Lack of effect of lowering LDL cholesterol on cancer: meta-analysis of individual data from 175,000 people in 27 randomised trials of statin therapy

Background: Statin therapy reduces the risk of occlusive vascular events, but uncertainty remains about potential effects on cancer. We sought to provide a detailed assessment of any effects on cancer of lowering LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) with a statin using individual patient records from 175,000 patients in 27 large-scale statin trials. Methods and Findings: Individual records of 134,537 participants in 22 randomised trials of statin versus control (median duration 4.8 years) and 39,612 participants in 5 trials of more intensive versus less intensive statin therapy (median duration 5.1 years) were obtained. Reducing LDL-C with a statin for about 5 years had no effect on newly diagnosed cancer or on death from such cancers in either the trials of statin versus control (cancer incidence: 3755 [1.4% per year [py]] versus 3738 [1.4% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.96-1.05]; cancer mortality: 1365 [0.5% py] versus 1358 [0.5% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.93-1.08]) or in the trials of more versus less statin (cancer incidence: 1466 [1.6% py] vs 1472 [1.6% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.93-1.07]; cancer mortality: 447 [0.5% py] versus 481 [0.5% py], RR 0.93 [95% CI 0.82-1.06]). Moreover, there was no evidence of any effect of reducing LDL-C with statin therapy on cancer incidence or mortality at any of 23 individual categories of sites, with increasing years of treatment, for any individual statin, or in any given subgroup. In particular, among individuals with low baseline LDL-C (<2 mmol/L), there was no evidence that further LDL-C reduction (from about 1.7 to 1.3 mmol/L) increased cancer risk (381 [1.6% py] versus 408 [1.7% py]; RR 0.92 [99% CI 0.76-1.10]). Conclusions: In 27 randomised trials, a median of five years of statin therapy had no effect on the incidence of, or mortality from, any type of cancer (or the aggregate of all cancer).

The knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of patients and their healthcare professionals around oral dosage form modification: a systematic review of the qualitative literature

Objectives: The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize the available qualitative evidence on the knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of adult patients, healthcare professionals and carers about oral dosage form modification. Design: A systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies was undertaken, utilising the thematic synthesis approach. Data sources: The following databases were searched from inception to September 2015: PubMed, Medline (EBSCO), EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ProQuest Databases, Scopus, Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). Citation tracking and searching the references lists of included studies was also undertaken. Grey literature was searched using the OpenGrey database, internet searching and personal knowledge. An updated search was undertaken in June 2016. Review methods: Studies meeting the following criteria were eligible for inclusion; (i) used qualitative data collection and analysis methods; (ii) full-text was available in English; (iii) included adult patients who require oral dosage forms to be modified to meet their needs or; (iv) carers or healthcare professionals of patients who require oral dosage forms to be modified. Two reviewers independently appraised the quality of the included studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist. A thematic synthesis was conducted and analytical themes were generated. Results: Of 5455 records screened, seven studies were eligible for inclusion; three involved healthcare professionals and the remaining four studies involved patients. Four analytical themes emerged from the thematic synthesis: (i) patient-centred individuality and variability; (ii) communication; (iii) knowledge and uncertainty and; (iv) complexity. The variability of individual patient’s requirements, poor communication practices and lack of knowledge about oral dosage form modification, when combined with the complex and multi-faceted healthcare environment complicate decision making regarding oral dosage form modification and administration. Conclusions: This systematic review has highlighted the key factors influencing the knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of patients and healthcare professionals about oral dosage form modifications. The findings suggest that in order to optimise oral medicine modification practices the needs of individual patients should be routinely and systematically assessed and decision-making should be supported by evidence based recommendations with multidisciplinary input. Further research is needed to optimise oral dosage form modification practices and the factors identified in this review should be considered in the development of future interventions.

Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands

Background: Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. It has been shown that the quality of treatment result obtained with fixed appliances is much better than with removable appliances. Fixed appliances are, therefore, favoured by most orthodontists for treatment. The success of a fixed orthodontic appliance depends on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being attached securely to the teeth so that they do not become loose during treatment. Brackets are usually attached to the front and side teeth, whereas bands (metal rings that go round the teeth) are more commonly used on the back teeth (molars). A number of adhesives are available to attach bands to teeth and it is important to understand which group of adhesives bond most reliably, as well as reducing or preventing dental decay during the treatment period. :Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bands to teeth during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of: (1) how often the bands come off during treatment; and (2) whether they protect the banded teeth against decay during fixed appliance treatment. Search methods: The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (searched 2 June 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 5) in the Cochrane Library (searched 2 June 2016), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 2 June 2016) and EMBASE Ovid (1980 to 2 June 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Selection criteria: Randomised and controlled clinical trials (RCTs and CCTs) (including split-mouth studies) of adhesives used to attach orthodontic bands to molar teeth were selected. Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) who had bands attached to molars were included. Data collection and analysis: All review authors were involved in study selection, validity assessment and data extraction without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. Main results: Five RCTs and three CCTs were identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. All the included trials were of split-mouth design. Four trials compared chemically cured zinc phosphate and chemically cured glass ionomer; three trials compared chemically cured glass ionomer cement with light cured compomer; one trial compared chemically cured glass ionomer with a chemically cured glass phosphonate. Data analysis was often inappropriate within the studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Authors' conclusions: There is insufficient high quality evidence with regard to the most effective adhesive for attaching orthodontic bands to molar teeth. Further RCTs are required.

