Rationale and design of the Arterial Disease Multiple Intervention Trial (ADMIT) pilot study

Niacin for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events

BACKGROUND

Nicotinic acid (niacin) is known to decrease LDL-cholesterol, and triglycerides, and increase HDL-cholesterol levels. The evidence of benefits with niacin monotherapy or add-on to statin-based therapy is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of niacin therapy versus placebo, administered as monotherapy or add-on to statin-based therapy in people with or at risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in terms of mortality, CVD events, and side effects.

SEARCH METHODS

Two reviewers independently and in duplicate screened records and potentially eligible full texts identified through electronic searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, two trial registries, and reference lists of relevant articles (latest search in August 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that either compared niacin monotherapy to placebo/usual care or niacin in combination with other component versus other component alone. We considered RCTs that administered niacin for at least six months, reported a clinical outcome, and included adults with or without established CVD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers used pre-piloted forms to independently and in duplicate extract trials characteristics, risk of bias items, and outcomes data. Disagreements were resolved by consensus or third party arbitration. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses, sensitivity analyses based on risk of bias and different assumptions for missing data, and used meta-regression analyses to investigate potential relationships between treatment effects and duration of treatment, proportion of participants with established coronary heart disease and proportion of participants receiving background statin therapy. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 RCTs that were published between 1968 and 2015 and included 39,195 participants in total. The mean age ranged from 33 to 71 years. The median duration of treatment was 11.5 months, and the median dose of niacin was 2 g/day. The proportion of participants with prior myocardial infarction ranged from 0% (4 trials) to 100% (2 trials, median proportion 48%); the proportion of participants taking statin ranged from 0% (4 trials) to 100% (12 trials, median proportion 100%).Using available cases, niacin did not reduce overall mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.12; participants = 35,543; studies = 12; I2 = 0%; high-quality evidence), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12; participants = 32,966; studies = 5; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), non-cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.28; participants = 32,966; studies = 5; I2 = 0%; high-quality evidence), the number of fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarctions (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.00; participants = 34,829; studies = 9; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), nor the number of fatal or non-fatal strokes (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.22; participants = 33,661; studies = 7; I2 = 42%; low-quality evidence). Participants randomised to niacin were more likely to discontinue treatment due to side effects than participants randomised to control group (RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.70 to 2.77; participants = 33,539; studies = 17; I2 = 77%; moderate-quality evidence). The results were robust to sensitivity analyses using different assumptions for missing data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate- to high-quality evidence suggests that niacin does not reduce mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-cardiovascular mortality, the number of fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarctions, nor the number of fatal or non-fatal strokes but is associated with side effects. Benefits from niacin therapy in the prevention of cardiovascular disease events are unlikely.

Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patients with various diseases

BACKGROUND

Our systematic review has demonstrated that antioxidant supplements may increase mortality. We have now updated this review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science to February 2011. We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and asked pharmaceutical companies for additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all primary and secondary prevention randomised clinical trials on antioxidant supplements (beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, and selenium) versus placebo or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors extracted data. Random-effects and fixed-effect model meta-analyses were conducted. Risk of bias was considered in order to minimise the risk of systematic errors. Trial sequential analyses were conducted to minimise the risk of random errors. Random-effects model meta-regression analyses were performed to assess sources of intertrial heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-eight randomised trials with 296,707 participants were included. Fifty-six trials including 244,056 participants had low risk of bias. Twenty-six trials included 215,900 healthy participants. Fifty-two trials included 80,807 participants with various diseases in a stable phase. The mean age was 63 years (range 18 to 103 years). The mean proportion of women was 46%. Of the 78 trials, 46 used the parallel-group design, 30 the factorial design, and 2 the cross-over design. All antioxidants were administered orally, either alone or in combination with vitamins, minerals, or other interventions. The duration of supplementation varied from 28 days to 12 years (mean duration 3 years; median duration 2 years). Overall, the antioxidant supplements had no significant effect on mortality in a random-effects model meta-analysis (21,484 dead/183,749 (11.7%) versus 11,479 dead/112,958 (10.2%); 78 trials, relative risk (RR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.05) but significantly increased mortality in a fixed-effect model (RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.05). Heterogeneity was low with an I(2)- of 12%. In meta-regression analysis, the risk of bias and type of antioxidant supplement were the only significant predictors of intertrial heterogeneity. Meta-regression analysis did not find a significant difference in the estimated intervention effect in the primary prevention and the secondary prevention trials. In the 56 trials with a low risk of bias, the antioxidant supplements significantly increased mortality (18,833 dead/146,320 (12.9%) versus 10,320 dead/97,736 (10.6%); RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.07). This effect was confirmed by trial sequential analysis. Excluding factorial trials with potential confounding showed that 38 trials with low risk of bias demonstrated a significant increase in mortality (2822 dead/26,903 (10.5%) versus 2473 dead/26,052 (9.5%); RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.15). In trials with low risk of bias, beta-carotene (13,202 dead/96,003 (13.8%) versus 8556 dead/77,003 (11.1%); 26 trials, RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.09) and vitamin E (11,689 dead/97,523 (12.0%) versus 7561 dead/73,721 (10.3%); 46 trials, RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.05) significantly increased mortality, whereas vitamin A (3444 dead/24,596 (14.0%) versus 2249 dead/16,548 (13.6%); 12 trials, RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.18), vitamin C (3637 dead/36,659 (9.9%) versus 2717 dead/29,283 (9.3%); 29 trials, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.07), and selenium (2670 dead/39,779 (6.7%) versus 1468 dead/22,961 (6.4%); 17 trials, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.03) did not significantly affect mortality. In univariate meta-regression analysis, the dose of vitamin A was significantly associated with increased mortality (RR 1.0006, 95% CI 1.0002 to 1.001, P = 0.002).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence to support antioxidant supplements for primary or secondary prevention. Beta-carotene and vitamin E seem to increase mortality, and so may higher doses of vitamin A. Antioxidant supplements need to be considered as medicinal products and should undergo sufficient evaluation before marketing.

Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patients with various diseases

BACKGROUND

Animal and physiological research as well as observational studies suggest that antioxidant supplements may improve survival.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of antioxidant supplements on mortality in primary or secondary prevention randomised clinical trials.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2005), EMBASE (1985 to October 2005), and the Science Citation Index Expanded (1945 to October 2005). We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and wrote to pharmaceutical companies for additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all primary and secondary prevention randomised clinical trials on antioxidant supplements (beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, and selenium) versus placebo or no intervention. Included participants were either healthy (primary prevention trials) or had any disease (secondary prevention trials).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors extracted data. Trials with adequate randomisation, blinding, and follow-up were classified as having a low risk of bias. Random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses were performed. Random-effects meta-regression analyses were performed to assess sources of intertrial heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-seven randomised trials with 232,550 participants were included. Forty-seven trials including 180,938 participants had low risk of bias. Twenty-one trials included 164,439 healthy participants. Forty-six trials included 68111 participants with various diseases (gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, neurological, ocular, dermatological, rheumatoid, renal, endocrinological, or unspecified). Overall, the antioxidant supplements had no significant effect on mortality in a random-effects meta-analysis (relative risk [RR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99 to 1.06), but significantly increased mortality in a fixed-effect model (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.06). In meta-regression analysis, the risk of bias and type of antioxidant supplement were the only significant predictors of intertrial heterogeneity. In the trials with a low risk of bias, the antioxidant supplements significantly increased mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.08). When the different antioxidants were assessed separately, analyses including trials with a low risk of bias and excluding selenium trials found significantly increased mortality by vitamin A (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.24), beta-carotene (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11), and vitamin E (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.07), but no significant detrimental effect of vitamin C (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.20). Low-bias risk trials on selenium found no significant effect on mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.09).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence to support antioxidant supplements for primary or secondary prevention. Vitamin A, beta-carotene, and vitamin E may increase mortality. Future randomised trials could evaluate the potential effects of vitamin C and selenium for primary and secondary prevention. Such trials should be closely monitored for potential harmful effects. Antioxidant supplements need to be considered medicinal products and should undergo sufficient evaluation before marketing.

Lipid-lowering for peripheral arterial disease of the lower limb

BACKGROUND

Lipid-lowering therapy is recommended for secondary prevention in people with coronary artery disease. It may also reduce cardiovascular events and/or local disease progression in people with lower limb peripheral arterial disease (PAD).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of lipid-lowering therapy on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events and local disease progression in patients with PAD of the lower limb.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The authors searched The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group's Specialised Register (last searched February 2007) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (last searched Issue 2, 2007) for publications describing randomised controlled trials of lipid-lowering therapy in peripheral arterial disease of the lower limb.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of lipid-lowering therapy in patients with PAD of the lower limb.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen trials were included, involving a total of 10,049 participants. Trials differed considerably in their inclusion criteria, outcomes measured, and type of lipid-lowering therapy used. Only one trial (PQRST) reported a detrimental effect of active treatment on blood lipid/lipoprotein levels. The pooled results from all eligible trials indicated that lipid-lowering therapy had no statistically significant effect on overall mortality (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.86; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.50) or on total cardiovascular events (OR 0.8; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.09). However, subgroup analysis which excluded PQRST showed that lipid-lowering therapy significantly reduced the risk of total cardiovascular events (OR 0.74; CI 0.55 to 0.98). This was primarily due to a positive effect on total coronary events (OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.87). Greatest evidence of effectiveness came from the use of simvastatin in people with a blood cholesterol >/= 3.5 mmol/litre (HPS). Pooling of the results from several small trials on a range of different lipid-lowering agents indicated an improvement in total walking distance (Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) 152 m; 95% CI 32.11 to 271.88) and pain-free walking distance (WMD 89.76 m; 95% CI 30.05 to 149.47) but no significant impact on ankle brachial index (WMD 0.04; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.09).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Lipid-lowering therapy is effective in reducing cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in people with PAD. It may also improve local symptoms. Until further evidence on the relative effectiveness of different lipid-lowering agents is available, use of a statin in people with PAD and a blood cholesterol level >/=3.5 mmol/litre is most indicated.

