Exploring Drug Re-Purposing for Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Large abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) present a significant mortality risk. While numerous medical interventions have been proposed, no drugs have convincingly reduced AAA progression, rupture rates, or repair risk. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of re-purposed drugs or dietary supplements on slowing expansion rates, reducing the risk of rupture, or minimising the risk of repair for individuals with AAA.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in five databases. Both observational studies and randomised controlled trials were included. Unpublished data from two screening trials were incorporated. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analyses were performed for each identified drug subclass and were stratified by overall risk of bias. Results were reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

Of 7 484 screened studies, 39 met the inclusion criteria. No studies on dietary supplements were included. A total of 84 cohorts were derived from the included studies, and twelve distinct drug groups underwent meta-analyses. Two drug groups, metformin and statins, were statistically significant in slowing AAA growth. No low risk of bias studies were included for these two drug groups, and the results had very high heterogeneity (I2 > 80%). Both groups had a GRADE certainty of very low. Metformin, excluding high risk of bias studies, presented an estimated mean growth difference of AAA diameter between users and non-users of -0.73 mm/year, whilst statins had an overall estimated mean difference of -0.84 mm/year.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that metformin and statins may provide some effect in slowing AAA progression. However, no definitive evidence was found for any of the investigated drugs included in this study. Further research is needed to identify effective medical treatments for AAA progression with more robust methodology.

Editor's Choice -- European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2024 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-Iliac Artery Aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

The European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) has developed clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with aneurysms of the abdominal aorta and iliac arteries in succession to the 2011 and 2019 versions, with the aim of assisting physicians and patients in selecting the best management strategy.

METHODS

The guideline is based on scientific evidence completed with expert opinion on the matter. By summarising and evaluating the best available evidence, recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of patients have been formulated. The recommendations are graded according to a modified European Society of Cardiology grading system, where the strength (class) of each recommendation is graded from I to III and the letters A to C mark the level of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 160 recommendations have been issued on the following topics: Service standards, including surgical volume and training; Epidemiology, diagnosis, and screening; Management of patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), including surveillance, cardiovascular risk reduction, and indication for repair; Elective AAA repair, including operative risk assessment, open and endovascular repair, and early complications; Ruptured and symptomatic AAA, including peri-operative management, such as permissive hypotension and use of aortic occlusion balloon, open and endovascular repair, and early complications, such as abdominal compartment syndrome and colonic ischaemia; Long term outcome and follow up after AAA repair, including graft infection, endoleaks and follow up routines; Management of complex AAA, including open and endovascular repair; Management of iliac artery aneurysm, including indication for repair and open and endovascular repair; and Miscellaneous aortic problems, including mycotic, inflammatory, and saccular aortic aneurysm. In addition, Shared decision making is being addressed, with supporting information for patients, and Unresolved issues are discussed.

CONCLUSION

The ESVS Clinical Practice Guidelines provide the most comprehensive, up to date, and unbiased advice to clinicians and patients on the management of abdominal aorto-iliac artery aneurysms.

Pathogenesis and management of abdominal aortic aneurysm

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) causes ∼170 000 deaths annually worldwide. Most guidelines recommend asymptomatic small AAAs (30 to <50 mm in women; 30 to <55 mm in men) are monitored by imaging and large asymptomatic, symptomatic, and ruptured AAAs are considered for surgical repair. Advances in AAA repair techniques have occurred, but a remaining priority is therapies to limit AAA growth and rupture. This review outlines research on AAA pathogenesis and therapies to limit AAA growth. Genome-wide association studies have identified novel drug targets, e.g. interleukin-6 blockade. Mendelian randomization analyses suggest that treatments to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol such as proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors and smoking reduction or cessation are also treatment targets. Thirteen placebo-controlled randomized trials have tested whether a range of antibiotics, blood pressure-lowering drugs, a mast cell stabilizer, an anti-platelet drug, or fenofibrate slow AAA growth. None of these trials have shown convincing evidence of drug efficacy and have been limited by small sample sizes, limited drug adherence, poor participant retention, and over-optimistic AAA growth reduction targets. Data from some large observational cohorts suggest that blood pressure reduction, particularly by angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, could limit aneurysm rupture, but this has not been evaluated in randomized trials. Some observational studies suggest metformin may limit AAA growth, and this is currently being tested in randomized trials. In conclusion, no drug therapy has been shown to convincingly limit AAA growth in randomized controlled trials. Further large prospective studies on other targets are needed.

