Omega-3 fatty acids for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

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.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of increased intake of fish- and plant-based omega-3 fats for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, adiposity and lipids.

SEARCH METHODS

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.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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.

MAIN RESULTS

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).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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.

Omega-3 fatty acids for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

Researchers have suggested that 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)) benefit cardiovascular health. Guidelines recommend increasing omega-3-rich foods, and sometimes supplementation, but recent trials have not confirmed this.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effects of increased intake of fish- and plant-based omega-3 for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CVD) events, adiposity and lipids.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to April 2017, plus ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry to September 2016, with no language restrictions. We handsearched systematic review references and bibliographies and contacted authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that lasted at least 12 months and compared supplementation and/or advice to increase LCn3 or ALA intake versus usual or lower intake.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies 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.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 79 RCTs (112,059 participants) in this review update and found that 25 were at low summary risk of bias. Trials were of 12 to 72 months' duration and included adults at varying cardiovascular risk, mainly in high-income countries. Most studies 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 0.5g/d LCn3 to > 5 g/d (16 RCTs gave at least 3g/d LCn3).Meta-analysis and sensitivity analyses suggested little or no effect of increasing LCn3 on all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03, 92,653 participants; 8189 deaths in 39 trials, high-quality evidence), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03, 67,772 participants; 4544 CVD deaths in 25 RCTs), cardiovascular events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.04, 90,378 participants; 14,737 people experienced events in 38 trials, high-quality evidence), coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.09, 73,491 participants; 1596 CHD deaths in 21 RCTs), stroke (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16, 89,358 participants; 1822 strokes in 28 trials) or arrhythmia (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.05, 53,796 participants; 3788 people experienced arrhythmia in 28 RCTs). There was a suggestion that LCn3 reduced CHD events (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.97, 84,301 participants; 5469 people experienced CHD events in 28 RCTs); however, this was not maintained in sensitivity analyses - LCn3 probably makes little or no difference to CHD event risk. All evidence was of moderate GRADE quality, except as noted.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, 5 RCTs),cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.25, 18,619 participants; 219 cardiovascular deaths, 4 RCTs), and CHD mortality (1.1% to 1.0%, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.26, 18,353 participants; 193 CHD deaths, 3 RCTs) and ALA may make little or no difference to CHD events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.22, 19,061 participants, 397 CHD events, 4 RCTs, low-quality evidence). However, increased ALA may slightly reduce risk of cardiovascular events (from 4.8% to 4.7%, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07, 19,327 participants; 884 CVD events, 5 RCTs, low-quality evidence with greater effects in trials at low summary risk of bias), and probably reduces risk of arrhythmia (3.3% to 2.6%, RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10, 4,837 participants; 141 events, 1 RCT). Effects on stroke are unclear.Sensitivity analysis retaining only trials at low summary risk of bias moved effect sizes towards the null (RR 1.0) for all LCn3 primary outcomes except arrhythmias, but for most ALA outcomes, effect sizes moved to suggest protection. LCn3 funnel plots suggested that adding in missing studies/results would move effect sizes towards null for most primary outcomes. There were no dose or duration effects in subgrouping or meta-regression.There was no evidence that increasing LCn3 or ALA altered serious adverse events, adiposity or lipids, except LCn3 reduced triglycerides by ˜15% in a dose-dependant way (high-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This is the most extensive systematic assessment of effects of omega-3 fats on cardiovascular health to date. Moderate- and high-quality evidence suggests that increasing EPA and DHA has little or no effect on mortality or cardiovascular health (evidence mainly from supplement trials). Previous suggestions of benefits from EPA and DHA supplements appear to spring from trials with higher risk of bias. Low-quality evidence suggests ALA may slightly reduce CVD event and arrhythmia risk.

