Dataset Information

Examining anti-inflammatory therapies in the prevention of cardiovascular events: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Inflammation is emerging as an important risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and has been a recent target for many novel therapeutic agents. However, comparative evidence regarding efficacy of these anti-inflammatory treatment options is currently lacking.

Methods and analysis

This systematic review will include randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of anti-inflammatory agents on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with known cardiovascular disease. Studies will be retrieved from Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, as well as clinical trial registry websites, Europe PMC and conference abstract handsearching. No publication date or language restrictions will be imposed. Eligible interventions must have some component of anti-inflammatory agent. These include (but are not limited to): non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), colchicine, prednisone, methotrexate, canakinumab, pexelizumab, anakinra, succinobucol, losmapimod, inclacumab, atreleuton, LP-PLA₂ (darapladib) and sPLA₂ (varespladib). The primary outcomes will include major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and each individual component of MACE (myocardial infarction, stroke and cardiovascular death). Key secondary outcomes will include unstable angina, heart failure, all-cause mortality, cardiac arrest and revascularisation. Screening, inclusion, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed independently by two reviewers. Network meta-analysis based on the random effects model will be conducted to compare treatment effects both directly and indirectly. The quality of the evidence will be assessed with appropriate tools including the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation profiler or Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis tool.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethics approval is not required for this systematic review. The findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal.

Prospero registration number

CRD42022303289.

SUBMITTER: Boczar KE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9237867 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe Alzheimer's Disease Anti-inflammatory Prevention Trial (ADAPT) was designed to evaluate the conventional NSAID naproxen sodium and the selective COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib for primary prevention of Alzheimer's dementia (AD). On 17 December 2004, after the Adenoma Prevention with Celecoxib (APC) trial reported increased cardiovascular risks with celecoxib, the ADAPT Steering Committee suspended treatment and enrollment. This paper reports on cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events in ADAPT.DesignADAPT is a randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel chemoprevention trial with 1-46 mo of follow-up.SettingThe trial was conducted at six field sites in the United States: Baltimore, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; Rochester, New York; Seattle, Washington; Sun City, Arizona; and Tampa, Florida.ParticipantsThe 2,528 participants were aged 70 y and older with a family history of AD.InterventionsStudy treatments were celecoxib (200 mg b.i.d.), naproxen sodium (220 mg b.i.d.), and placebo.Outcome measuresOutcome measures were deaths, along with nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, congestive heart failure (CHF), transient ischemic attack (TIA), and antihypertensive treatment recorded from structured interviews at scheduled intervals. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to analyze these events individually and in several composites.ResultsCounts (with 3-y incidence) of participants who experienced cardiovascular or cerebrovascular death, MI, stroke, CHF, or TIA in the celecoxib-, naproxen-, and placebo-treated groups were 28/717 (5.54%), 40/713 (8.25%), and 37/1070 (5.68%), respectively. This yielded a hazard ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]) for celecoxib of 1.10 (0.67-1.79) and for naproxen of 1.63 (1.04-2.55). Antihypertensive treatment was initiated in 160/440 (47.43%), 147/427 (45.00%), and 164/644 (34.08%). This yielded hazard ratios (CIs) of 1.56 for celecoxib (1.26-1.94) and 1.40 for naproxen (1.12-1.75).ConclusionsFor celecoxib, ADAPT data do not show the same level of risk as those of the APC trial. The data for naproxen, although not definitive, are suggestive of increased cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risk.

Project description:BackgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) has become an increasingly common limitation to effective anticancer therapy. Yet, whether CVD events were consistently reported in pivotal trials supporting contemporary anticancer drugs is unknown.ObjectivesThe authors sought to evaluate the incidence, consistency, and nature of CVD event reporting in cancer drug trials.MethodsFrom the Drugs@FDA, clinicaltrials.gov, MEDLINE, and publicly available U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug reviews, all reported CVD events across latter-phase (II and III) trials supporting FDA approval of anticancer drugs from 1998 to 2018 were evaluated. The primary outcome was the report of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as incident myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, coronary revascularization, atrial fibrillation, or CVD death, irrespective of treatment arm. The secondary outcome was report of any CVD event. Pooled reported annualized incidence rates of MACE in those without baseline CVD were compared with reported large contemporary population rates using relative risks. Population risk differences for MACE were estimated. Differences in drug efficacy using pooled binary endpoint hazard ratios on the basis of the presence or absence of reported CVD were also assessed.ResultsOverall, there were 189 trials, evaluating 123 drugs, enrolling 97,365 participants (58.5 ± 5 years, 46.0% female, 72.5% on biologic, targeted, or immune-based therapies) with 148,138 person-years of follow-up. Over a median follow-up of 30 months, 1,148 incidents of MACE (375 heart failure, 253 myocardial infarction, 180 strokes, 65 atrial fibrillation, 29 revascularizations, and 246 CVD deaths; 792 in the intervention vs. 356 in the control arm; p < 0.01) were reported from the 62.4% of trials noting any CVD. The overall weighted-average incidence was 542 events per 100,000 person-years (716 per 100,000 in the intervention arm), compared with 1,408 among similar-aged non-cancer trial subjects (relative risk: 0.38; p < 0.01), translating into a risk difference of 866. There was no association between reporting CVD events and drug efficacy (hazard ratio: 0.68 vs. 0.67; p = 0.22).ConclusionsAmong pivotal clinical trials linked to contemporary FDA-approved cancer drugs, reported CVD event rates trail expected population rates.