Type I Interferon Receptor Subunit 1 Deletion Attenuates Experimental Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Formation

Objective: Type I interferon receptor signaling contributes to several autoimmune and vascular diseases such as lupus, atherosclerosis and stroke. The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of type I interferon receptor deficiency on the formation and progression of experimental abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Methods: AAAs were induced in type I interferon receptor subunit 1 (IFNAR1)-deficient and wild type control male mice via intra-infrarenal aortic infusion of porcine pancreatic elastase. Immunostaining for IFNAR1 was evaluated in experimental and clinical aneurysmal abdominal aortae. The initiation and progression of experimental AAAs were assessed via ultrasound imaging prior to (day 0) and days 3, 7 and 14 following elastase infusion. Aneurysmal histopathology was analyzed at sacrifice. Results: Increased aortic medial and adventitial IFNAR1 expression was present in both clinical AAAs harvested at surgery and experimental AAAs. Following AAA induction, wild type mice experienced progressive, time-dependent infrarenal aortic enlargement. This progression was substantially attenuated in IFNAR1-deficient mice. On histological analyses, medial elastin degradation, smooth muscle cell depletion, leukocyte accumulation and neoangiogenesis were markedly diminished in IFNAR1-deficient mice in comparison to wild type mice. Conclusion: IFNAR1 deficiency limited experimental AAA progression in response to intra-aortic elastase infusion. Combined with clinical observations, these results suggest an important role for IFNAR1 activity in AAA pathogenesis.

AAA Revisited: A Comprehensive Review of Risk Factors, Management, and Hallmarks of Pathogenesis

Despite declining incidence and mortality rates in many countries, the abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) continues to represent a life-threatening cardiovascular condition with an overall prevalence of about 2-3% in the industrialized world. While the risk of AAA development is considerably higher for men of advanced age with a history of smoking, screening programs serve to detect the often asymptomatic condition and prevent aortic rupture with an associated death rate of up to 80%. This review summarizes the current knowledge on identified risk factors, the multifactorial process of pathogenesis, as well as the latest advances in medical treatment and surgical repair to provide a perspective for AAA management.

Pharmacotherapy in Clinical Trials for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

There is no medical treatment proven to limit abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) progression. This systematic review aimed to summarise available trial evidence on the efficacy of pharmacotherapy in limiting AAA growth and AAA-related events.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to examine the efficacy of pharmacotherapy in reducing AAA growth and AAA-related events. Pubmed, Embase (Excerpta Medica Database), and the Cochrane library were searched from March, 1999 to March 29, 2022. AAA growth (mm/year) in the intervention and control groups was expressed as mean and standard deviation (SD). The results of AAA growth were expressed as mean difference (MD) and its 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for the AAA-related events.Heterogeneity was quantified using the I² statistic. Forest plots were created to show the pooled results of each outcome.

