates than continuous therapy., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2022 Bonfill-Cosp X et al.)

(1) Background: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) constitutes one of the leading mental health and behavioral disorders in childhood and adolescence. The main objective of this study was to analyze the time trend in the incidence of ADHD diagnoses in Navarre (Spain) from 2003 to 2019 in children and adolescents from 5 to 19 years old. Additionally, the seasonal trends of ADHD incidence and ADHD prevalence were determined. (2) Methods: A population-based observational retrospective study, which included people born between 1991 and 2011 and who attended compulsory education between 2007 and 2017 in Navarre (Spain), was carried out with data from both the Education and Health Department databases. (3) Results: The incidence rate increased from 4.18 cases per 1000 person-years in 2003 to 7.43 cases per 1000 person-years in 2009, before decreasing progressively to 2.1 cases per 1000 person-years in 2019. A peak incidence rate at 7-8 years of age was observed, which is consistent across the study period and for both genders. Males were more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than females, with similar time trends in both. A seasonal pattern in ADHD diagnosis was found, with peaks in February-March and the lowest rates in the summer months. Inattentive cases were much more frequent than hyperactive cases, whereas combined cases remained low across the study period. (4) Conclusions: In this age-period-cohort analysis, a clear period and age effect was observed. We found a decreasing trend in the ADHD incidence rate since 2015. Further research is needed to confirm whether a change of trend is occurring globally.

Background: High blood pressure constitutes one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity all over the world. At the same time, heavy drinking increases the risk for developing cardiovascular diseases, including cardiomyopathy, hypertension, atrial arrhythmias, or stroke. Several studies have already assessed specifically the relationship between alcohol intake and hypertension. However, the potential effect on blood pressure of alcohol intake reduction interventions is largely unknown., Objectives: To assess the effect of any intervention to reduce alcohol intake in terms of blood pressure decrease in hypertensive people with alcohol consumption compared to a control intervention or no intervention at all. To determine additional effects related to mortality, major cardiovascular events, serious adverse events, or quality of life., Search Methods: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to June 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 5, 2020), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1946), MEDLINE Ovid Epub Ahead of Print, and MEDLINE Ovid In-Process, Embase Ovid (from 1974), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Trial authors were contacted when needed and no language restrictions were applied., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials with minimum 12 weeks duration and including 50 or more subjects per group with quantitative measurement of alcohol consumption and/or biological measurement of the outcomes of interest. Participants were adults (16 years of age or older) with systolic blood pressure (SBP) greater than 140 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) greater than 90 mmHg, and SBP ≥ 130 or DBP ≥ 80 mmHg in participants with diabetes. We included any intervention implemented to reduce their alcohol intake., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed search results and extracted data using standard methodological procedures adopted by Cochrane., Main Results: A total of 1210 studies were screened. We included one randomised controlled trial involving a total of 269 participants with a two-year follow-up. Individual patient data for all participants were provided and used in this review. No differences were found between the cognitive-behavioural intervention group and the control group for overall mortality (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.17; low-certainty evidence), cardiovascular mortality (not estimable) and cardiovascular events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.79; very low-certainty evidence). There was no statistical difference in systolic blood pressure (SBP) reduction (Mean Difference (MD) -0.92 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.66 to 3.82 mmHg; very low-certainty evidence) or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) decrease (MD 0.98 mmHg, 95% CI -1.69 to 3.65 mmHg; low-certainty evidence) between the cognitive-behavioural intervention group and the control group. We also did not find any differences in the proportion of subjects with SBP < 140 mmHg and DBP < 90 mmHg (Risk Ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.65; very low-certainty evidence). Concerning secondary outcomes, the alcohol intake was significantly reduced in the cognitive-behavioural intervention compared with the control group (MD 191.33 g, 95% CI 85.36 to 297.30 g). We found no differences between the active and control intervention in the proportion of subjects with lower-risk alcohol intake versus higher-risk and extreme drinkers at the end of the study (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.60). There were no estimable results for the quality of life outcome., Authors' Conclusions: An intervention for decreasing alcohol intake consumption did not result in differences in systolic and diastolic blood pressure when compared with a control intervention, although there was a reduction in alcohol intake favouring the active intervention. No differences were found either for overall mortality, cardiovascular mortality or cardiovascular events. No data on serious adverse events or quality of life were available to assess. Adequate randomised controlled trials are needed to provide additional evidence