CRIS

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://cris.ute.edu.ec/handle/123456789/1

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4

Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Spironolactone versus placebo in patients undergoing maintenance dialysis - ACHIEVE: an international, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial
(Elsevier BV, 2025-08)
Michael Walsh
;
David Collister
;
Martin Gallagher
;
Patrick B Mark
;
Janak R de Zoysa
Background: Patients undergoing maintenance dialysis for kidney failure are at substantial risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. We aimed to establish if spironolactone reduces heart failure and cardiovascular deaths in these patients. Methods: ACHIEVE was an international, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial done in 143 dialysis programmes in 12 countries. Patients were aged 45 years or older, or aged 18 years or older with a history of diabetes, and were receiving maintenance dialysis for kidney failure for at least 3 months at the time of recruitment. Patients who were able to tolerate and adhere to spironolactone 25 mg daily orally during an open-label run-in were randomly assigned (1:1) to continue spironolactone or matching placebo, using a central computerised block randomisation system (block sizes of 4) stratified by centre. Participants, health-care providers, and those assessing outcomes were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular mortality or hospitalisation for heart failure analysed as time-to-event in all randomly assigned participants. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03020303. Findings: After a planned interim analysis of 75% of the expected primary outcome events, the external safety and efficacy monitoring committee recommended the trial be stopped early for futility. From Sept 19, 2017, to Oct 31, 2024, 3689 patients were screened for inclusion, 3565 of whom were enrolled in the open-label run-in phase, and 2538 were randomly assigned to spironolactone (n=1260) or placebo (n=1278). 931 (36·7%) participants were female and 1607 (63·3%) were male. Median follow-up was 1·8 years (IQR 0·85–3·35). The composite primary outcome occurred in 258 participants (10·46 events per 100 patient-years) in the spironolactone group and in 276 participants (11·33 per 100 patient-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·92 [95% CI 0·78–1·09]; p=0·35). Death from any cause was similar between groups (HR 0·95 [0·83–1·09]) as was hospitalisation for any cause (HR 0·96 [0·87–1·06]). Interpretation: Among patients receiving maintenance dialysis, spironolactone 25 mg daily orally did not reduce the composite outcome of cardiovascular mortality and hospitalisation due to heart failure compared with placebo. This trial did not identify a benefit of initiating spironolactone in patients receiving maintenance dialysis. Future research should consider alternatives to steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonism to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients receiving maintenance haemodialysis. Funding: The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, The Medical Research Future Fund, The Health Research Council, The British Heart Foundation, Population Health Research Institute/Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, St Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton Division of Nephrology, Accelerating Clinical Trials Consortium, Can-SOLVE CKD Network, and the Dalhousie Department of Medicine.
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Interleukin-receptor antagonist and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors for the primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases
(Wiley, 2024-09-19)
MARTI CARVAJAL, ARTURO JOSE
;
Mario A Gemmato-Valecillos
;
Diana Monge Martín
;
Mark Dayer
;
Eduardo Alegría-Barrero
Background: Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ACVD) is worsened by chronic inflammatory diseases. Interleukin receptor antagonists (IL-RAs) and tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF) inhibitors have been studied to see if they can prevent cardiovascular events. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical benefits and harms of IL-RAs and TNF inhibitors in the primary and secondary prevention of ACVD. Search methods: The Cochrane Heart Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, EBSCO CINAHL plus, and clinical trial registries for ongoing and unpublished studies were searched in February 2024. The reference lists of relevant studies, reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports were searched to identify additional studies. No limitations on language, date of publication or study type were set. Selection criteria: RCTs that recruited people with and without pre-existing ACVD, comparing IL-RAs or TNF inhibitors versus placebo or usual care, were selected. The primary outcomes considered were all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, and adverse events. Data collection and analysis: Two or more review authors, working independently at each step, selected studies, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and used GRADE to judge the certainty of evidence. Main results: We included 58 RCTs (22,053 participants; 21,308 analysed), comparing medication efficacy with placebo or usual care. Thirty-four trials focused on primary prevention and 24 on secondary prevention. The interventions included IL-1 RAs (anakinra, canakinumab), IL-6 RA (tocilizumab), TNF-inhibitors (etanercept, infliximab) compared with placebo or usual care. The certainty of evidence was low to very low due to biases and imprecision; all trials had a high risk of bias. Primary prevention: IL-1 RAs  The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the intervention on all-cause mortality(RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.58, 1 trial), myocardial infarction (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.04 to 12.48, I² = 39%, 2 trials), unstable angina (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.11, I² = 0%, 2 trials), stroke (RR 2.42, 95% CI 0.12 to 50.15; 1 trial), adverse events (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.22, I² = 54%, 3 trials), or