OUTCOMES

A total of 1373 articles were found in different databases according to the search strategy, and 10 articles were identified by hand searching. A total of 26 articles were included in our systematic review after the screening. For the studies of metformin, the meta-analysis demonstrated that metformin use was associated with a lower AAA growth rate (MD: -0.81 mm/y, 95% CI: -1.19 to -0.42, P < 0.0001, I² = 87%), Metformin use also was related to the lower rates of AAA-related events (OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.76, P = 0.0007, I² = 60%). The hypotensive drugs of the studies mainly included angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARB), and propranolol. The overall meta-analysis of blood pressure-lowering drugs reported no significant effect in limiting the AAA growth (MD: 0.31mm/year, 95%CI: -0.03 to 0.65, P = 0.07, I² = 66%) and AAA-related events (OR: 1.33, 95%CI: 0.76 to 2.32, P = 0.32, I² = 98%), In the subgroup analysis of the hypotensive drugs, the ACEI/ARB and propranolol also showed no significant in reducing the AAA growth and AAA-related events. The meta-analysis of the antibiotics demonstrated that the antibiotics were not associated with a lower AAA growth rate (MD: -0.27 mm/y, 95% CI: -0.88 to 0.34, P = 0.39, I² = 77%) and AAA-related events (OR: 0.94, 95%CI: 0.65 to 1.35, P = 0.72, I² = 0%). The results of statins also showed no significant effect in limiting AAA growth (MD: -1.11mm/year, 95%CI: -2.38 to 0.16, P = 0.09, I² = 96%) and AAA-related events (OR: 0.53, 95%CI: 0.26 to 1.06, P = 0.07, I² = 92%).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, effective pharmacotherapy for AAA was still lacking. Although the meta-analysis showed that metformin use was associated with lower AAA growth and AAA-related events, all of the included studies about metformin were cohort studies or case-control studies. More randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed for further verification.

Protocol for the Metformin Aneurysm Trial (MAT): a placebo-controlled randomised trial testing whether metformin reduces the risk of serious complications of abdominal aortic aneurysm

Background

Multiple observational studies have associated metformin prescription with reduced progression of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). The Metformin Aneurysm Trial (MAT) will test whether metformin reduces the risk of AAA rupture-related mortality or requirement for AAA surgery (AAA events) in people with asymptomatic aneurysms.

Methods

MAT is an international, multi-centre, prospective, parallel-group, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Participants must have an asymptomatic AAA measuring at least 35 mm in maximum diameter, no diabetes, no contraindication to metformin and no current plans for surgical repair. The double-blind period is preceded by a 6-week, single-blind, active run-in phase in which all potential participants receive metformin. Only patients tolerating metformin by taking at least 80% of allocated medication will enter the trial and be randomised to 1500 mg of metformin XR or an identical placebo. The primary outcome is the proportion of AAA events defined as rupture-related mortality or need for surgical repair. Secondary outcomes include AAA growth, major adverse cardiovascular events and health-related quality of life. In order to test if metformin reduced the risk of AAA events by at least 25%, 616 primary outcome events will be required (power 90%, alpha 0.05).

Discussion

Currently, there is no drug therapy for AAA. Past trials have found no convincing evidence of the benefit of multiple blood pressure lowering, antibiotics, a mast cell inhibitor, an anti-platelet drug and a lipid-lowering medication on AAA growth. MAT is one of a number of trials now ongoing testing metformin for AAA. MAT, unlike these other trials, is designed to test the effect of metformin on AAA events. The international collaboration needed for MAT will be challenging to achieve given the current COVID-19 pandemic. If this challenge can be overcome, MAT will represent a trial unique within the AAA field in its large size and design.

Trial registration

Australian Clinical Trials ACTRN12618001707257. Registered on 16 October 2018

Smaller size is more suitable for pharmacotherapy among undersized abdominal aortic aneurysm: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Pharmacotherapy for undersized abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a clinical unmet need. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have failed to show effectiveness despite countless promising data in preclinical studies. We aimed to identify the population with undersized AAAs (30-54 mm) who potentially benefit from pharmacotherapy. Methods: In accordance with the PRISMA statement, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled RCTs. The primary outcome was mean difference (MD) in annual growth rate (< 0 favors pharmacotherapy), and the secondary outcome was aneurysm-related events (diameters ⩾ 55 mm, ruptures, or referral to surgery). Results: Our search strategy identified eight RCTs (six trials on antibiotics [ABx], two on renin-angiotensin system inhibitors [RAS-I]) with a total of 1325 patients. The mean of baseline diameters ranged from 33.1 mm to 43.1 mm. Neither ABx nor RAS-I showed significant differences in MD. Multivariable random-effects restricted maximum likelihood meta-regression revealed a statistically significant linear relationship between baseline diameter and MD (coefficient 0.15 [95% CI 0.0011, 0.30], p = 0.049) but not for the follow-up period (p = 0.28) and duration of treatment (p = 0.11). In line with this result, ABx with baseline diameter < 40 mm significantly reduced MD (-1.03 mm/year [95% CI -1.64, -0.42], p = 0.001) and a borderline significant difference in aneurysm-related events (HR 0.53 [95% CI 0.28, 1.00], p = 0.05), whereas the other groups ⩾ 40 mm never demonstrated effectiveness. Fixed-effect models did not change the results. No evidence of publication bias was detected. Conclusion: Undersized AAAs < 40 mm can potentially benefit from pharmacotherapy. Future RCTs should consider preferentially including undersized AAA with smaller diameters.