on this specific question., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: This is the second 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 (135/85 mmHg or less) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity as compared with standard blood pressure targets (140 to 160/90 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, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to November 2019: Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (from 1982), along with the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. We applied no language restrictions., Selection Criteria: We included 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 to 160/90 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: Two review authors independently assessed search results and extracted data using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence., Main Results: We included six RCTs that involved 9484 participants. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (range 1.0 to 4.7 years). All RCTs provided individual participant data. None of the included studies was blinded to participants or clinicians because of the need to titrate antihypertensives 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. Other issues such as early termination of studies and subgroups of participants not predefined were also considered to downgrade the quality evidence. We found there is probably little to no difference in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.23; 6 studies, 9484 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.29; 6 studies, 9484 participants; moderate-quality 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; 6 studies, 9484 participants; low-quality evidence) or total cardiovascular events (including myocardial infarction, stroke, sudden death, hospitalization, or death from congestive heart failure) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; 6 studies, 9484 participants; low-quality 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; 2 studies, 690 participants; very low-quality evidence). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings were lower in the lower target group (systolic: mean difference (MD) -8.90 mmHg, 95% CI -13.24 to -4.56; 6 studies, 8546 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 were achieved more frequently in the standard target group (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.24; 6 studies, 8588 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., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Purpose: To examine the association between use of methylphenidate and the risk for valvular heart disease (VHD) in the Spanish primary care database BIFAP., Methods: Case-control study nested in a cohort of patients aged 5 to 25 years between 2002 and 2014, based in a general practice research database. Cases were people with a validated diagnosis of VHD. Ten controls per case were matched on age, sex, and calendar year. Multivariable conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) of VHD comparing patients ever treated with methylphenidate vs never users, as well as by time since last use, treatment duration, and variations in case inclusion criteria., Results: From a cohort of 1 596 284 patients, we identified 262 valid cases of VHD. No difference in the incidence of VHD was observed when comparing "ever users" of methylphenidate with "never users" (adjusted OR 0.52, 95%CI 0.16-1.69). A similar result was found comparing current, recent, or past users of methylphenidate. Differences were not significant when both valid and probable cases were included as events of interest (adjusted OR 0.59, 95%CI 0.22-1.63)., Conclusions: In this first-ever population-based study on this issue, association between methylphenidate and the incidence of VHD among persons in the 5 to 25 years age range was neither confirmed nor excluded. Additional studies may be required to clarify the presence or absence of this relationship., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: This is the first update of a review originally published in 2017. Starting with one drug and starting with a combination of two drugs are strategies suggested in clinical guidelines as initial treatment of hypertension. The recommendations are not based on evidence about clinically relevant outcomes. Some antihypertensive combinations have been shown to be harmful. The actual harm-to-benefit balance of each strategy is unknown., Objectives: To determine if there are differences in clinical outcomes between monotherapy and combination therapy as initial treatment for primary hypertension., Search Methods: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to April 2019: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 2005), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We used no language restrictions. We also searched clinical studies repositories of pharmaceutical companies, reviews of combination drugs on the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency websites, and lists of references in reviews and clinical practice guidelines., Selection Criteria: We included randomised, double-blind trials with at least 12 months' follow-up in adults with primary hypertension (systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure 140/90 mmHg or higher, or 130/80 mmHg or higher if participants had diabetes), which compared combination of two first-line antihypertensive drugs with monotherapy as initial treatment. Trials had to include at least 50 participants per group and report mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular events, or serious adverse events., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, evaluated the risk of bias, and performed data entry. The primary outcomes were mortality, serious adverse events, cardiovascular events, and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes were withdrawals due to drug-related adverse effects, reaching blood pressure control (as defined in each trial), and blood pressure change from baseline. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. We summarised data on dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI)., Main Results: This update included one new study in which a subgroup of participants met our inclusion criteria. As none of the four included studies focused solely on people initiating antihypertensive treatment, we asked investigators for data for this subgroup. One study (PREVER-treatment 2016) used a combination of thiazide-type diuretic/potassium-sparing diuretic; as the former is not indicated in monotherapy, we analysed this study separately. The three original trials in the main comparison (monotherapy: 335 participants; combination therapy: 233 participants) included outpatients, mostly European and white people. Two trials only included people with type 2 diabetes; the remaining trial excluded people treated with diabetes, hypocholesterolaemia, or cardiovascular drugs. The follow-up was 12 months in two trials and 36 months in one trial. It is very uncertain whether combination therapy versus monotherapy reduces total mortality (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.08 to 21.72), cardiovascular mortality (zero events reported), cardiovascular events (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.22 to 4.41), serious adverse events (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.92), or withdrawals due to adverse effects (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.35); all outcomes had 568 participants, and the evidence was rated as of very low certainty due to serious imprecision and for using a subgroup that was not defined in advance. The confidence intervals were extremely wide for all important outcomes and included both appreciable harm and benefit. The PREVER-treatment 2016 trial, which used a combination therapy with potassium-sparing diuretic (monotherapy: 84 participants; combination therapy: 116 participants), included outpatients. This trial was conducted in Brazil and had a follow-up of 18 months. The number of events was very low and confidence intervals very wide, with zero events reported for cardiovascular mortality and withdrawals due to adverse events. It is very uncertain if there are differences in clinical outcomes between monotherapy and combination therapy in this trial., Authors' Conclusions: The numbers of included participants, and hence the number of events, were too small to draw any conclusion about the relative efficacy of monotherapy versus combination therapy as initial treatment for primary hypertension. There is a need for large clinical trials that address the review question and report clinically relevant endpoints., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: This is the first update of the review 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 (≤ 135/85 mmHg) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity as compared with 'standard' blood pressure targets (≤ 140 to 160/90 to 100 mmHg) 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, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to February 2018: Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (from 1982), along with the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. We applied no language restrictions., Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included more than 50 participants per group and 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) compared with standard targets for blood pressure (≤ 140 to 160/90 to 100 mmHg).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: Two review authors independently assessed search results and extracted data using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane., Main Results: We included six RCTs that involved a total of 9484 participants. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (range 1.0 to 4.7 years). All RCTs provided individual participant data.We found no change in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.23) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.29; moderate-quality evidence). Similarly, we found no differences in serious adverse events (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; low-quality evidence) or total cardiovascular events (including myocardial infarction, stroke, sudden death, hospitalization, or death from congestive heart failure) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; low-quality evidence). Studies reported more participant withdrawals due to adverse effects in the lower target arm (RR 8.16, 95% CI 2.06 to 32.28; very low-quality evidence). Blood pressures were lower in the lower target group by 8.9/4.5 mmHg. More drugs were needed in the lower target group, but blood pressure targets were achieved more frequently in the standard target group., Authors' Conclusions: We found no evidence of a difference in total mortality, serious adverse events, or total cardiovascular events between people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease treated to a lower or to a standard blood pressure target. This suggests that no net health benefit is derived from a lower systolic blood pressure target. We found very limited evidence on adverse events, which led to high uncertainty. At present, evidence is insufficient to justify lower blood pressure targets (≤ 135/85 mmHg) in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease. More trials are needed to examine this topic.