Omega-6 fats for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

Omega-6 fats are polyunsaturated fats vital for many physiological functions, but their effect on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk is debated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effects of increasing omega-6 fats (linoleic acid (LA), gamma-linolenic acid (GLA), dihomo-gamma-linolenic acid (DGLA) and arachidonic acid (AA)) on CVD and all-cause mortality.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to May 2017 and clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to September 2016, without language restrictions. We checked trials included in relevant systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing higher versus lower omega-6 fat intake in adults with or without CVD, assessing effects over at least 12 months. We included full texts, abstracts, trials registry entries and unpublished studies. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, CVD mortality, CVD events, risk factors (blood lipids, adiposity, blood pressure), and potential adverse events. We excluded trials where we could not separate omega-6 fat effects from those of other dietary, lifestyle or medication interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened titles/abstracts, assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included trials. We wrote to authors of included studies. Meta-analyses used random-effects analysis, while sensitivity analyses used fixed-effects and limited analyses to trials at low summary risk of bias. We assessed GRADE quality of evidence for 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 RCTs in 6461 participants who were followed for one to eight years. Seven trials assessed the effects of supplemental GLA and 12 of LA, none DGLA or AA; the omega-6 fats usually displaced dietary saturated or monounsaturated fats. We assessed three RCTs as being at low summary risk of bias.Primary outcomes: we found low-quality evidence that increased intake of omega-6 fats may make little or no difference to all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.12, 740 deaths, 4506 randomised, 10 trials) or CVD events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.15, 1404 people experienced events of 4962 randomised, 7 trials). We are uncertain whether increasing omega-6 fats affects CVD mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.55, 472 deaths, 4019 randomised, 7 trials), coronary heart disease events (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.17, 1059 people with events of 3997 randomised, 7 trials), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.20, 817 events, 2879 participants, 2 trials) or stroke (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.11, 54 events, 3730 participants, 4 trials), as we assessed the evidence as being of very low quality. We found no evidence of dose-response or duration effects for any primary outcome, but there was a suggestion of greater protection in participants with lower baseline omega-6 intake across outcomes.Additional key outcomes: we found increased intake of omega-6 fats may reduce myocardial infarction (MI) risk (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.02, 609 events, 4606 participants, 7 trials, low-quality evidence). High-quality evidence suggests increasing omega-6 fats reduces total serum cholesterol a little in the long term (mean difference (MD) -0.33 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.16, I² = 81%; heterogeneity partially explained by dose, 4280 participants, 10 trials). Increasing omega-6 fats probably has little or no effect on adiposity (body mass index (BMI) MD -0.20 kg/m², 95% CI -0.56 to 0.16, 371 participants, 1 trial, moderate-quality evidence). It may make little or no difference to serum triglycerides (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.21, 834 participants, 5 trials), HDL (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02, 1995 participants, 4 trials) or low-density lipoprotein (MD -0.04 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.14, 244 participants, 2 trials, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This is the most extensive systematic assessment of effects of omega-6 fats on cardiovascular health, mortality, lipids and adiposity to date, using previously unpublished data. We found no evidence that increasing omega-6 fats reduces cardiovascular outcomes other than MI, where 53 people may need to increase omega-6 fat intake to prevent 1 person from experiencing MI. Although benefits of omega-6 fats remain to be proven, increasing omega-6 fats may be of benefit in people at high risk of MI. Increased omega-6 fats reduce serum total cholesterol but not other blood fat fractions or adiposity.

Polyunsaturated fatty acids for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the health effects of total polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) is equivocal. Fish oils are rich in omega-3 PUFA and plant oils in omega-6 PUFA. Evidence suggests that increasing PUFA-rich foods, supplements or supplemented foods can reduce serum cholesterol, but may increase body weight, so overall cardiovascular effects are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effects of increasing total PUFA intake on cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality, lipids and adiposity in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to April 2017 and clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to September 2016, without language restrictions. We checked trials included in relevant systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing higher with lower PUFA intakes in adults with or without cardiovascular disease that assessed effects over 12 months or longer. We included full texts, abstracts, trials registry entries and unpublished data. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease mortality and events, risk factors (blood lipids, adiposity, blood pressure), and adverse events. We excluded trials where we could not separate effects of PUFA intake from other dietary, lifestyle or medication interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We wrote to authors of included trials for further data. Meta-analyses used random-effects analysis, sensitivity analyses included fixed-effects and limiting to low summary risk of bias. We assessed GRADE quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 49 RCTs randomising 24,272 participants, with duration of one to eight years. Eleven included trials were at low summary risk of bias, 33 recruited participants without cardiovascular disease. Baseline PUFA intake was unclear in most trials, but 3.9% to 8% of total energy intake where reported. Most trials gave supplemental capsules, but eight gave dietary advice, eight gave supplemental foods such as nuts or margarine, and three used a combination of methods to increase PUFA.Increasing PUFA intake probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality (risk 7.8% vs 7.6%, risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.07, 19,290 participants in 24 trials), but probably slightly reduces risk of coronary heart disease events from 14.2% to 12.3% (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.06, 15 trials, 10,076 participants) and cardiovascular disease events from 14.6% to 13.0% (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.01, 17,799 participants in 21 trials), all moderate-quality evidence. Increasing PUFA may slightly reduce risk of coronary heart disease death (6.6% to 6.1%, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06, 9 trials, 8810 participants) andstroke (1.2% to 1.1%, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.44, 11 trials, 14,742 participants, though confidence intervals include important harms), but has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.26, 16 trials, 15,107 participants) all low-quality evidence. Effects of increasing PUFA on major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events and atrial fibrillation are unclear as evidence is of very low quality.Increasing PUFA intake probably slightly decreases triglycerides (by 15%, MD -0.12 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.04, 20 trials, 3905 participants), but has little or no effect on total cholesterol (mean difference (MD) -0.12 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.02, 26 trials, 8072 participants), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01, 18 trials, 4674 participants) or low-density lipoprotein (LDL) (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.06, 15 trials, 3362 participants). Increasing PUFA probably has little or no effect on adiposity (body weight MD 0.76 kg, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.19, 12 trials, 7100 participants).Effects of increasing PUFA on serious adverse events such as pulmonary embolism and bleeding are unclear as the evidence is of very low quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This is the most extensive systematic review of RCTs conducted to date to assess effects of increasing PUFA on cardiovascular disease, mortality, lipids or adiposity. Increasing PUFA intake probably slightly reduces risk of coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease events, may slightly reduce risk of coronary heart disease mortality and stroke (though not ruling out harms), but has little or no effect on all-cause or cardiovascular disease mortality. The mechanism may be via TG reduction.

