Mobile phone-based interventions for improving adherence to medication prescribed for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults.

Mobile phone-based interventions for improving adherence to medication prescribed for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults.

Diet plays a major role in the aetiology of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and as a modifiable risk factor is the focus of many prevention strategies. Recently vegan diets have gained popularity and there is a need to synthesise existing clinical trial evidence for their potential in CVD prevention. To determine the effectiveness of following a vegan dietary pattern for the primary and secondary prevention of CVD. We searched the following electronic databases on 4 February 2020: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL),MEDLINE,Embase andWeb of Science Core Collection. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov in January 2021. We applied nolanguage restrictions. We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in healthy adults and adults at high risk of CVD (primary prevention) and those with established CVD (secondary prevention). A vegan dietary pattern excludes meat, fish, eggs, dairy and honey; the intervention could be dietary advice, provision of relevant foods, or both. The comparison group received either no intervention, minimal intervention, or another dietary intervention. Outcomes included clinical events and CVD risk factors. We included only studies with follow-up periods of 12 weeks or more, defined as the intervention period plus post-intervention follow-up. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risks of bias. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We conducted three main comparisons: 1. Vegan dietary intervention versus no intervention or minimal intervention for primary prevention; 2. Vegan dietary intervention versus another dietary intervention for primary prevention; 3. Vegan dietary intervention versus another dietary intervention for secondary prevention. Thirteen RCTs (38 papers, 7 trial registrations) and eight ongoing trials met our inclusion criteria. Most trials contributed to primary prevention: comparisons 1 (four trials, 466 participants randomised) and comparison 2 (eight trials, 409 participants randomised). We included only one secondary prevention trial for comparison 3 (63 participants randomised). None of the trials reported on clinical endpoints. Other primary outcomes included lipid levels and blood pressure. For comparison 1 there was moderate-certainty evidence from four trials with 449 participants that a vegan diet probably led to a small reduction in total cholesterol (mean difference (MD) -0.24 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.36 to -0.12) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (MD -0.22 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.11), a very small decrease in high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels (MD -0.08 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.04) and a very small increase in triglyceride levels (MD 0.11 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.21). The very small changes in HDL and triglyceride levels are in the opposite direction to that expected. There was a lack of evidence for an effect with the vegan dietary intervention on systolic blood pressure (MD 0.94 mmHg, 95% CI -1.18 to 3.06; 3 trials, 374 participants) anddiastolic blood pressure (MD -0.27 mmHg, 95% CI -1.67 to 1.12;3 trials, 372participants) (low-certainty evidence). For comparison 2 there was a lack of evidence for an effect of the vegan dietary intervention on total cholesterol levels (MD -0.04 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.20;4 trials, 163 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was probably little or no effect of the vegan dietary intervention on LDL (MD -0.05 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.11; 4 trials,244 participants) or HDL cholesterol levels (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.05; 5 trials, 256 participants) or triglycerides (MD 0.21 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.49; 5 trials, 256 participants) compared to other dietary interventions (moderate-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about any effect of the vegan dietary intervention on systolic blood pressure(MD 0.02 mmHg, 95% CI -3.59 to 3.62) or diastolic blood pressure(MD 0.63 mmHg, 95% CI -1.54 to 2.80; 5 trials, 247 participants (very low-certainty evidence)). Only one trial (63 participants) contributed to comparison 3, where there was a lack of evidence for an effect of the vegan dietary intervention on lipid levels or blood pressure compared to other dietary interventions (low- or very low-certainty evidence). Four trials reported on adverse events, which were absent or minor. Studies were generally small with few participants contributing to each comparison group. None of the included studies report on CVD clinical events. There is currently insufficient information to draw conclusions about the effects of vegan dietary interventions on CVD risk factors. The eight ongoing studies identified will add to the evidence base, with all eight reporting on primary prevention. There is a paucity of evidence for secondary prevention.

