A randomized trial in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary angioplasty: roxithromycin does not reduce clinical restenosis but angioplasty increases antibody concentrations against Chlamydia pneumoniae

Antibiotics for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease

BACKGROUND

Coronary heart disease is the leading cause of mortality worldwide with approximately 7.4 million deaths each year. People with established coronary heart disease have a high risk of subsequent cardiovascular events including myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death. Antibiotics might prevent such outcomes due to their antibacterial, antiinflammatory, and antioxidative effects. However, a randomised clinical trial and several observational studies have suggested that antibiotics may increase the risk of cardiovascular events and mortality. Furthermore, several non-Cochrane Reviews, that are now outdated, have assessed the effects of antibiotics for coronary heart disease and have shown conflicting results. No previous systematic review using Cochrane methodology has assessed the effects of antibiotics for coronary heart disease.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the benefits and harms of antibiotics compared with placebo or no intervention for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, SCI-EXPANDED, and BIOSIS in December 2019 in order to identify relevant trials. Additionally, we searched TRIP, Google Scholar, and nine trial registries in December 2019. We also contacted 11 pharmaceutical companies and searched the reference lists of included trials, previous systematic reviews, and other types of reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of antibiotics versus placebo or no intervention for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in adult participants (≥18 years). Trials were included irrespective of setting, blinding, publication status, publication year, language, and reporting of our outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse event according to the International Conference on Harmonization - Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP), and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and sudden cardiac death. Our primary time point of interest was at maximum follow-up. Additionally, we extracted outcome data at 24±6 months follow-up. We assessed the risks of systematic errors using Cochrane 'Rosk of bias' tool. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes. We calculated absolute risk reduction (ARR) or increase (ARI) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) if the outcome result showed a beneficial or harmful effect, respectively. The certainty of the body of evidence was assessed by GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 38 trials randomising a total of 26,638 participants (mean age 61.6 years), with 23/38 trials reporting data on 26,078 participants that could be meta-analysed. Three trials were at low risk of bias and the 35 remaining trials were at high risk of bias. Trials assessing the effects of macrolides (28 trials; 22,059 participants) and quinolones (two trials; 4162 participants) contributed with the vast majority of the data. Meta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed that antibiotics versus placebo or no intervention seemed to increase the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.13; P = 0.07; I2 = 0%; ARI 0.48%; NNTH 208; 25,774 participants; 20 trials; high certainty of evidence), stroke (RR 1.14; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.29; P = 0.04; I2 = 0%; ARI 0.73%; NNTH 138; 14,774 participants; 9 trials; high certainty of evidence), and probably also cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.25; P = 0.11; I2= 0%; 4674 participants; 2 trials; moderate certainty of evidence). Little to no difference was observed when assessing the risk of myocardial infarction (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.03; P = 0.23; I2 = 0%; 25,523 participants; 17 trials; high certainty of evidence). No evidence of a difference was observed when assessing sudden cardiac death (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.31; P = 0.41; I2 = 0%; 4520 participants; 2 trials; moderate certainty of evidence). Meta-analyses at 24±6 months follow-up showed that antibiotics versus placebo or no intervention increased the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.48; P = 0.007; I2 = 0%; ARI 1.26%; NNTH 79 (95% CI 335 to 42); 9517 participants; 6 trials; high certainty of evidence), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.50; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.91; P = 0.001; I2 = 0%; ARI 1.12%; NNTH 89 (95% CI 261 to 49); 9044 participants; 5 trials; high certainty of evidence), and probably also sudden cardiac death (RR 1.77; 95% CI 1.28 to 2.44; P = 0.0005; I2 = 0%; ARI 1.9%; NNTH 53 (95% CI 145 to 28); 4520 participants; 2 trials; moderate certainty of evidence). No evidence of a difference was observed when assessing the risk of myocardial infarction (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.11; P = 0.53; I2 = 43%; 9457 participants; 5 trials; moderate certainty of evidence) and stroke (RR 1.17; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.52; P = 0.24; I2 = 0%; 9457 participants; 5 trials; high certainty of evidence). Meta-analyses of trials at low risk of bias differed from the overall analyses when assessing cardiovascular mortality at maximum follow-up. For all other outcomes, meta-analyses of trials at low risk of bias did not differ from the overall analyses. None of the trials specifically assessed serious adverse event according to ICH-GCP. No data were found on quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our present review indicates that antibiotics (macrolides or quinolones) for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease seem harmful when assessing the risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke at maximum follow-up and all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and sudden cardiac death at 24±6 months follow-up. Current evidence does, therefore, not support the clinical use of macrolides and quinolones for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Future trials on the safety of macrolides or quinolones for the secondary prevention in patients with coronary heart disease do not seem ethical. In general, randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of antibiotics, especially macrolides and quinolones, need longer follow-up so that late-occurring adverse events can also be assessed.

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication

BACKGROUND

Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; I² = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.

Evidence for polymicrobial communities in explanted vascular filters and atheroma debris

RATIONALE

Microbial communities have been implicated in a variety of disease processes and have been intermittently observed in arterial disease; however, no comprehensive unbiased community analysis has been performed. We hypothesize that complex microbial communities may be involved in chronic vascular diseases as well and may be effectively characterized by molecular assays.