Risk reduction and pharmacological strategies to prevent progression of aortic aneurysms

INTRODUCTION

While size thresholds exist to determine when aortic aneurysms warrant surgical intervention, there is no consensus on how best to treat this disease before aneurysms reach the threshold for intervention. Since a landmark study in 1994 first suggested ß-blockers may be useful in preventing aortic aneurysm growth, there has been a surge in research investigating different pharmacologic therapies for aortic aneurysms - with very mixed results.

AREAS COVERED

We have reviewed the existing literature on medical therapies used for thoracic and abdominal aortic aneurysms in humans. These include ß-blockers, angiotensin II receptor blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors as well as miscellaneous drugs such as tetracyclines, macrolides, statins, and anti-platelet medications.

EXPERT OPINION

While multiple classes of drugs have been explored for risk reduction in aneurysm disease, with few exceptions results have been disappointing with an abundance of contradictory findings. The vast majority of studies have been done in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms or thoracic aortic aneurysm patients with Marfan Syndrome. There exists a striking gap in the literature when it comes to pharmacologic management of non-Marfan Syndrome patients with thoracic aortic aneurysms. Given the differences in pathogenesis, this is an important future direction for aortic aneurysm research.

Effect of blood pressure lowering drugs and antibiotics on abdominal aortic aneurysm growth: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

There is currently no medical treatment proven to limit abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) progression. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to pool data from previous randomised controlled trials assessing the efficacy of blood pressure-lowering and antibiotic medications in limiting AAA growth and AAA-related events, that is, rupture or repair.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify randomised controlled trials that examined the efficacy of blood pressure-lowering medications or antibiotics in reducing AAA growth and AAA-related events. AAA growth (mm/year) was measured by ultrasound or computed tomography imaging. Meta-analyses were performed using random effects models. A subanalysis was conducted including trials that investigated tetracycline or macrolide antibiotics.

RESULTS

Ten randomised controlled trials including 2045 participants with an asymptomatic AAA were included. Follow-up was between 18 and 63 months. Neither blood pressure-lowering medications (mean growth±SD 2.0±2.4 vs 2.3±2.7 mm/year; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.07, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.06; p=0.288) or antibiotics (mean growth±SD 2.6±2.1 vs 2.6±2.5 mm/year; SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.38 to 0.16; p=0.418) reduced AAA growth or AAA-related events (blood pressure-lowering medications: 92 vs 95 events; risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.11; p=0.244; and antibiotics: 69 vs 73 events; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.25; p=0.614). The subanalysis of antibiotics showed similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that neither blood pressure-lowering medications or antibiotics limit growth or clinically relevant events in people with AAAs.