infection (rate ratio 0.84, 95% 0.55 to 1.29, I² = 0%, 4 trials). Evidence is very uncertain about whether anakinra and cankinumab may reduce heart failure (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.94, I² = 0%, 3 trials). Peripheral vascular disease (PVD) was not reported as an outcome. IL-6 RAs The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the intervention on all-cause mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.74, I² = 30%, 3 trials), myocardial infarction (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.04 to1.68, I² = 0%, 3 trials), heart failure (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.63, I² = 0%, 2 trials), PVD (RR 2.94, 95% CI 0.12 to 71.47, 1 trial), stroke (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.14, 1 trial), or any infection (rate ratio 1.10, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.37, I2 = 18%, 5 trials). Adverse events may increase (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.23, I² = 33%, 5 trials). No trial assessed unstable angina. TNF inhibitors The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the intervention on all-cause mortality (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.99, I² = 10%, 3 trials), myocardial infarction (RR 2.61, 95% CI 0.11 to 62.26, 1 trial), stroke (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.80, I² = 0%; 3 trials), heart failure (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.76, 1 trial). Adverse events may increase (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.25, I² = 51%, 13 trials). No trial assessed unstable angina or PVD. Secondary prevention: IL-1 RAs The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the intervention on all-cause mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.06, I² = 0%, 8 trials), unstable angina (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.19, I² = 0%, 3 trials), PVD (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.73, I² = 38%, 3 trials), stroke (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.2, I² = 0%; 7 trials), heart failure (RR 0.91, 95% 0.5 to 1.65, I² = 0%; 7 trials), or adverse events (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.09, I² = 3%, 4 trials). There may be little to no difference between the groups in myocardial infarction (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.0.75 to 1.04, I² = 0%, 6 trials). IL6-RAs The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the intervention on all-cause mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.96, I² = 0%, 2 trials), myocardial infarction (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.04, I² = 45%, 3 trials), unstable angina (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.02, 1 trial), stroke (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.25, 1 trial), adverse events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.05, I² = 0%, 2 trials), or any infection (rate ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.36, I² = 0%, 4 trials). No trial assessed PVD or heart failure. TNF inhibitors The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of the intervention on all-cause mortality (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.95, I² = 47%, 5 trials), heart failure (RR 0.92, 95% 0.75 to 1.14, I² = 0%, 4 trials), or adverse events (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.56, I² = 32%, 2 trials). No trial assessed myocardial infarction, unstable angina, PVD or stroke. Adverse events may be underestimated and benefits inflated due to inadequate reporting. Authors' conclusions: This Cochrane review assessed the benefits and harms of using interleukin-receptor antagonists and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors for primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic diseases compared with placebo or usual care. However, the evidence for the predetermined outcomes was deemed low or very low certainty, so there is still a need to determine whether these interventions provide clinical benefits or cause harm from this perspective. In summary, the different biases and imprecision in the included studies limit their external validity and represent a limitation to determining the effectiveness of the intervention for both primary and secondary prevention of ACVD.
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Colchicine for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events
(Wiley, 2022-06-28)
MARTI CARVAJAL, ARTURO JOSE
;
Juan Bautista De Sanctis
;
HIDALGO OTTOLENGHI, JOSE RICARDO
;
Cristina Elena Martí Amarista
;
Eduardo Alegría
Background: Atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ACVDs), a condition characterised by lipid accumulation in arterial walls, which is often exacerbated by chronic inflammation disorders, is the major cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Colchicine, with its first medicinal use in ancient Egypt, is an inexpensive drug with anti-inflammatory properties. However, its role in primary prevention of ACVDs in the general population remains unknown. Objectives: To assess the clinical benefits and harms of colchicine as primary prevention of cardiovascular outcomes in the general population. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Heart Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, Web of Science, and LILACS. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP for ongoing and unpublished studies. We also scanned the reference lists of relevant included studies, reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no limitations on language, date of publication, or study setting. The search results were updated on 31 May 2023. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in any setting, recruiting adults without pre-existing cardiovascular disease. We included trials that compared colchicine versus placebo, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, immunomodulating drugs, or usual care. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and adverse events. Data collection and analysis: Two or more review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and performed risk of bias and GRADE assessments. Main results: We identified 15 RCTs (1721 participants randomised; 1412 participants analysed) with follow-up periods ranging from 4 to 728 weeks. The intervention was oral colchicine compared with placebo, immunomodulating drugs, or usual care or no treatment. Due to biases and imprecision, the evidence was very uncertain for all outcomes. All trials but one had a high risk of bias. Five out of seven meta-analyses included fewer than six trials (71.4%). The objectives of the review were to assess cardiovascular outcomes in the general population, but many of the included trials focused on liver disease. Colchicine compared to placebo. Colchicine may reduce all-cause mortality compared to placebo in primary prevention, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.91; 6 studies, 463 participants; very low-certainty evidence; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 11, 95% CI 6 to 67). Colchicine may result in little to no difference in non-fatal myocardial infarction, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.82; 1 study, 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Colchicine may not reduce the incidence of stroke, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 2.43, 95% CI 0.67 to 8.86; 1 study, 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Regarding adverse events, colchicine may increase the incidence of diarrhoea (RR 3.99, 95% CI 1.44 to 11.06; 8 studies, 605 participants; very low-certainty evidence; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 10, 95% CI 6 to 17), and may have little to no effect on neurological outcomes such as seizure or mental confusion (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.66; 2 studies, 155 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. The effect of colchicine on cardiovascular mortality is also very uncertain (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.03 to 62.43; 2 studies, 160 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Colchicine may not reduce post-cardiac procedure atrial fibrillation, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.19; 1 study, 100 participants). We found no trials reporting on pericardial effusion, peripheral artery disease, heart failure, or unstable angina. Colchicine compared to methotrexate (immunomodulating drug). Colchicine may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality compared to methotrexate, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.51; 1 study, 85 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found no trials reporting other cardiovascular outcomes or adverse events for this comparison. Colchicine compared to usual care or no treatment. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of colchicine compared with usual care on all-cause mortality in primary prevention (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.27; 2 studies, 729 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Regarding adverse events, colchicine may increase the incidence of diarrhoea compared to usual care, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 3.32, 95% CI 1.56 to 7.03; 2 studies, 729 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NNTH 18, 95% CI 12 to 42). No trials reported other cardiovascular outcomes for this comparison. Authors' conclusions: This Cochrane review evaluated the clinical benefits and harms of using colchicine for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events in the general population. Comparisons were made against placebo, immunomodulating medications, or usual care or no treatment. However, the certainty of the evidence for the predefined outcomes was very low, highlighting the pressing need for high-quality, rigorous studies to ascertain colchicine's clinical impact definitively. We identified numerous biases and inaccuracies in the included studies, limiting their generalisability and precluding a conclusive determination of colchicine’s efficacy in preventing cardiovascular events. The existing evidence regarding colchicine’s potential cardiovascular benefits or harms for primary prevention is inconclusive owing to the limitations inherent in the current studies. More robust clinical trials are needed to bridge this evidence gap effectively.
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Dentists´ knowledge about common risk factors for cardiovascular diseases and periodontitis: An opportunity to be part of a multidisciplinary team
(Medicina Oral, S.L., 2024)
J. Otero
;
Y. Ortiz-Gomez
;
LOPEZ JARAMILLO, JOSÉ PATRICIO
Background: Reducing the disease burden of cardiovascular diseases and periodontitis continues to be a priority and dentists are part of the primary care team. However, it is unclear whether Colombian dentists have the necessary knowledge to identify cardiovascular disease risk factors in clinical practice. The main aim of this study was to investigate Colombian dentists’ knowledge about common risk factors for cardiovascular disease and periodontitis. Material and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted. A self-administered electronic survey was validated by experts and completed by 232 dentists who practiced in Colombia. Descriptive and multivariate analyzes were performed, including hierarchical cluster analysis. Results: Regarding the identification of shared risk factors for the development of cardiovascular disease or periodontitis, 80.6% identified smoking and 72.8% diabetes. The correct identification of cardiovascular disease risk factors was between 34.9% in the case of eating practices and 78.0% for physical inactivity. Being a woman (79.8%), under 40 years of age (64.0%), not having completed a postgraduate degree (68.5%), and working in private institutions (88.8%) were the characteristics of dentists that best identified common risk factors for both cardiovascular disease and periodontitis. Conclusions: Colombian dentists had good knowledge of common risk factors for both cardiovascular diseases and periodontitis, but limited knowledge about cardiovascular disease risk factors. Younger dentists better identified risk factors. Conversely, older, more experience, and more specialized practitioners could benefit from more training about cardiovascular risk factors in order to truly be part of multidisciplinary teams in primary care.

CRIS

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results