OBJECTIVE

The main objective is to survey vascular debris, atheroma, and vascular filters for polymicrobial communities consisting of prokaryotic and eukaryotic microbes, specifically eukaryotic microbes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We examined vascular aspirates of atheromatous debris or embolic protection filters in addition to matched peripheral blood samples, from fifteen patients, as well as three cadaveric coronary arteries from two separate patients, for microbial communities. General fluorescence microscopy by Höechst and ethidium bromide DNA stains, prokaryotic and eukaryotic community analysis by Next Generation DNA Sequencing (NGS), and a eukaryotic microbial 9 probe multiplexed quantitative PCR were used to detect and characterize the presence of putative polymicrobial communities. No prokaryotes were detected in peripheral blood; however, in 4 of 9 sequenced filters and in 2 of 7 sequenced atheroma debris samples, prokaryotic populations were identified. By DNA sequencing, eukaryotic microbes were detected in 4 of 15 blood samples, 5 of the 9 sequenced filters, and 3 of the 7 atheroma debris samples. The quantitative multiplex PCR detected sequences consistent with eukaryotic microbes in all 9 analyzed filter samples as well as 5 of the 7 atheroma debris samples. Microscopy reveals putative polymicrobial communities within filters and atheroma debris. The main contributing prokaryotic species in atheroma debris suggest a diverse and novel composition. Additionally, Funneliformis mosseae, an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus in the Glomeraceae family, was detected in the coronary hard plaque from two patients. Well studied biofilm forming bacteria were not detectable in circulating peripheral blood and were not universally present in atheroma or filters. Analyses of the sequenced eukaryotes are consistent with a diverse of array poorly studied environmental eukaryotes. In summary, out of 15 patients, 6 exhibited molecular evidence of prokaryotes and 14 had molecular evidence of eukaryotic and/or polymicrobial communities in vivo, while 2 post-mortem coronary plaque samples displayed evidence of fungi.

CONCLUSION

Prokaryotes are not consistently observed in atheroma debris or filter samples; however, detection of protozoa and fungi in these samples suggests that they may play a role in arterial vascular disease or atheroma formation.

Interleukin-3 is elevated in patients with coronary artery disease and predicts restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

Interleukin-3 (IL-3) synthesized by activated T-lymphocytes is a mediator in chronic inflammation and is suspected to promote atherosclerosis. Since there is no data on IL-3 in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) available, we compared IL-3 concentrations in different subsets of patients with CAD to healthy control patients.

METHODS

205 consecutive patients with CAD, 136 with stable angina and 69 with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, 61 patients with asymptomatic CAD and 41 patients with normal coronary arteries were investigated. Serum concentrations of IL-3 and hs-CRP were assessed at baseline and after 6 weeks, 6, and 12 months.

RESULTS

In patients undergoing coronary angioplasty, IL-3 was detectable more frequently than in those with asymptomatic CAD or without CAD, 21 vs. 8%, p=0.02, and 21 vs. 1%, p<0.001, respectively. Patients undergoing coronary angioplasty who developed symptomatic restenosis more frequently had detectable IL-3 levels than patients without restenosis, 45 vs. 17%, p=0.02. IL-3 was the only independent predictor for restenosis in a multivariate analysis. Hs-CRP was significantly elevated in patients with ACS, 230+/-170 mg/l vs. 100+/-140 mg/l, p=0.02, but did not correlate with IL-3 concentrations at any time.

CONCLUSION

IL-3, an important regulator of chronic inflammation, is elevated in patients with CAD, particularly in symptomatic patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Furthermore, high IL-3 concentrations were found to be predictive of symptomatic restenosis.

Correlation between rises in Chlamydia pneumoniae-specific antibodies, platelet activation and lipid peroxidation after percutaneous coronary intervention

We recently showed that Chlamydia pneumoniae activates platelets in vitro, with an associated oxidation of low-density lipoproteins. The aim of this study was to investigate whether C. pneumoniae is released during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and, thereby, causes platelet activation and lipid peroxidation. Seventy-three patients undergoing coronary angiography and following PCI or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and 57 controls were included in the study. C. pneumoniae antibodies, serotonin and lipid peroxidation were measured before and 24 h, 1 month and 6 months after angiography. The results show that serum C. pneumoniae IgA concentrations were significantly higher in patients than in the controls. Furthermore, in 38% of the C. pneumoniae IgG positive patients, the C. pneumoniae IgG concentration increased 1 month after PCI. The levels of C. pneumoniae IgG antibodies 1 month after PCI correlated with plasma-lipid peroxidation (r = 0.91, P < 0.0001) and platelet-derived serotonin (r = 0.62, P = 0.02). There was no elevation in the total serum IgG 1 month after PCI. In conclusion, the present results suggest that PCI treatment of coronary stenosis releases C. pneumoniae from the atherosclerotic lesions, which leads to platelet activation and lipid peroxidation.

Chlamydia pneumoniae and coronary artery disease: controversial results of serological studies

I have read with great interest the article published by Carratelli et al. Briefly they have reported increased levels of inflammatory markers and elevated titers of IgG and IgA of C. pneumoniae by using both ELISA and MIF method. There are several factors which may underly the controversial results of seroepidemiological studies. I have commented on the report of Carratelli et al. regarding some of these factors.