An association has been hypothesized between periodontitis and hypertension. Periodontal therapy is believed to reduce systemic inflammatory mediators and increase endothelial function, thus having the potential to prevent and treat hypertension. To assess the effect and safety of different periodontal treatment modalities on blood pressure (BP) in people with chronic periodontitis. The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to November 2020 in the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, seven other databases, and two clinical trials registries. We contacted the authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. RCTs and quasi-RCTs aiming to detect the effect of periodontal treatment on BP were eligible. Participants should have been diagnosed with chronic periodontitis and hypertension (or no hypertension if the study explored the preventive effect of periodontal treatment). Participants in the intervention group should have undergone subgingival scaling and root planing (SRP) and any other type of periodontal treatments, compared with either no periodontal treatment or alternative periodontal treatment in the control group. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for study identification, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We used a formal pilot-tested data extraction form for data extraction, and the Cochrane risk of bias tool for risk of bias assessment. We planned the meta-analysis, test for heterogeneity, sensitivity analysis, and subgroup analysis. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary outcome was change in systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP). We included eight RCTs. Five had low risk of bias, one had unclear risk of bias, and two had high risk of bias. Four trials compared periodontal treatment with no treatment. We found no evidence of a difference in the short-term change of SBP and DBP for people diagnosed with periodontitis and other cardiovascular diseases except hypertension (very low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference in long-term changes in SBP (mean difference [MD] -2.25 mmHg, 95% confidence interval [CI] -9.41 to 4.92; P = 0.54; studies = 2, participants = 108; low-certainty evidence) and DBP (MD -2.55 mmHg, 95% CI -6.90 to 1.80; P = 0.25; studies = 2, participants = 103; low-certainty evidence). Concerning people diagnosed with periodontitis, in the short term, two studies of low certainty reported no changes in SBP (MD -0.14 mmHg, 95% CI -4.05 to 3.77; P = 0.94; participants = 294) and DBP (MD -0.15 mmHg, 95% CI -2.47 to 2.17; P = 0.90; participants = 294), and we found no evidence of a difference in SBP and DBP over a long period based on low certainty of evidence. Three studies compared intensive periodontal treatment with supra-gingival scaling. We found no evidence of a difference in changes in SBP and DBP for any length of time in people diagnosed with periodontitis (very low-certainty evidence). In people diagnosed with periodontitis and hypertension, we found one study reporting a significant reduction in the short term in SBP (MD -11.20 mmHg, 95% CI -15.40 to -7.00; P < 0.001; participants = 101; moderate-certainty evidence) and DBP (MD -8.40 mmHg, 95% CI -12.19 to -4.61; P < 0.0001; participants = 101; moderate-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference of an impact of periodontal treatments on BP in most comparisons assessed in this review, and given the low certainty of evidence and the lack of relevant studies we could not draw conclusions about the effect of periodontal treatment on BP in people with chronic periodontitis. We found only one study suggesting that periodontal treatment may reduce SBP and DBP over a short period in people with hypertension and chronic periodontitis, but the certainty of evidence was moderate.

Poster presentations

In many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) have grown exponentially over recent years. It is estimated that about 80% of CVD deaths occur in LMICs. People in LMICs are more exposed to cardiovascular risk factors such as tobacco, and often do not have access to effective and equitable healthcare services (including early detection services). Evidence from high-income countries indicates that multiple risk factor intervention programmes do not result in reductions in CVD events. Given the increasing incidence of CVDs and lower CVD health awareness in LMICs it is possible that such programmes may have beneficial effects. To determine the effectiveness of multiple risk factor interventions (with or without pharmacological treatment) aimed at modifying major cardiovascular risk factors for the primary prevention of CVD in LMICs. We searched (from inception to 27 June 2014) the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL, HTA, DARE, EED), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health and three other databases on 27 June 2014. We also searched two clinical trial registers and conducted reference checking to identify additional studies. We applied no language limits. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of health promotion interventions to achieve behaviour change (i.e. smoking cessation, dietary advice, increasing activity levels) with or without pharmacological treatments, which aim to alter more than one cardiovascular risk factor (i.e. diet, reduce blood pressure, smoking, total blood cholesterol or increase physical activity) of at least six months duration of follow-up conducted in LMICs. Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We combined dichotomous data using risk ratios (RRs) and continuous data using mean differences (MDs), and presented all results with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The primary outcome was combined fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular disease events. Thirteen trials met the inclusion criteria and are included in the review. All studies had at least one domain with unclear risk of bias. Some studies were at high risk of bias for random sequence generation (two trials), allocation concealment (two trials), blinding of outcome assessors (one trial) and incomplete outcome data (one trial). Duration and content of multiple risk factor interventions varied across the trials. Two trials recruited healthy participants and the other 11 trials recruited people with varying risks of CVD, such as participants with known hypertension and type 2 diabetes. Only one study reported CVD outcomes and multiple risk factor interventions did not reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.07, 232 participants, low-quality evidence); the result is imprecise (a wide confidence interval and small sample size) and makes it difficult to draw a reliable conclusion. None of the included trials reported all-cause mortality. The pooled effect indicated a reduction in systolic blood pressure (MD -6.72 mmHg, 95% CI -9.82 to -3.61, I² = 91%, 4868 participants, low-quality evidence), diastolic blood pressure (MD -4.40 mmHg, 95% CI -6.47 to -2.34, I² = 92%, 4701 participants, low-quality evidence), body mass index (MD -0.76 kg/m², 95% CI -1.29 to -0.22, I² = 80%, 2984 participants, low-quality evidence) and waist circumference (MD -3.31, 95% CI -4.77 to -1.86, I² = 55%, 393 participants, moderate-quality evidence) in favour of multiple risk factor interventions, but there was substantial heterogeneity. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of these interventions on consumption of fruit or vegetables, smoking cessation, glycated haemoglobin, fasting blood sugar, high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and total cholesterol. None of the included trials reported on adverse events. Due to the limited evidence currently available, we can draw no conclusions as to the effectiveness of multiple risk factor interventions on combined CVD events and mortality. There is some evidence that multiple risk factor interventions may lower blood pressure levels, body mass index and waist circumference in populations in LMIC settings at high risk of hypertension and diabetes. There was considerable heterogeneity between the trials, the trials were small, and at some risk of bias. Larger studies with longer follow-up periods are required to confirm whether multiple risk factor interventions lead to reduced CVD events and mortality in LMIC settings.

