Objective To systematically review longitudinal studies evaluating use of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and risk of pneumonia.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources Medline through PubMed, Web of Science with conference proceedings (inception to June 2011), and US Food and Drug Administration website (June 2011). Systematic reviews and references of retrieved articles were also searched.Study selection Two reviewers independently selected randomised controlled trials and cohort and case-control studies evaluating the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs and risk of pneumonia and retrieved characteristics of the studies and data estimates.Data synthesis The primary outcome was incidence of pneumonia and the secondary outcome was pneumonia related mortality. Subgroup analyses were carried according to baseline morbidities (stroke, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease) and patients' characteristics (Asian and non-Asian). Pooled estimates of odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were derived by random effects meta-analysis. Adjusted frequentist indirect comparisons between ACE inhibitors and ARBs were estimated and combined with direct evidence whenever available. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 test.Results 37 eligible studies were included. ACE inhibitors were associated with a significantly reduced risk of pneumonia compared with control treatment (19 studies: odds ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 0.80; I 2 =79%) and ARBs (combined direct and indirect odds ratio estimate 0.69, 0.56 to 0.85). In patients with stroke, the risk of pneumonia was also lower in those treated with ACE inhibitors compared with control treatment (odds ratio 0.46, 0.34 to 0.62) and ARBs (0.42, 0.22 to 0.80). ACE inhibitors were associated with a significantly reduced risk of pneumonia among Asian patients (0.43, 0.34 to 0.54) compared with non-Asian patients (0.82, 0.67 to 1.00; P<0.001). Compared with control treatments, both ACE inhibitors (seven studies: odds ratio 0.73, 0.58 to 0.92; I 2 =51%) and ARBs (one randomised controlled trial: 0.63, 0.40 to 1.00) were associated with a decrease in pneumonia related mortality, without differences between interventions. ConclusionsThe best evidence available points towards a putative protective role of ACE inhibitors but not ARBs in risk of pneumonia. Patient populations that may benefit most are those with previous stroke and Asian patients. ACE inhibitors were also associated with a decrease in pneumonia related mortality, but the data lacked strength. IntroductionPneumonia represents an important clinical condition because of its relatively high incidence (0.5% to 1.1% annually in the United Kingdom) and associated morbidity and mortality. Susceptibility is higher among elderly people (≥65 years), those with alcohol dependency, smokers, and patients with heart failure, previous stroke, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and chronic lung disease. [3][4][5][6] Pneumonia is a common reason for h...

BackgroundNeedle and syringe programmes (NSP) are a critical component of harm reduction interventions among people who inject drugs (PWID). Our primary objective was to summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of NSP for PWID in reducing blood-borne infection transmission and injecting risk behaviours (IRB).MethodsWe conducted an overview of systematic reviews that included PWID (excluding prisons and consumption rooms), addressed community-based NSP, and provided estimates of the effect regarding incidence/prevalence of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Hepatitis C virus (HCV), Hepatitis B virus (HBV) and bacteremia/sepsis, and/or measures of IRB. Systematic literature searches were undertaken on relevant databases, including EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsychINFO (up to May 2015). For each review we identified relevant studies and extracted data on methods, and findings, including risk of bias and quality of evidence assessed by review authors. We evaluated the risk of bias of each systematic review using the ROBIS tool. We categorized reviews by reported outcomes and use of meta-analysis; no additional statistical analysis was performed.ResultsWe included thirteen systematic reviews with 133 relevant unique studies published between 1989 and 2012. Reported outcomes related to HIV (n = 9), HCV (n = 8) and IRB (n = 6). Methods used varied at all levels of design and conduct, with four reviews performing meta-analysis. Only two reviews were considered to have low risk of bias using the ROBIS tool, and most included studies were evaluated as having low methodological quality by review authors. We found that NSP was effective in reducing HIV transmission and IRB among PWID, while there were mixed results regarding a reduction of HCV infection. Full harm reduction interventions provided at structural level and in multi-component programmes, as well as high level of coverage, were more beneficial.ConclusionsThe heterogeneity and the overall low quality of evidence highlights the need for future community-level studies of adequate design to support these results.Trial registrationThe protocol of this systematic review was registered in Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO 2015:CRD42015026145).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4210-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The best evidence available points toward a reduction of the risk of hospitalization and major surgery requirement in patients with IBD treated with infliximab. This impact is clinically and economically relevant because hospitalization and surgery are considered to be markers of disease severity and significantly contribute to the total direct costs associated with IBD.

BackgroundOver the past decades there has been a significant increase in the number of published clinical trials in palliative care. However, empirical evidence suggests that there are methodological problems in the design and conduct of studies, which raises questions about the validity and generalisability of the results and of the strength of the available evidence. We sought to evaluate the methodological characteristics and assess the quality of reporting of clinical trials in palliative care.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of published clinical trials assessing therapeutic interventions in palliative care. Trials were identified using MEDLINE (from its inception to February 2015). We assessed methodological characteristics and describe the quality of reporting using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.ResultsWe retrieved 107 studies. The most common medical field studied was oncology, and 43.9% of trials evaluated pharmacological interventions. Symptom control and physical dimensions (e.g. intervention on pain, breathlessness, nausea) were the palliative care-specific issues most studied. We found under-reporting of key information in particular on random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding.ConclusionsWhile the number of clinical trials in palliative care has increased over time, methodological quality remains suboptimal. This compromises the quality of studies. Therefore, a greater effort is needed to enable the appropriate performance of future studies and increase the robustness of evidence-based medicine in this important field.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12904-016-0181-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundChronic musculoskeletal pain is a prevalent condition and a major cause of disability and absence from the workplace worldwide. Opioids are frequently used to treat chronic pain, although adverse e ects o en restrict their long-term benefits. Tapentadol is an opioid and noradrenaline re-uptake inhibitor, which may cause a lower incidence (and severity) of adverse e ects compared to other strong opioids. ObjectivesTo determine the e icacy, safety, and tolerability of tapentadol extended-release for moderate-to-severe pain for at least three months for any musculoskeletal cause. Search methodsWe searched electronic databases (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science) to March 2014, unrestricted by language, as well as trials registers and reference lists from retrieved studies. We contacted drug manufacturers for further information.