Lack of an effective drug therapy for abdominal aortic aneurysm

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture is a common cause of death in adults. Current AAA treatment is by open surgical or endovascular aneurysm repair. Rodent model and human epidemiology, and genetic and observational studies over the last few decades have highlighted the potential of a number of drug therapies, including medications that lower blood pressure, correct dyslipidaemia, or inhibit thrombosis, inflammation or matrix remodelling, as approaches to managing small AAA. This review summarizes prior AAA pathogenesis data from animal and human studies aimed at identifying targets for the development of drug therapies. The review also systematically assesses past randomized placebo-controlled drug trials in patients with small AAAs. Eleven previously published randomized-controlled clinical trials testing different drug therapies aimed at slowing AAA progression were identified. Five of the trials tested antibiotics and three trials assessed medications that lower blood pressure. Meta-analyses of these trials suggested that neither of these approaches limit AAA growth. Allocation to blood pressure-lowering medication was associated with a small reduction in AAA rupture or repair, compared to placebo (relative risk 0.94, 95% confidence intervals 0.89, 1.00, P = 0.047). Three further trials assessed the effect of a mast cell inhibitor, fibrate or platelet aggregation inhibition and reported no effect on AAA growth or clinical events. Past trials were noted to have a number of design issues, particularly small sample sizes and limited follow-up. Much larger trials are needed to properly test potential therapeutic approaches if a convincingly effective medical therapy for AAA is to be identified.

Pathogenic mechanisms and the potential of drug therapies for aortic aneurysm

Aortic aneurysm is a permanent focal dilation of the aorta. It is usually an asymptomatic disease but can lead to sudden death due to aortic rupture. Aortic aneurysm-related mortalities are estimated at ∼200,000 deaths per year worldwide. Because no pharmacological treatment has been found to be effective so far, surgical repair remains the only treatment for aortic aneurysm. Aortic aneurysm results from changes in the aortic wall structure due to loss of smooth muscle cells and degradation of the extracellular matrix and can form in different regions of the aorta. Research over the past decade has identified novel contributors to aneurysm formation and progression. The present review provides an overview of cellular and noncellular factors as well as enzymes that process extracellular matrix and regulate cellular functions (e.g., matrix metalloproteinases, granzymes, and cathepsins) in the context of aneurysm pathogenesis. An update of clinical trials focusing on therapeutic strategies to slow abdominal aortic aneurysm growth and efforts underway to develop effective pharmacological treatments is also provided.

Primary Care Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) have mortality estimated at 81%.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the evidence on benefits and harms of AAA screening and small aneurysm treatment to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed (publisher supplied only), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant English-language studies published through September 2018. Surveillance continued through July 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

Trials of AAA screening benefits and harms; trials and cohort studies of small (3.0-5.4 cm) AAA treatment benefits and harms.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles and extracted data. The Peto method was used to pool odds ratios (ORs) for AAA-related mortality, rupture, and operations; the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model was used to pool calculated risk ratios for all-cause mortality.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

AAA and all-cause mortality; AAA rupture; treatment complications.

RESULTS

Fifty studies (N = 323 279) met inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of population-based randomized clinical trials (RCTs) estimated that a screening invitation to men 65 years or older was associated with a reduction in AAA-related mortality over 12 to 15 years (OR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.57-0.74]; 4 RCTs [n = 124 926]), AAA-related ruptures over 12 to 15 years (OR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.55-0.70]; 4 RCTs [n = 124 929]), and emergency surgical procedures over 4 to 15 years (OR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.48-0.68]; 5 RCTS [n = 175 085]). In contrast, no significant association with all-cause mortality benefit was seen at 12- to 15-year follow-up (relative risk, 0.99 [95% CI 0.98-1.00]; 4 RCTs [n = 124 929]). One-time screening was associated with significantly more procedures over 4 to 15 years in the invited group compared with the control group (OR, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.34-1.55]; 5 RCTs [n = 175 085]). Four trials (n = 3314) of small aneurysm surgical treatment demonstrated no significant difference in AAA-related mortality or all-cause mortality compared with surveillance over 1.7 to 12 years. These 4 early surgery trials showed a substantial increase in procedures in the early surgery group. For small aneurysm treatment, registry data (3 studies [n = 14 424]) showed that women had higher surgical complications and postoperative mortality compared with men.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

One-time AAA screening in men 65 years or older was associated with decreased AAA-related mortality and rupture rates but was not associated with all-cause mortality benefit. Higher rates of elective surgery but no long-term differences in quality of life resulted from screening.

