Search

Several studies have reported associations of hypertension with cancer, but not all results were conclusive. We examined the association of systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure with the development of incident cancer at all anatomical sites in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). Hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence intervals) were estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, stratified by EPIC-participating center and age at recruitment, and adjusted for sex, education, smoking, body mass index, physical activity, diabetes and dietary (in women also reproductive) factors. The study included 307,318 men and women, with an average follow-up of 13.7 (standard deviation 4.4) years and 39,298 incident cancers. We confirmed the expected positive association with renal cell carcinoma: HR = 1.12 (1.08-1.17) per 10 mm Hg higher SBP and HR = 1.23 (1.14-1.32) for DBP. We additionally found positive associations for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC): HR = 1.16 (1.07-1.26) (SBP), HR = 1.31 (1.13-1.51) (DBP), weaker for head and neck cancers: HR = 1.08 (1.04-1.12) (SBP), HR = 1.09 (1.01-1.17) (DBP) and, similarly, for skin SCC, colon cancer, postmenopausal breast cancer and uterine adenocarcinoma (AC), but not for esophageal AC, lung SCC, lung AC or uterine endometroid cancer. We observed weak inverse associations of SBP with cervical SCC: HR = 0.91 (0.82-1.00) and lymphomas: HR = 0.97 (0.93-1.00). There were no consistent associations with cancers in other locations. Our results are largely compatible with published studies and support weak associations of blood pressure with cancers in specific locations and morphologies.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Diagnostic test accuracy). The objectives are as follows: To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of point‐of‐care tests to detect high viral load levels in HIV‐positive people on ART.