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background: 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 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 (≤ 135/85 mmHg) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity as compared with 'standard' blood pressure targets (≤ 140 to 160/ 90 to 100 mmHg) in the treatment of people with hypertension and a history of cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, peripheral vascular occlusive disease)., Search Methods: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to February 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Literature Database (from 1982) and contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. There were no language restrictions., Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with more than 50 participants per group and at least six months follow-up. Trial reports needed to present data for at least one primary outcome (total mortality, serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality). Eligible interventions were lower target for systolic/diastolic blood pressure (≤ 135/85 mmHg) compared with standard target for blood pressure (≤ 140 to 160/90 to 100 mmHg).Participants were adults with documented hypertension or who were receiving treatment for hypertension and cardiovascular history for myocardial infarction, stroke, chronic peripheral vascular occlusive disease or angina pectoris., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed search results and extracted data using standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration., Main Results: We included six RCTs that involved a total of 9795 participants. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (range 1.0 to 4.7 years). Five RCTs provided individual patient data for 6775 participants.We found no change in total mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.21; moderate-quality evidence). Similarly, no differences were found in serious adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.11; low-quality evidence). There was a reduction in fatal and non fatal cardiovascular events (including myocardial infarction, stroke, sudden death, hospitalization or death from congestive heart failure) with the lower target (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.98; ARR 1.6% over 3.7 years; low-quality evidence). There were more participant withdrawals due to adverse effects in the lower target arm (RR 8.16, 95% CI 2.06 to 32.28; very low-quality evidence). Blood pressures were lower in the lower' target group by 9.5/4.9 mmHg. More drugs were needed in the lower target group but blood pressure targets were achieved more frequently in the standard target group., Authors' Conclusions: No evidence of a difference in total mortality and serious adverse events was found between treating to a lower or to a standard blood pressure target in people with hypertension and cardiovascular disease. This suggests no net health benefit from a lower systolic blood pressure target despite the small absolute reduction in total cardiovascular serious adverse events. There was very limited evidence on adverse events, which lead to high uncertainty. At present there is insufficient evidence to justify lower blood pressure targets (≤ 135/85 mmHg) in people with hypertension and established cardiovascular disease. More trials are needed to answer this question.

Oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs) have been associated with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). We aimed to validate the recording of CAP in the Spanish Database for Pharmacoepidemiological Research in Primary Care (BIFAP) for the future evaluation of OAD-CAP association. The incidence rate (IR/1000 person-years) of CAP in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) was also determined. In total, 2966 pneumonia records (2040 listed as diagnosis and 926 as identified from comments added by physicians) were identified from 76 009 patients with T2DM after the first OAD in 2002-2013. Data around the CAP date were reviewed: 1803 (60·9%) were classified as 'probable CAP' (confirmed by X-ray/laboratory, referral letters or CAP lung site); 589 (19·8%) as 'no-case' (486 had other illness, 78 previous CAP, 25 cancer); and 574 (19·4%) as 'possible CAP' (441 without confirmatory information, 133 with uncertain diagnosis or uncertain diagnosis date). In total, 74·2% and 31·4% of pneumonia records in the diagnosis and comments, respectively, were 'probable cases' (IR: 6·04), which increased to 90·5% and 42·9%, respectively, when the 441 'possible cases' without confirmatory information were included (IR: 7·52). In summary, diagnosis had a high positive predictive value, and adding cases automatically detected from comments decreased that value significantly.

Aims: To evaluate the association between use of different oral antidiabetic agents (OAD) and the risk of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in patients with type-2 diabetes (T2DM)., Methods: Case-control study nested in a cohort of patients with T2DM and use of OAD between 2002 and 2013, based in a Spanish general practice research database. Cases were people diagnosed with T2DM, aged >18 years and with a validated diagnosis of CAP between 2002 and 2013. Ten controls were matched on age, sex and calendar year. Odds ratio (OR) of CAP was estimated comparing patients treated with: (1) metformin vs. other monotherapies or no antidiabetic treatment; (2) metformin + sulfonylureas vs. other antidiabetic combinations. OR of CAP was also assessed according to antidiabetic treatment duration., Results: From a cohort of 76 009 T2DM patients, we identified 1803 cases of CAP. No difference in the incidence of CAP was observed when comparing any OAD in monotherapy with metformin. Compared with current use of metformin + sulfonylurea, thiazolidinediones + metformin was associated with an increased risk of CAP (adjusted OR = 2.48, 95% CI 1.40-4.38). The use of any combination with thiazolidinediones was also associated with higher risk of CAP (adjusted OR = 2.00, 95% CI 1.22-3.28). Current use of DPP-4 inhibitors was not associated with an increased risk of CAP., Conclusions: No differences in the incidence of CAP were observed between the use of OAD in monotherapy vs. metformin. Thiazolidinedione use in combination was associated with an increase in the risk of CAP when compared to metformin + sulfonylureas. The use of DPP-4 inhibitors was not associated with an increased risk of CAP., (© 2017 The British Pharmacological Society.)