New and emerging data from clinical trials of statins

Recent clinical trials of statins have clearly demonstrated the benefit of statin therapy in preventing both coronary and cerebral vascular events. These benefits have been demonstrated to be present without reference to older age, sex, or comorbid conditions, including hypertension and diabetes. Future trials will test the value of more aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering, the value of immediate statin intervention during acute coronary syndromes, the role of cholesterol lowering with or without angioplasty, and the role of cholesterol lowering in stroke prevention.

Position statement on human aging

A large number of products are currently being sold by antiaging entrepreneurs who claim that it is now possible to slow, stop, or reverse human aging. The business of what has become known as antiaging medicine has grown in recent years in the United States and abroad into a multimillion-dollar industry. The products being sold have no scientifically demonstrated efficacy, in some cases they may be harmful, and those selling them often misrepresent the science upon which they are based. In the position statement that follows, 52 researchers in the field of aging have collaborated to inform the public of the distinction between the pseudoscientific antiaging industry, and the genuine science of aging that has progressed rapidly in recent years.

Cholesterol and glycemic effects of Niaspan in patients with type 2 diabetes

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of Niaspan--a niacin preparation with both immediate- and extended-release characteristics--on lipid and glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.

DESIGN

Retrospective study

SETTING

Private-practice endocrinology group.

PATIENTS

Thirty-two patients (mean age 60 yrs; 72% men) with type 2 diabetes identified by a computerized text search.

INTERVENTION

Patients received Niaspan 1000, 1500, or 2000 mg/day (median daily dosage 1000 mg).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, triglycerides, hemoglobin A1c, and transaminase levels were compared for each patient before and 6 months after initiation of Niaspan. Niaspan therapy was associated with a significant 34% increase in HDL (p=0.033), a significant 36% reduction of triglycerides (p=0.049), and no significant change in LDL (p=0.236) or total cholesterol (p=0.122). Mean hemoglobin A1c levels significantly decreased from baseline by 0.5 +/- 0.3% (p=0.032), even though dosages and treatment with antidiabetic agents remained constant. There were no significant changes in transaminase levels. Seven patients (21.9%) discontinued Niaspan; one of them experienced an increase in blood glucose while receiving the agent.

CONCLUSION

For most patients with type 2 diabetes, Niaspan is a safe and effective therapy for dyslipidemia and does not exacerbate glycemic control.

Effective and safe modification of multiple atherosclerotic risk factors in patients with peripheral arterial disease

BACKGROUND

Patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) are at an increased risk of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity and thus are an excellent group in whom to evaluate the feasibility and the effect of an aggressive multifactorial intervention on atherosclerotic vascular disease risk factors. The Arterial Disease Multiple Intervention Trial (ADMIT) was designed to determine the efficacy, safety, and compliance of an multifactorial therapy on selected atherosclerotic disease risk factors in patients with PAD.

METHODS

By a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design, eligible participants (N = 468) were randomly assigned to low-dose warfarin, antioxidant vitamins, and niacin or its corresponding placebo, and followed up for 1 year. All participants were encouraged to use aspirin. Pravastatin was added to the drug regimen for those who needed to reduce LDL cholesterol to recommended levels.

RESULTS

Niacin increased HDL cholesterol levels by 30%, with the majority of effect achieved at a dosage of 500 mg twice daily. Warfarin had an anticoagulant effect. The antioxidant vitamins resulted in a significant increase in vitamin E, C, and beta-carotene plasma levels. Overall, compliance was high and few adverse effects were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

ADMIT demonstrates that it is both feasible and safe to modify multiple atherosclerotic disease risk factors effectively with intensive combination therapy in patients with PAD.

Preventing, stopping, or reversing coronary artery disease--triglyceride-rich lipoproteins and associated lipoprotein and metabolic abnormalities: the need for recognition and treatment

A substantial number of treated patients with or at high risk for coronary artery disease continue to have fatal and nonfatal coronary artery events in spite of significant reduction of elevated levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Other lipoprotein abnormalities besides an elevated level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol contribute to risk of coronary artery disease and coronary artery events, and the predominant abnormalities that appear to explain much of this continued risk are an elevated serum triglyceride level and a low level of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Most patients with coronary artery disease have a mixed dyslipidemia with hypertriglyceridemia, which is associated and metabolically intertwined with other atherogenic risk factors, including the presence of triglyceride-rich lipoprotein remnants, low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, small, dense, low-density lipoprotein particles, postprandial hyperlipidemia, and a prothrombotic state. Aggressive treatment of these patients needs to focus on these other lipoprotein abnormalities as much as on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Combination drug therapy will usually be required. Reliable assessment of risk of coronary artery disease from lipoprotein measurements and response to therapy requires inclusion of all atherogenic lipoproteins in laboratory measurements and treatment protocols. At present this may be best accomplished by use of non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (total cholesterol minus high-density lipoprotein cholesterol) calculated from standard laboratory lipoprotein values. Ultimately, a more comprehensive assessment of coronary artery disease risk and appropriate therapy may include measurement of lipoprotein subclass distribution including determination of low-density lipoprotein particle concentration and sizes of the various lipoprotein particles.