Meditation for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Aldosterone antagonists in addition to renin angiotensin system antagonists for preventing the progression of chronic kidney disease.

Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids from oily fish (long-chain omega-3 (LCn3)), including eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)), as well as from plants (alpha-linolenic acid (ALA)) may benefit cardiovascular health. Guidelines recommend increasing omega-3-rich foods, and sometimes supplementation, but recent trials have not confirmed this. To assess the effects of increased intake of fish- and plant-based omega-3 fats for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, adiposity and lipids. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to February 2019, plus ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry to August 2019, with no language restrictions. We handsearched systematic review references and bibliographies and contacted trial authors. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that lasted at least 12 months and compared supplementation or advice to increase LCn3 or ALA intake, or both, versus usual or lower intake. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed validity. We performed separate random-effects meta-analysis for ALA and LCn3 interventions, and assessed dose-response relationships through meta-regression. We included 86 RCTs (162,796 participants) in this review update and found that 28 were at low summary risk of bias. Trials were of 12 to 88 months' duration and included adults at varying cardiovascular risk, mainly in high-income countries. Most trials assessed LCn3 supplementation with capsules, but some used LCn3- or ALA-rich or enriched foods or dietary advice compared to placebo or usual diet. LCn3 doses ranged from 0.5 g a day to more than 5 g a day (19 RCTs gave at least 3 g LCn3 daily). Meta-analysis and sensitivity analyses suggested little or no effect of increasing LCn3 on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.01; 143,693 participants; 11,297 deaths in 45 RCTs; high-certainty evidence), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99; 117,837 participants; 5658 deaths in 29 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence), cardiovascular events (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.01; 140,482 participants; 17,619 people experienced events in 43 RCTs; high-certainty evidence), stroke (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.12; 138,888 participants; 2850 strokes in 31 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) or arrhythmia (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 77,990 participants; 4586 people experienced arrhythmia in 30 RCTs; low-certainty evidence). Increasing LCn3 may slightly reduce coronary heart disease mortality (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 334, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.00; 127,378 participants; 3598 coronary heart disease deaths in 24 RCTs, low-certainty evidence) and coronary heart disease events (NNTB 167, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.97; 134,116 participants; 8791 people experienced coronary heart disease events in 32 RCTs, low-certainty evidence). Overall, effects did not differ by trial duration or LCn3 dose in pre-planned subgrouping or meta-regression. There is little evidence of effects of eating fish. Increasing ALA intake probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.20; 19,327 participants; 459 deaths in 5 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence),cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.25; 18,619 participants; 219 cardiovascular deaths in 4 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence), coronary heart disease mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.26; 18,353 participants; 193 coronary heart disease deaths in 3 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) and coronary heart disease events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.22; 19,061 participants; 397 coronary heart disease events in 4 RCTs; low-certainty evidence). However, increased ALA may slightly reduce risk of cardiovascular disease events (NNTB 500, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07; but RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.04 in RCTs at low summary risk of bias; 19,327 participants; 884 cardiovascular disease events in 5 RCTs; low-certainty evidence), and probably slightly reduces risk of arrhythmia (NNTB 91, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97; 4912 participants; 173 events in 2 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). Effects on stroke are unclear. Increasing LCn3 and ALA had little or no effect on serious adverse events, adiposity, lipids and blood pressure, except increasing LCn3 reduced triglycerides by ˜15% in a dose-dependent way (high-certainty evidence). This is the most extensive systematic assessment of effects of omega-3 fats on cardiovascular health to date. Moderate- and low-certainty evidence suggests that increasing LCn3 slightly reduces risk of coronary heart disease mortality and events, and reduces serum triglycerides (evidence mainly from supplement trials). Increasing ALA slightly reduces risk of cardiovascular events and arrhythmia.