A Cochrane systematic review on immediate-release methylphenidate for adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was withdrawn from the Cochrane Library on 26 May 2016 after substantial criticism of its methods and flawed conclusions. Retraction of scientific papers on this basis is unusual but can be necessary. We provide a summary of the criticism that led to the withdrawal. We detail the methodological flaws of the withdrawn Cochrane systematic review and general issues of bias and shortcomings of the included ADHD trials: cross-over designs compared with parallel-group designs, exclusion of participants with psychiatric comorbidity, absence of 'functional outcomes' and use of clinical outcomes with limited relevance, short trial duration and small trial populations, broken blinding caused by easily recognisable side effects, combining outcome assessments by trial investigators and participants, outcome reporting bias, poor evaluation of cardiovascular and psychiatric harms and conflicts of interest of trialists and systematic reviewers. The withdrawal of the Cochrane systematic review signals recognition of previous unreliable clinical ADHD research. We conclude that clinical trials of immediate-release methylphenidate in adults with ADHD are of very low quality. We urgently need well-conducted long-term trials free of bias to assess the benefits and harms of central stimulant treatment in adult ADHD., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: In January 2014, the EMA's Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee recommended that strontium ranelate no longer be used for osteoporosis. However, EMA's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use decided to restrict its use rather than ban it. Starting from this fact, evidence of drugs for fracture prevention over the last 30 years was reviewed and lessons to be learnt from this story are highlighted. Findings: The general belief that drug therapy may become a "solution" for fragility fractures is challenged. The key points of the article are as follows: Lessons 1-5: Bone density and morphometric vertebral compression are not reliable surrogate endpoints. In fact, clinically relevant endpoints are essential to assess harms and benefits in clinical trials. There is a need for assessing overall harm-benefit with well-designed trials, taking into account that drug therapy may not be more effective in high-risk patients. Lessons 6-10: While bisphosphonates and strontium ranelate show a questionable harm-benefit ratio on hip fracture prevention, denosumab results are inconclusive and no benefit has been proved coming from calcitonines or teriparatide. After decades of widespread use, effectiveness of drugs for osteoporosis remains uncertain, yet adverse effects are more apparent. Conclusions: Well-designed and large trials over prolonged follow-up periods, measuring clinically relevant outcomes as hip and other disabling fractures, are urgently needed in order to properly understand the harm-benefit ratio of commonly prescribed drugs. Regulatory agencies should be more transparent and make individual-patient data from all clinical trials publicly available, allowing for independent assessment and pooled analysis.

Background: Starting with one drug and starting with a combination of two drugs are strategies suggested in clinical guidelines as initial treatment of hypertension. The recommendations are not based on evidence about clinically relevant outcomes. Some antihypertensive combinations have been shown to be harmful. The actual harm-to-benefit balance of each strategy is unknown., Objectives: To determine if there are differences in clinical outcomes between monotherapy and combination therapy as initial treatment for primary hypertension., Search Methods: We searched the Hypertension Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2016, Issue 2), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) up to February 2016. We searched in clinical studies repositories of pharmaceutical companies, reviews of combination drugs in Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency, and lists of references in reviews and clinical practice guidelines., Selection Criteria: Randomized, double-blind trials with at least 12 months' follow-up in adults with primary hypertension (systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure 140/90 mmHg or higher, or 130/80 mmHg or higher if participants had diabetes), which compared combination of two first-line antihypertensive drug with monotherapy as initial treatment. Trials had to include at least 50 participants per group and report mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular events or serious adverse events., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion, evaluated the risk of bias and entered the data. Primary outcomes were mortality, serious adverse events, cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes were withdrawals due to drug-related adverse effects, reaching blood pressure control (as defined in each trial) and blood pressure change from baseline. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. We summarized data on dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals., Main Results: We found three studies in which a subgroup of participants met our inclusion criteria. None of the studies focused solely on people initiating antihypertensive treatment so we asked investigators for data for this subgroup (monotherapy: 335 participants; combination therapy: 233 participants). They included outpatients, and mostly European and white people. Two trials included only people with type 2 diabetes, whereas the other trial excluded people treated with diabetes, hypocholesterolaemia or cardiovascular drugs. The follow-up was 12 months in two trials and 36 months in one trial. Certainty of evidence was very low due to the serious imprecision, and for using a subgroup not defined in advance. Confidence intervals were extremely wide for all important outcomes and included both appreciable harm and benefit., Authors' Conclusions: The numbers of included participants and, hence the number of events, were too small to draw any conclusion about the relative efficacy of monotherapy versus combination therapy as initial treatment for primary hypertension. There is a need for large clinical trials that address the question and report clinically relevant endpoints.