Current Status and Perspectives on Pharmacologic Therapy for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Background:

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), a common disease involving the segmen-tal expansion and rupture of the aorta, has a high mortality rate. Therapeutic options for AAA are cur-rently limited to surgical repair to prevent catastrophic rupture. Non-surgical approaches, particularly pharmacotherapy, are lacking for the treatment of AAA.

Objective:

We review both basic and clinical studies and discuss the current challenges to developing medical therapy that reduces AAA progression.

Results:

Studies using animal models of AAA progression and human AAA explant cultures have identified several potential targets for preventing AAA growth. However, no clinical studies have con-vincingly confirmed the efficacy of any pharmacologic treatment against the growth of AAA. Thus, there is as yet no strong recommendation regarding pharmacotherapy to reduce the risk of AAA pro-gression and rupture.

Conclusion:

This review identifies concerns that need to be addressed for the field to progress and dis-cusses the challenges that must be overcome in order to develop effective pharmacotherapy to reduce AAA progression in the future.

Pharmacologic Management of Aneurysms

Current management of aortic aneurysms relies exclusively on prophylactic operative repair of larger aneurysms. Great potential exists for successful medical therapy that halts or reduces aneurysm progression and hence alleviates or postpones the need for surgical repair. Preclinical studies in the context of abdominal aortic aneurysm identified hundreds of candidate strategies for stabilization, and data from preoperative clinical intervention studies show that interventions in the pathways of the activated inflammatory and proteolytic cascades in enlarging abdominal aortic aneurysm are feasible. Similarly, the concept of pharmaceutical aorta stabilization in Marfan syndrome is supported by a wealth of promising studies in the murine models of Marfan syndrome-related aortapathy. Although some clinical studies report successful medical stabilization of growing aortic aneurysms and aortic root stabilization in Marfan syndrome, these claims are not consistently confirmed in larger and controlled studies. Consequently, no medical therapy can be recommended for the stabilization of aortic aneurysms. The discrepancy between preclinical successes and clinical trial failures implies shortcomings in the available models of aneurysm disease and perhaps incomplete understanding of the pathological processes involved in later stages of aortic aneurysm progression. Preclinical models more reflective of human pathophysiology, identification of biomarkers to predict severity of disease progression, and improved design of clinical trials may more rapidly advance the opportunities in this important field.

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication

BACKGROUND

Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; I² = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.

Description of human AAA by cytokine and immune cell aberrations compared to risk-factor matched controls

BACKGROUND

The pathogenesis driving the formation of abdominal aortic aneurysms continues to be poorly understood. Therefore, we systemically define the cytokine and circulating immune cell environment observed in human abdominal aortic aneurysm compared with risk-factor matched controls.

METHODS

From 2015 to 2017, a total of 274 patients donated blood to the Indiana University Center for Aortic Disease. Absolute concentrations of circulating cytokines were determined, using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays while the expression of circulating immune cell phenotypes were assayed via flow cytometric analysis.

RESULTS

Human abdominal aortic aneurysm is characterized by a significant depletion of the antigen-specific, CD4⁺ Tr1 regulatory lymphocyte that corresponds to an upregulation of the antigen-specific, inflammatory Th17 cell. We found no differences in the incidence of Treg, B10, and myeloid-derived suppressor regulatory cells. Similarly, no disparities were noted in the following inflammatory cytokines: IL-1β, C-reactive protein, tumor necrosis factor α, interferon γ, and IL-23. However, significant upregulation of the inflammatory cytokines osteopontin, IL-6, and IL-17 were noted. Additionally, no changes were observed in the regulatory cytokines IL-2, IL-4, IL-13, TNF-stimulated gene 6 protein, and prostaglandin E2, but we did observe a significant decrease in the essential regulatory cytokine IL-10.

CONCLUSION

In this investigation, we systematically characterize the abdominal aortic aneurysm-immune environment and present preliminary evidence that faulty immune regulation may also contribute to aneurysm formation and growth.