Background Crimean Congo haemorrhagic fever (CCHF) is a tick-borne disease that occurs in parts of Asia, Europe and Africa. Since 2000 the infection has caused epidemics in Turkey, Iran, Russia, Uganda and Pakistan. Good-quality general supportive medical care helps reduce mortality. There is uncertainty and controversy about treating CCHF with the antiviral drug ribavirin. Objectives To assess the effects of ribavirin for treating people with Crimean Congo haemorrhagic fever. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (PubMed); Embase (OVID); Science Citation Index-Expanded, Social Sciences Citation index, conference proceedings (Web of Science); and CINAHL (EBSCOHost). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov for trials in progress. We conducted all searches up to 16 October 2017. We also contacted experts in the field and obtained further studies from these sources. Selection criteria We evaluated studies assessing the use of ribavirin in people with suspected or confirmed Crimean Congo haemorrhagic fever. We included randomised control trials (RCTs); non-randomised studies (NRSs) that included more than 10 participants designed as cohort studies with comparators; and case-control studies. Data collection and analysis Two review authors assessed eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. For non-randomized studies we used the ROBINS-I tool to assess risk of bias. The main effects analysis included all studies where we judged the risk of bias to be low, moderate or high. We summarized dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RRs) and continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs), and used meta-analyses where appropriate. We carried out a subsidiary appraisal and analysis of studies with critical risk of bias for the primary outcome, as these are often cited to support using ribavirin. Main results For the main effects analysis, five studies met our inclusion criteria: one RCT with 136 participants and four non-randomized studies with 612 participants. We excluded 18 non-randomized studies with critical risk of bias, where none had attempted to control for confounding. We do not know if ribavirin reduces mortality (1 RCT; RR 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 4.32; 136 participants; very low-certainty evidence; 3 non-randomized studies; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.28; 549 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We do not know if ribavirin reduces the length of stay in hospital (1 RCT: mean difference (MD) 0.70 days, 95% CI -0.39 to 1.79; 136 participants; and 1 non-randomized study: MD -0.80, 95% CI -2.70 to 1.10; 50 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We do not know if it reduces the risk of patients needing platelet transfusions (1 RCT: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.96; 136 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For adverse effects (including haemolytic anaemia and a need to discontinue treatment), we do not know whether there is an increased risk with ribavirin in people with CCHF as data are insufficient. We do not know if adding ribavirin to early supportive care improves outcomes. One non-randomized study assessed mortality in people receiving ribavirin and supportive care within four days or less from symptom onset compared to after four days since symptom onset: mortality was lower in the group receiving early supportive care and ribavirin, but it is not possible to distinguish between the effects of ribavirin and early supportive medical care alone. In the subsidiary analysis, 18 studies compared people receiving ribavirin with those not receiving ribavirin. All had a critical risk of bias due to confounding, reflected in the mortality point estimates favouring ribavirin. Authors' conclusions We do not know if ribavirin is effective for treating Crimean Congo haemorrhagic fever. Non-randomized studies are often cited as evidence of an effect, but the risk of bias in these studies is high. Ribavirin for treating Crimean Congo haemorrhagic fever What is the aim of this review? The aim of this Cochrane review is to find out if ribavirin is an effective treatment for Crimean Congo haemorrhagic fever. Cochrane researchers collected and analysed all relevant studies to answer this question. We found 23 studies. We include five studies in this review that helped answer the question. We analysed the other 18 studies to help describe the limitations of the evidence. Key messages There is insufficient reliable evidence to show whether ribavirin is effective in treating Crimean Congo haemorrhagic fever. A randomised clinical trial could help answer this question. What was studied in the review? Crimean Congo haemorrhagic fever (CCHF) is an infection spread by tick bites. It has become more common in the last 15 years, particularly in Turkey and parts of Eastern Europe. CCHF can be life threatening. The most important way of caring for people who are seriously unwell with CCHF is to monitor them closely in hospital and give them any fluid or blood products they may need. Ribavirin is an antiviral drug that some doctors use to treat CCHF. It is widely available and is normally taken by mouth. There is debate over whether ribavirin is needed to treat CCHF; some argue that it is an effective treatment, or helps if given early, whilst others say that it has no effect, in terms of the risk of death, the length of time needed in hospital, and the extent of harm from the drug itself. Overall, the study designs did not take into account factors other than taking ribavirin that could result in better outcomes in the intervention group, including how ill the patient was when diagnosed, or when good supportive medical care was started. This made any association between ribavirin and lower mortality problematic. We found five studies that took into account important factors that could confound the risk of dying with whether or not a patient received ribavirin. These include how sick the study participants were, what other care they received, and how long after they became sick they received medical care. All included studies were conducted in Turkey and Iran, and compared people with CCHF who received ribavirin and supportive care to those who received supportive care alone. We looked at five different outcomes relating to ribavirin use in CCHF, and found that there is insufficient reliable evidence to determine whether ribavirin is effective. How up to date is the review? The review authors searched for studies that had been published up to 16 October 2017.

Purpose The association between prediagnostic interleukin-6 (IL-6) concentrations and risk of colorectal cancer was evaluated in a nested case–control study and a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Methods Colorectal cancer cases (n = 173) and matched controls (n = 345) were identified between 1989 and 2000 among participants in the CLUE II cohort of Washington Country, Maryland. Matched odds ratios and the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using conditional logistic regression models. Results Participants in the highest third of plasma IL-6 concentration had a 2.48 times higher risk of colon cancer compared to participants in the bottom third (95 % CI 1.26–4.87; p-trend 0.02) after multivariate adjustment. This association did not differ according to the stage of disease, age, sex, or other potential modifying variables and remained statistically significant after adjustment for C-reactive protein concentrations. No statistically significant association was observed for rectal cancer risk. The meta-analysis of six prospective studies yielded an increased but borderline statistically significant risk of colon cancer per 1 U increase in naturally logarithm-transformed IL-6 (summary RR 1.22; 95 % CI 1.00–1.49; I2 46 %). An inverse association was noted for rectal cancer (RR 0.69; 95 % CI 0.54–0.88; I2 0 %), but there was evidence for small-study effects (p 0.02). Conclusion Our findings provide support for a modest positive association between IL-6 concentrations and colon cancer risk. More work is needed to determine whether IL-6 is a valid marker of colorectal inflammation and whether such inflammation contributes to colon and rectal cancer risk.