Background: Elevated levels of total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein play an important role in the development of atheromas and, therefore, in cardiovascular diseases. Cholesterol biosynthesis follows a circadian rhythm and is principally produced at night (between 12:00 am and 6:00 am). The adjustment of hypolipaemic therapy to biologic rhythms is known as chronotherapy. Chronotherapy is based on the idea that medication can have different effects depending on the hour at which it is taken. Statins are one of the most widely used drugs for the prevention of cardiovascular events. In usual clinical practice, statins are administered once per day without specifying the time when they should be taken. It is unknown whether the timing of statin administration is important for clinical outcomes., Objectives: To critically evaluate and analyse the evidence available from randomised controlled trials regarding the effects of chronotherapy on the effectiveness and safety of treating hyperlipidaemia with statins., Search Methods: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, ProQuest Health & Medical Complete, OpenSIGLE, Web of Science Conference Proceedings, and various other resources including clinical trials registers up to November 2015. We also searched the reference lists of relevant reviews for eligible studies., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), enrolling people with primary or secondary hyperlipidaemia. To be included, trials must have compared any chronotherapeutic lipid-lowering regimen with statins and any other statin lipid-lowering regimen not based on chronotherapy. We considered any type and dosage of statin as eligible, as long as the control and experimental arms differed only in the timing of the administration of the same statin. Quasi-randomised studies were excluded., Data Collection and Analysis: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We extracted the key data from studies in relation to participants, interventions, and outcomes for safety and efficacy. We calculated odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Using the GRADE approach, we assessed the quality of the evidence and we used the GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool to import data from Review Manager to create 'Summary of findings' tables., Main Results: This review includes eight RCTs (767 participants analysed in morning and evening arms). The trials used different lipid-lowering regimens with statins (lovastatin: two trials; simvastatin: three trials; fluvastatin: two trials; pravastatin: one trial). All trials compared the effects between morning and evening statin administration. Trial length ranged from four to 14 weeks. We found a high risk of bias in the domain of selective reporting in three trials and in the domain of incomplete outcome data in one trial of the eight trials included. None of the studies included were judged to be at low risk of bias.None of the included RCTs reported data on cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, incidence of cardiovascular events, or deaths from any cause. Pooled results showed no evidence of a difference in total cholesterol (MD 4.33, 95% CI -1.36 to 10.01), 514 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (MD 4.85 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.87 to 10.57, 473 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (MD 0.54, 95% CI -1.08 to 2.17, 514 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence) or triglycerides (MD -8.91, 95% CI -22 to 4.17, 510 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence) between morning and evening statin administration.With regard to safety outcomes, five trials (556 participants) reported adverse events. Pooled analysis found no differences in statins adverse events between morning and evening intake (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.15, 556 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: Limited and low-quality evidence suggested that there were no differences between chronomodulated treatment with statins in people with hyperlipidaemia as compared to conventional treatment with statins, in terms of clinically relevant outcomes. Studies were short term and therefore did not report on our primary outcomes, cardiovascular clinical events or death. The review did not find differences in adverse events associated with statins between both regimens. Taking statins in the evening does not have an effect on the improvement of lipid levels with respect to morning administration. Further high-quality trials with longer-term follow-up are needed to confirm the results of this review.