Abdominal aortic aneurysms and diabetes mellitus

There is accumulating evidence that risk profiles differ between coronary artery disease and abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). However, diabetes mellitus (DM) appears to be negatively associated with AAA formation. The underlying mechanisms for this negative relationship are far from defined, but may include: increased arterial wall matrix formation via advanced glycation end products; suppression of plasmin and reduction of levels and activity of matrix metalloproteinases (MMP)-2 and 9; diminished aortic wall macrophage infiltration, elastolysis and neovascularization. In addition, the effect of pharmacological agents used for the treatment of patients with DM on AAA formation has been studied with rather controversial results. Statins, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, fenofibrate, antibiotics and some hypoglycemic agents are beginning to be appreciated for a potential modest protection from AAAs, but further studies are needed.

Editor's Choice - Pharmaceutical Management of Small Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: A Systematic Review of the Clinical Evidence

BACKGROUND

Management of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) relies on surgical repair of larger AAAs. Consequently medical interventions inhibiting AAA progression could greatly reduce the need for surgical repair. A spectrum of pharmaceutical strategies has been reported, albeit conclusions often appear contradictory. Given the longstanding interest in pharmaceutical AAA stabilization, a systematic review of the available literature is relevant.

OBJECTIVES

The aim is to provide an up to date systematic review of the available data on pharmaceutical therapies for stabilizing or impeding AAA growth.

METHODS

A search using Pubmed, Embase, Web of science, Cochrane, CINAHL, Academic Search Premier, and Science Direct identified 27 eligible papers that studied the clinical effect of the pharmaceutical therapy on AAA diameter growth.

RESULTS

This review shows that there is currently no pharmaceutical strategy that reduces AAA growth. Most studies are of poor methodological quality. Initial promising reports are often not confirmed in subsequent larger studies, raising the possibility of selective reporting.

CONCLUSION

There is currently no pharmaceutical means that halts AAA growth.

Current status of medical treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysm

Although cardiovascular disease is widely recognized as the leading cause of death, a lesser known fact is that aortic aneurysm is the 15th leading cause of death over the age of 65 years in the USA. The golden standard of the treatments are invasive interventions either with open surgical repair (OS) or endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The concept of medical treatment is to prevent abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) from rupture and avoid surgical treatment by preventing aneurysm enlargement or even reducing aneurysm size. Matrix metalloproteinases (MMP) are structurally related metalloendopeptidases that can degrade the extracellular matrix and is thought to play important roles in AAA. There are many proposed pharmacological treatments including: β-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE inhibitors), angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), statins, macrolides and, doxycycline, an inhibitor of the MMP. The latter is a potential promising drug as medical treatment for AAA and the Non-invasive Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Clinical Trial (N-TA(3)CT) is currently ongoing in the USA. Here, the pathophysiology and potential medical therapy for AAA will be reviewed.