Digital interventions to improve adherence to maintenance medication in asthma.

Interventions outside the workplace for reducing sedentary behaviour in adults under 60 years of age

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. 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). For this updated review, we used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was January 2022. We applied no language restrictions. 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. We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. 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). 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.

Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are used to manage hypertension which is highly prevalent among people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The treatment for hypertension is particularly challenging in people undergoing dialysis.To assess the benefits and harms of calcium channel blockers in patients with chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis.We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies to 27 April 2020 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Specialised Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared any type of CCB with other CCB, different doses of the same CCB, other antihypertensives, control or placebo were included. The minimum study duration was 12 weeks.Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using a random-effects model and results expressed as risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).This review included 13 studies (24 reports) randomising 1459 participants treated with long-term haemodialysis. Nine studies were included in the meta-analysis (622 participants). No studies were performed in children or in those undergoing peritoneal dialysis. Overall, risk of bias was assessed as unclear to high across most domains. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were at low risk of bias in eight and one studies, respectively. Two studies reported low risk methods for blinding of participants and investigators, and outcome assessment was blinded in 10 studies. Three studies were at low risk of attrition bias, eight studies were at low risk of selective reporting bias, and five studies were at low risk of other potential sources of bias. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was low to very low for all outcomes. No events were reported for cardiovascular death in any of the comparisons. Other side effects were rarely reported and studies were not designed to measure costs. Five studies (451 randomised adults) compared dihydropyridine CCBs to placebo or no treatment. Dihydropyridine CCBs may decrease predialysis systolic (1 study, 39 participants: MD -27.00 mmHg, 95% CI -43.33 to -10.67; low certainty evidence) and diastolic blood pressure level (2 studies, 76 participants; MD -13.56 mmHg, 95% CI -19.65 to -7.48; I2 = 0%, low certainty evidence) compared to placebo or no treatment. Dihydropyridine CCBs may make little or no difference to occurrence of intradialytic hypotension (2 studies, 287 participants; RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.15; I2 = 0%, low certainty evidence) compared to placebo or no treatment. Other side effects were not reported. Eight studies (1037 randomised adults) compared dihydropyridine CCBs to other antihypertensives. Dihydropyridine CCBs may make little or no difference to predialysis systolic (4 studies, 180 participants: MD 2.44 mmHg, 95% CI -3.74 to 8.62; I2 = 0%, low certainty evidence) and diastolic blood pressure (4 studies, 180 participants: MD 1.49 mmHg, 95% CI -2.23 to 5.21; I2 = 0%, low certainty evidence) compared to other antihypertensives. There was no evidence of a difference in the occurrence of intradialytic hypotension (1 study, 92 participants: RR 2.88, 95% CI 0.12 to 68.79; very low certainty evidence) between dihydropyridine CCBs to other antihypertensives. Other side effects were not reported. Dihydropyridine CCB may make little or no difference to predialysis systolic (1 study, 40 participants: MD -4 mmHg, 95% CI -11.99 to 3.99; low certainty evidence) and diastolic blood pressure (1 study, 40 participants: MD -3.00 mmHg, 95% CI -7.06 to 1.06; low certainty evidence) compared to non-dihydropyridine CCB. There was no evidence of a difference in other side effects (1 study, 40 participants: RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.36; very low certainty evidence) between dihydropyridine CCB and non-dihydropyridine CCB. Intradialytic hypotension was not reported.The benefits of CCBs over other antihypertensives on predialysis blood pressure levels and intradialytic hypotension among people with CKD who required haemodialysis were uncertain. Effects of CCBs on other side effects and cardiovascular death also remain uncertain. Dihydropyridine CCBs may decrease predialysis systolic and diastolic blood pressure level compared to placebo or no treatment. No studies were identified in children or peritoneal dialysis. Available studies have not been designed to measure the effects on costs. The shortcomings of the studies were that they recruited very few participants, had few events, had very short follow-up periods, some outcomes were not reported, and the reporting of outcomes such as changes in blood pressure was not done uniformly across studies. Well-designed RCTs, conducted in both adults and children with CKD requiring both haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis, evaluating both dihydropyridine and non-dihydropyridine CCBs against other antihypertensives are required. Future research should be focused on outcomes relevant to patients (including death and cardiovascular disease), blood pressure changes, risk of side effects and healthcare costs to assist decision-making in clinical practice.

Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Persons with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Current Knowledge and Rationale for the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) Trial

Hypertension is a major public health problem that increases the risk of cardiovascular and kidney diseases. Several studies have shown an inverse association between calcium intake and blood pressure, as small reductions in blood pressure have been shown to produce rapid reductions in vascular disease risk even in individuals with normal blood pressure ranges. This is the first update of thereviewto evaluate the effect of calcium supplementation in normotensive individuals as a preventive health measure. To assess the efficacy and safety of calcium supplementation versus placebo or control for reducing blood pressure in normotensive people and for the preventionof primary hypertension. The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to September 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2020, Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and theUS National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions. We selected trials that randomised normotensive people to dietary calcium interventions such as supplementation or food fortification versus placebo or control. We excluded quasi-random designs. The primary outcomes were hypertension (defined as blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg) and blood pressure measures. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, abstracted the data and assessed the risks of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. The 2020 updated search identified four new trials. We included a total of 20 trials with 3512 participants, however we only included 18 for the meta-analysis with 3140 participants. None of the studies reported hypertension as a dichotomous outcome. The effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure was: mean difference (MD) -1.37 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.08, -0.66; 3140 participants; 18 studies; I2 = 0%, high-certainty evidence; and MD -1.45, 95% CI -2.23, -0.67; 3039 participants; 17 studies; I2 = 45%, high-certainty evidence, respectively. The effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure for those younger than 35 years was: MD -1.86, 95% CI -3.45, -0.27; 452 participants; eightstudies; I2 = 19%, moderate-certainty evidence; MD -2.50, 95% CI -4.22, -0.79; 351 participants; sevenstudies ; I2 = 54%, moderate-certainty evidence, respectively. The effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure for those 35 years or older was: MD -0.97, 95% CI -1.83, -0.10; 2688 participants; 10 studies; I2 = 0%, high-certainty evidence; MD -0.59, 95% CI -1.13, -0.06; 2688 participants; 10 studies; I2 = 0%, high-certainty evidence, respectively. The effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure for women was: MD -1.25, 95% CI -2.53, 0.03; 1915 participants; eight studies; I2 = 0%, high-certainty evidence; MD -1.04, 95% CI -1.86, -0.22; 1915 participants; eight studies; I2 = 4%, high-certainty evidence, respectively. The effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure for men was MD -2.14, 95% CI -3.71, -0.59; 507 participants; five studies; I2 = 8%, moderate-certainty evidence; MD -1.99, 95% CI -3.25, -0.74; 507 participants; five studies; I2 = 41%, moderate-certainty evidence, respectively. The effect was consistent in both genders regardless of baseline calcium intake. The effect on systolic blood pressure was: MD -0.02, 95% CI -2.23, 2.20; 302 participants; 3 studies; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence with doses less than 1000 mg; MD -1.05, 95% CI -1.91, -0.19; 2488 participants; 9 studies; I2 = 0%, high-certainty evidence with doses 1000 to 1500 mg; and MD -2.79, 95% CI -4.71, 0.86; 350 participants; 7 studies; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence with doses more than 1500 mg. The effect on diastolic blood pressure was: MD -0.41, 95% CI -2.07, 1.25; 201 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 0, moderate-certainty evidence; MD -2.03, 95% CI -3.44, -0.62 ; 1017 participants; 8 studies; and MD -1.35, 95% CI -2.75, -0.05; 1821 participants; 8 studies; I2 = 51%, high-certainty evidence, respectively. None of the studies reported adverse events. An increase in calcium intake slightly reduces both systolic and diastolic blood pressure in normotensive people, particularly in young people, suggesting a role in the prevention of hypertension. The effect across multiple prespecified subgroups and a possible dose response effect reinforce this conclusion. Even small reductions in blood pressure could have important health implications for reducing vascular disease. A 2 mmHg lower systolic blood pressure is predicted to produce about 10% lower stroke mortality and about 7% lower mortality from ischaemic heart disease. There is a great need for adequately-powered clinical trials randomising young people. Subgroup analysis should involve basal calcium intake, age, sex, basal blood pressure, and body mass index. We also require assessment of side effects, optimal doses and the best strategy to improve calcium intake.