Objective: To determine the percentage of new Specialist Healthcare prescriptions received and modified by Primary Healthcare physicians., Design: Descriptive, cross-sectional and multi-centre study with the participation of Primary Healthcare physicians from one Madrid Health Area during 2 months. A method was established for registering the origin of the new prescriptions in the Computerised Medical Record System. In order to register new prescriptions without any change from Specialist Healthcare, the «second level» option was marked when the prescription was issued. A protocol was prepared and was available on the Computerized Medical Record System, so for those cases where there was a new Specialist Healthcare prescription, the Primary Healthcare physician would not issue any prescription or issue a prescription with changes as regards the original one., Results: A total of 69 Primary Healthcare physicians from 15 Primary Healthcare centres registered 46,512 new prescriptions, 3,893 (8.4%) from Specialist Healthcare. From this number, 3,544 prescriptions (91.0% 95% CI: 90.1-91.9) were issued without changes, and 298 prescriptions were modified (7.7% 95% CI: 7.0-8.7). In 46 cases (1.2% 95% CI: 0.8-1.5) no prescription was issued. Some prescriptions were changed by 51% of Primary Healthcare physicians, and the median of prescriptions changed or not issued was 3. The main reason for the modification was replacement with generics., Conclusions: A high percentage of new Specialist Healthcare prescriptions are issued without any changes being made by Primary Healthcare physicians. Modifications are concentrated in half of the participating physicians. Therefore, these data suggest that this practice is not generally adopted by the professionals., (Copyright © 2011 SECA. Published by Elsevier Espana. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the results of a plan for improving pharmacy indicators in a Primary Care (PC) Health Area., Design: Quasi-experimental study with a control group. The differences between the pre-intervention (Jan-Dec 2007) and post-intervention (Jan-Dec 2008) periods were evaluated., Setting and Participants: Intervention group: Primary Care doctors from PC Area 7 of the Community of Madrid (n=397)., Control Group: the rest of PC doctors of the Community of Madrid (n=4428)., Method: A multi-focus plan in which the main activities were: sessions in the health centres with the worst results, involvement of those responsible for the Rational Use of Drugs, interviews with the doctors with the most improvable indicators, recognition of those with good indicators, and preparing short notes on drugs., Main Measurements: Prescription and notification indicators associated with the safety of drugs., Results: In relation to Madrid, the absolute improvements of Area 7 in the accumulated indicators, %Generic drugs, %Statins, %ARAII y %Omeprazole were 0.29; 1.17; 0.61 and 0.37 percentage points, respectively. DHD Osteoporosis equalled the improvement of Madrid. In Area 7, the increase in notifications of suspected serious ADRs was 180% and number of ADR notifications of ADRs was 233%, better than the Madrid data (48% and 21%). The notification of medication errors showed similar increases in both groups (PC Area 7 1567% vs. Madrid PC 1633%)., Conclusions: Implementing a multi-focus improvement plan with feasible and specific actions can be a useful tool for improving pharmacy indicators., (Copyright © 2009 Elsevier España, S.L. All rights reserved.)

The treatment of tuberculosis usually includes the antibiotic rifampicin, especially in patients with concomitant human immunodeficiency virus infection. Some of these patients are in withdrawal therapy for drug abuse. When opiate screening is carried out in patients receiving rifampicin, false positive results are detected with the kinetic interaction of microparticles in solution method. We evaluated this interference in a Cobas-Integra analyzer and found a 12% cross-reactivity of rifampicin for antibiotic concentrations ranging from 0.19 to 6.08 mumol/l (156 to 5000 micrograms/l). This effect is not explained by the colour of the rifampicin solutions. Calculations assuming first order kinetics of elimination show that more than 18 hours after a single oral dose of 600 mg of rifampicin, a false positive result for opiates could be obtained. This indicates that the risk of a false positive result must always be considered when urine samples from these patients are analyzed.