Medical treatment for small abdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in selected groups is now performed in England, the USA and Sweden. Patients with aneurysms over 55 mm in diameter are generally considered for elective surgical repair. Patients with aneurysm diameters below or equal to 55 mm (termed 'small AAAs') are managed with aneurysm surveillance as there is currently insufficient evidence to recommend surgery in these cases. As more patients are screened, there will be an increasing number of small AAAs identified. There is interest in pharmaceutical interventions (for example angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, antibiotics, beta-blockers, statins) which could be given to such patients to delay or reverse aneurysm expansion and reduce the need for elective surgical repair.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of medical treatment on the expansion rate of small abdominal aortic aneurysms.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (May 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 5). Clinical trials databases were searched for details of ongoing or unpublished studies. The reference lists of articles retrieved by electronic searches were searched for additional citations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised trials in which patients with small AAAs allocated to medical treatment with the intention of retarding aneurysm expansion were compared to patients allocated to a placebo treatment, alternative medical treatment, a different regimen of the same drug or imaging surveillance alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias in the trials. Meta-analyses were used when heterogeneity was considered low. The two primary outcomes were the mean difference (MD) in aneurysm diameter and the odds ratio (OR) calculated to compare the number of individuals referred to AAA surgery in each group over the trial period.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven trials involving 1558 participants were included in this review; 457 were involved in four trials of antibiotic medication, and 1101 were involved in three trials of beta-blocker medication. Five of the studies were rated at a high risk of bias.Individually, all of the included trials reported non-significant differences in AAA expansion rates between their intervention and control groups.The two major drug groups were then analysed separately. For AAA expansion it was only possible to combine two of the antibiotic trials in a meta-analysis. This demonstrated that roxithromycin had a small but significant protective effect (MD -0.86 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.57 to -0.14). When referral to AAA surgery was compared (including all four antibiotic trials in the meta-analysis), non-significantly fewer patients were referred in the intervention groups (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.57) than the control groups. When only the trials reporting actual elective surgery were included in a subgroup analysis, the result remained statistically non-significant (OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.57 to 2.42).For the beta-blocker trials, when all were combined in a meta-analysis, there was a very small, non-significant protective effect for propranolol on AAA expansion (MD -0.08 mm; 95% CI -0.25 to 0.10), and non-significantly fewer patients were referred to AAA surgery in the propranolol group (OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.05). Bronchospasm and shortness of breath were the main adverse effects from the beta-blockers. In one trial the adverse effects were reportedly so severe that the trial was stopped early after two years.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some limited evidence that antibiotic medication may have a slight protective effect in retarding the expansion rates of small AAAs. The quality of the evidence makes it unclear whether this translates into fewer referrals to AAA surgery, owing mainly to the small sample sizes of the studies.Antibiotics were generally well tolerated with minimal adverse effects. Propranolol was poorly tolerated by patients in all of the beta-blocker trials and demonstrated only minimal and non-significant protective effects. Further research on beta-blockers for AAA needs to consider the use of drugs other than propranolol.In general, there is surprisingly little high quality evidence on medical treatment for small AAAs, especially in relation to the use of newer beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors and statins.

Novel aspects of the pathogenesis of aneurysms of the abdominal aorta in humans

Aneurysm of the abdominal aorta (AAA) is a particular, specifically localized form of atherothrombosis, providing a unique human model of this disease. The pathogenesis of AAA is characterized by a breakdown of the extracellular matrix due to an excessive proteolytic activity, leading to potential arterial wall rupture. The roles of matrix metalloproteinases and plasmin generation in progression of AAA have been demonstrated both in animal models and in clinical studies. In the present review, we highlight recent studies addressing the role of the haemoglobin-rich, intraluminal thrombus and the adventitial response in the development of human AAA. The intraluminal thrombus exerts its pathogenic effect through platelet activation, fibrin formation, binding of plasminogen and its activators, and trapping of erythrocytes and neutrophils, leading to oxidative and proteolytic injury of the arterial wall. These events occur mainly at the intraluminal thrombus-circulating blood interface, and pathological mediators are conveyed outwards, where they promote matrix degradation of the arterial wall. In response, neo-angiogenesis, phagocytosis by mononuclear cells, and a shift from innate to adaptive immunity in the adventitia are observed. Abdominal aortic aneurysm thus represents an accessible spatiotemporal model of human atherothrombotic progression towards clinical events, the study of which should allow further understanding of its pathogenesis and the translation of pathogenic biological activities into diagnostic and therapeutic applications.

Current status of medical management for abdominal aortic aneurysm

Previous trials indicate that surgical management of small abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) does not reduce mortality. The medical management of AAA, however, has to a large degree been ignored until recently. Medical management is not only needed to limit the expansion of small AAAs but also to reduce the high incidence of other cardiovascular events in these patients. In this review current evidence regarding medical therapy for patients with small AAAs is discussed. Four current randomised controlled trials are examining the efficacy of exercise, doxycycline and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition in limiting AAA progression. A further trial using a mast cell stabilisation agent is expected to start soon. It is anticipated that a range of novel therapies for small AAAs will be identified within the next decade.