Hypertension is a major public health problem that increases the risk of cardiovascular and kidney diseases. Several studies have shown an inverse association between calcium intake and blood pressure, as small reductions in blood pressure have been shown to produce rapid reductions in vascular disease risk even in individuals with normal blood pressure ranges. This is the first update of thereviewto evaluate the effect of calcium supplementation in normotensive individuals as a preventive health measure. To assess the efficacy and safety of calcium supplementation versus placebo or control for reducing blood pressure in normotensive people and for the preventionof primary hypertension. The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to September 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2020, Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and theUS National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions. We selected trials that randomised normotensive people to dietary calcium interventions such as supplementation or food fortification versus placebo or control. We excluded quasi-random designs. The primary outcomes were hypertension (defined as blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg) and blood pressure measures. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, abstracted the data and assessed the risks of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. The 2020 updated search identified four new trials. We included a total of 20 trials with 3512 participants, however we only included 18 for the meta-analysis with 3140 participants. None of the studies reported hypertension as a dichotomous outcome. The effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure was: mean difference (MD) -1.37 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.08, -0.66; 3140 participants; 18 studies; I2 = 0%, high-certainty evidence; and MD -1.45, 95% CI -2.23, -0.67; 3039 participants; 17 studies; I2 = 45%, high-certainty evidence, respectively. The effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure for those younger than 35 years was: MD -1.86, 95% CI -3.45, -0.27; 452 participants; eightstudies; I2 = 19%, moderate-certainty evidence; MD -2.50, 95% CI -4.22, -0.79; 351 participants; sevenstudies ; I2 = 54%, moderate-certainty evidence, respectively. The effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure for those 35 years or older was: MD -0.97, 95% CI -1.83, -0.10; 2688 participants; 10 studies; I2 = 0%, high-certainty evidence; MD -0.59, 95% CI -1.13, -0.06; 2688 participants; 10 studies; I2 = 0%, high-certainty evidence, respectively. The effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure for women was: MD -1.25, 95% CI -2.53, 0.03; 1915 participants; eight studies; I2 = 0%, high-certainty evidence; MD -1.04, 95% CI -1.86, -0.22; 1915 participants; eight studies; I2 = 4%, high-certainty evidence, respectively. The effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure for men was MD -2.14, 95% CI -3.71, -0.59; 507 participants; five studies; I2 = 8%, moderate-certainty evidence; MD -1.99, 95% CI -3.25, -0.74; 507 participants; five studies; I2 = 41%, moderate-certainty evidence, respectively. The effect was consistent in both genders regardless of baseline calcium intake. The effect on systolic blood pressure was: MD -0.02, 95% CI -2.23, 2.20; 302 participants; 3 studies; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence with doses less than 1000 mg; MD -1.05, 95% CI -1.91, -0.19; 2488 participants; 9 studies; I2 = 0%, high-certainty evidence with doses 1000 to 1500 mg; and MD -2.79, 95% CI -4.71, 0.86; 350 participants; 7 studies = 8; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence with doses more than 1500 mg. The effect on diastolic blood pressure was: MD -0.41, 95% CI -2.07, 1.25; 201 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 0, moderate-certainty evidence; MD -2.03, 95% CI -3.44, -0.62 ; 1017 participants; 8 studies; and MD -1.35, 95% CI -2.75, -0.05; 1821 participants; 8 studies; I2 = 51%, high-certainty evidence, respectively. None of the studies reported adverse events. An increase in calcium intake slightly reduces both systolic and diastolic blood pressure in normotensive people, particularly in young people, suggesting a role in the prevention of hypertension. The effect across multiple prespecified subgroups and a possible dose response effect reinforce this conclusion. Even small reductions in blood pressure could have important health implications for reducing vascular disease. A 2 mmHg lower systolic blood pressure is predicted to produce about 10% lower stroke mortality and about 7% lower mortality from ischaemic heart disease. There is a great need for adequately-powered clinical trials randomising young people. Subgroup analysis should involve basal calcium intake, age, sex, basal blood pressure, and body mass index. We also require assessment of side effects, optimal doses and the best strategy to improve calcium intake.