Principles and prejudice: The erosion of fairness in admissibility determinations relating to historic child sexual abuse trials in Ireland

This thesis interrogates the construction of fairness to the accused in historic child sexual abuse trials in Ireland. The protection of fairness is a requirement of any trial that claims to adhere to the rule of law. Historic child sexual abuse trials, in which the charges relate to events that are alleged to have taken place decades previously, present serious challenges to the ability of the trial process to safeguard fairness. They are a litmus test of the courts’ commitment to fairness. The thesis finds that in historic abuse trials fairness to the accused has been significantly eroded and that therefore the Irish Courts have failed to respect the core of the rule of law in these most serious of prosecutions. The thesis scrutinises two bodies of case law, both of which deal with the issue of whether evidence should reach the jury. First, it examines the decisions on applications brought by defendants seeking to prohibit their trial. The courts hearing prohibition applications face a dilemma: how to ensure the defendant is not put at risk of an unfair trial, while at the same time recognising that delay in reporting is a defining feature of these cases. The thesis traces the development of the prohibition case law and tracks the shifting interpretations given to fairness by the courts. Second, the thesis examines what fairness means in the superior courts’ decisions regarding the admissibility of the following kinds of evidence, each of which presents particular challenges to the ability of the trial to safeguard fairness: evidence of multiple complainants; evidence of recovered memories and evidence of complainants’ therapeutic records. The thesis finds that in both bodies of case law the Irish courts have hollowed out the meaning of fairness. It makes proposals on how fairness might be placed at the heart of courts’ decisions on admissibility in historic abuse trials. The thesis concludes that the erosion of fairness in historic abuse trials is indicative of a move away from the liberal model of criminal justice. It cautions that unless fairness is prioritised in historic child sexual abuse trials the legitimacy of these trials and that of all Irish criminal trials will be contestable.

Do selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors and traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs increase the risk of atherothrombosis? Meta-analysis of randomised trials

Objective: To assess the effects of selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX 2) inhibitors and traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on the risk of vascular events. Design: Meta-analysis of published and unpublished tabular data from randomised trials, with indirect estimation of the effects of traditional NSAIDs. Data sources: Medline and Embase (January 1966 to April 2005); Food and Drug Administration records; and data on file from Novartis, Pfizer, and Merck. Review methods: Eligible studies were randomised trials that included a comparison of a selective COX 2 inhibitor versus placebo or a selective COX 2 inhibitor versus a traditional NSAID, of at least four weeks' duration, with information on serious vascular events (defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, or vascular death). Individual investigators and manufacturers provided information on the number of patients randomised, numbers of vascular events, and the person time of follow-up for each randomised group. Results: In placebo comparisons, allocation to a selective COX 2 inhibitor was associated with a 42% relative increase in the incidence of serious vascular events (1.2%/year v 0.9%/year; rate ratio 1.42, 95% confidence interval 1.13 to 1.78; P = 0.003), with no significant heterogeneity among the different selective COX 2 inhibitors. This was chiefly attributable to an increased risk of myocardial infarction (0.6%/year v 0.3%/year; 1.86, 1.33 to 2.59; P = 0.0003), with little apparent difference in other vascular outcomes. Among trials of at least one year's duration (mean 2.7 years), the rate ratio for vascular events was 1.45 (1.12 to 1.89; P = 0.005). Overall, the incidence of serious vascular events was similar between a selective COX 2 inhibitor and any traditional NSAID (1.0%/year v 0.9/%year; 1.16, 0.97 to 1.38; P = 0.1). However, statistical heterogeneity (P = 0.001) was found between trials of a selective COX 2 inhibitor versus naproxen (1.57, 1.21 to 2.03) and of a selective COX 2 inhibitor versus non-naproxen NSAIDs (0.88, 0.69 to 1.12). The summary rate ratio for vascular events, compared with placebo, was 0.92 (0.67 to 1.26) for naproxen, 1.51 (0.96 to 2.37) for ibuprofen, and 1.63 (1.12 to 2.37) for diclofenac. Conclusions: Selective COX 2 inhibitors are associated with a moderate increase in the risk of vascular events, as are high dose regimens of ibuprofen and diclofenac, but high dose naproxen is not associated with such an excess.