Project description:ObjectiveCardiovascular diseases (CVD) are a leading cause of mortality and disease burden. Preventative interventions to augment the population-level adoption of health lifestyle behaviours that reduce CVD risk are a priority. Face-to-face interventions afford individualisation and are effective for improving health-related behaviours and outcomes, but they are costly and resource intensive. Electronic and mobile health (e- and mHealth) approaches aimed at modifying lifestyle risk factors may be an effective and scalable approach to reach many individuals while preserving individualisation. This systematic review aims to (a) determine the effectiveness of multifactorial e- and mHealth interventions on CVD risk and on lifestyle-related cardiometabolic risk factors and self-management behaviours among adults without CVD; and (b) describe the evidence on adverse events and on the cost-effectiveness of these interventions.MethodsMethods were detailed prior to the start of the review in order to improve conduct and prevent inconsistent decision making throughout the review. This protocol was prepared following the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Public Health Group Specialised Register and CENTRAL electronic databases will be searched between 1991 and September 2019. Eligibility criteria are: (a) population: community-dwelling adults; (b) intervention/comparison: randomised controlled trials comparing e- or mHealth CVD risk preventative interventions with usual care; and (c) outcomes: modifiable CVD risk factors. Selection of study reports will involve two authors independently screening titles and abstracts, followed by a full-text review of potentially eligible reports. Two authors will independently undertake data extraction and assess risk of bias. Where appropriate, meta-analysis of outcome data will be performed.DiscussionThis protocol describes the pre-specified methods for a systematic review that will provide quantitative and narrative syntheses of current multifactorial e- and mHealth CVD preventative interventions. A systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted following the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and reported according to PRISMA guidelines.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Colchicine is an anti-inflammatory drug that is used for a wide range of inflammatory diseases. Cardiovascular disease also has an inflammatory component but the effects of colchicine on cardiovascular outcomes remain unclear. Previous safety analyses were restricted to specific patient populations. OBJECTIVES:To evaluate potential cardiovascular benefits and harms of a continuous long-term treatment with colchicine in any population, and specifically in people with high cardiovascular risk. SEARCH METHODS:We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry, citations of key papers, and study references in January 2015. We also contacted investigators to gain unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA:Randomised controlled trials (parallel-group or cluster design or first phases of cross-over studies) comparing colchicine over at least six months versus any control in any adult population. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, stroke, heart failure, non-scheduled hospitalisations, and non-scheduled cardiovascular interventions. We conducted predefined subgroup analyses, in particular for participants with high cardiovascular risk. . MAIN RESULTS:We included 39 randomised parallel-group trials with 4992 participants. Colchicine had no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.09; participants = 4174; studies = 30; I² = 27%; moderate quality of evidence). There is uncertainty surrounding the effect of colchicine in reducing cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.21, I² = 9%; participants = 1132; studies = 7; moderate quality of evidence). Colchicine reduced the risk for total myocardial infarction (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.57; participants = 652; studies = 2; moderate quality of evidence). There was no effect on total adverse events (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.46; participants = 1313; studies = 11; I² = 45%; very low quality of evidence) but gastrointestinal intolerance was increased (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.03 to 3.26; participants = 1258; studies = 11; I² = 74%; low quality of evidence). Colchicine showed no effect on heart failure (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.88; participants = 462; studies = 3; I² = 45%; low quality of evidence) and no effect on stroke (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.70; participants = 874; studies = 3; I² = 45%; low quality of evidence). Reporting of serious adverse events was inconsistent; no event occurred over 824 patient-years (4 trials). Effects on other outcomes were very uncertain. Summary effects of RCTs specifically focusing on participants with high cardiovascular risk were similar (4 trials; 1230 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:There is much uncertainty surrounding the benefits and harms of colchicine treatment. Colchicine may have substantial benefits in reducing myocardial infarction in selected high-risk populations but uncertainty about the size of the effect on survival and other cardiovascular outcomes is high, especially in the general population from which most of the studies in our review were drawn. Colchicine is associated with gastrointestinal side effects based on low-quality evidence. More evidence from large-scale randomised trials is needed.