Background There is clinical uncertainty about the effectiveness and safety of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for the treatment of allergic asthma. Objectives To undertake a systematic overview of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT for the treatment of allergic asthma. Methods We searched nine electronic databases from inception to October 31, 2015. Systematic reviews were independently screened by two reviewers against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool for systematic reviews. Data were descriptively and thematically synthesized. Results We identified nine eligible systematic reviews; these focused on delivery of AIT through the following routes: subcutaneous (SCIT; n = 3); sublingual (SLIT; n = 4); and both SCIT and SLIT (n = 2). This evidence found that AIT delivered by SCIT and SLIT can improve medication and symptom scores and measures of bronchial hyper-reactivity. The impact on measures of lung function or asthma control was however less clear. We found no systematic review level evidence on the cost-effectiveness of SCIT or SLIT. SLIT had a favorable safety profile when compared to SCIT, particularly in relation to the risk of systemic reactions. Conclusions AIT has the potential to achieve reductions in symptom and medication scores, but there is no clear or consistent evidence that measures of lung function can be improved. Bearing in mind the limitations of synthesizing evidence from systematic reviews and the fact that these reviews include mainly dated studies, a systematic review of current primary studies is now needed to update this evidence base, estimate the effectiveness of AIT on asthma outcomes and to investigate the relative effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of SCIT and SLIT.

Objectives To evaluate the effects on non-specific and all cause mortality, in children under 5, of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP), and standard titre measles containing vaccines (MCV); to examine internal validity of the studies; and to examine any modifying effects of sex, age, vaccine sequence, and co-administration of vitamin A.Design Systematic review, including assessment of risk of bias, and meta-analyses of similar studies.Study eligibility criteria Clinical trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies of the effects on mortality of BCG, whole cell DTP, and standard titre MCV in children under 5.Data sources Searches of Medline, Embase, Global Index Medicus, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, supplemented by contact with experts in the field. To avoid overlap in children studied across the included articles, findings from non-overlapping birth cohorts were identified.Results Results from 34 birth cohorts were identified. Most evidence was from observational studies, with some from short term clinical trials. Most studies reported on all cause (rather than non-specific) mortality. Receipt of BCG vaccine was associated with a reduction in all cause mortality: the average relative risks were 0.70 (95% confidence interval 0.49 to 1.01) from five clinical trials and 0.47 (0.32 to 0.69) from nine observational studies at high risk of bias. Receipt of DTP (almost always with oral polio vaccine) was associated with a possible increase in all cause mortality on average (relative risk 1.38, 0.92 to 2.08) from 10 studies at high risk of bias; this effect seemed stronger in girls than in boys. Receipt of standard titre MCV was associated with a reduction in all cause mortality (relative risks 0.74 (0.51 to 1.07) from four clinical trials and 0.51 (0.42 to 0.63) from 18 observational studies at high risk of bias); this effect seemed stronger in girls than in boys. Seven observational studies, assessed as being at high risk of bias, have compared sequences of vaccines; results of a subset of these suggest that administering DTP with or after MCV may be associated with higher mortality than administering it before MCV.Conclusions Evidence suggests that receipt of BCG and MCV reduce overall mortality by more than would be expected through their effects on the diseases they prevent, and receipt of DTP may be associated with an increase in all cause mortality. Although efforts should be made to ensure that all children are immunised on schedule with BCG, DTP, and MCV, randomised trials are needed to compare the effects of different sequences.

A substantial number of prospective epidemiological studies have been conducted to investigate the association between biomarkers of inflammation and immune function and risk of colorectal cancer. Although pre-diagnostic concentrations of these biomarkers, especially C-reactive protein, have been associated with a higher risk of colorectal cancer in some studies, this association does not seem to have a robust support without hints of bias. Future prospective studies should evaluate multiple inflammatory biomarkers with longitudinal measures over the follow-up taking advantage of new multiplex cytokine quantification arrays and use more sophisticated joint or biomarker pattern statistical approaches to capture the complex and dynamic interplay between biomarkers and risk of colorectal cancer. Large collaborative consortia and Mendelian randomization studies should be encouraged to diminish the threat of biases and improve the reliability of this literature.