Polyunsaturated fatty acids for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the health effects of total polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) is equivocal. Fish oils are rich in omega-3 PUFA and plant oils in omega-6 PUFA. Evidence suggests that increasing PUFA-rich foods, supplements or supplemented foods can reduce serum cholesterol, but may increase body weight, so overall cardiovascular effects are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effects of increasing total PUFA intake on cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality, lipids and adiposity in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to April 2017 and clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to September 2016, without language restrictions. We checked trials included in relevant systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing higher with lower PUFA intakes in adults with or without cardiovascular disease that assessed effects over 12 months or longer. We included full texts, abstracts, trials registry entries and unpublished data. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease mortality and events, risk factors (blood lipids, adiposity, blood pressure), and adverse events. We excluded trials where we could not separate effects of PUFA intake from other dietary, lifestyle or medication interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We wrote to authors of included trials for further data. Meta-analyses used random-effects analysis, sensitivity analyses included fixed-effects and limiting to low summary risk of bias. We assessed GRADE quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 49 RCTs randomising 24,272 participants, with duration of one to eight years. Eleven included trials were at low summary risk of bias, 33 recruited participants without cardiovascular disease. Baseline PUFA intake was unclear in most trials, but 3.9% to 8% of total energy intake where reported. Most trials gave supplemental capsules, but eight gave dietary advice, eight gave supplemental foods such as nuts or margarine, and three used a combination of methods to increase PUFA.Increasing PUFA intake probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality (risk 7.8% vs 7.6%, risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.07, 19,290 participants in 24 trials), but probably slightly reduces risk of coronary heart disease events from 14.2% to 12.3% (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.06, 15 trials, 10,076 participants) and cardiovascular disease events from 14.6% to 13.0% (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.01, 17,799 participants in 21 trials), all moderate-quality evidence. Increasing PUFA may slightly reduce risk of coronary heart disease death (6.6% to 6.1%, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06, 9 trials, 8810 participants) andstroke (1.2% to 1.1%, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.44, 11 trials, 14,742 participants, though confidence intervals include important harms), but has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.26, 16 trials, 15,107 participants) all low-quality evidence. Effects of increasing PUFA on major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events and atrial fibrillation are unclear as evidence is of very low quality.Increasing PUFA intake slightly reduces total cholesterol (mean difference (MD) -0.12 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.02, 26 trials, 8072 participants) and probably slightly decreases triglycerides (MD -0.12 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.04, 20 trials, 3905 participants), but has little or no effect on high-density lipoprotein (HDL) (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.01, 18 trials, 4674 participants) or low-density lipoprotein (LDL) (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.06, 15 trials, 3362 participants). Increasing PUFA probably causes slight weight gain (MD 0.76 kg, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.19, 12 trials, 7100 participants).Effects of increasing PUFA on serious adverse events such as pulmonary embolism and bleeding are unclear as the evidence is of very low quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This is the most extensive systematic review of RCTs conducted to date to assess effects of increasing PUFA on cardiovascular disease, mortality, lipids or adiposity. Increasing PUFA intake probably slightly reduces risk of coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease events, may slightly reduce risk of coronary heart disease mortality and stroke (though not ruling out harms), but has little or no effect on all-cause or cardiovascular disease mortality. The mechanism may be via lipid reduction, but increasing PUFA probably slightly increases weight.

Omega-3 fatty acids for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

Researchers have suggested that 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)) benefit cardiovascular health. Guidelines recommend increasing omega-3-rich foods, and sometimes supplementation, but recent trials have not confirmed this.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effects of increased intake of fish- and plant-based omega-3 for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CVD) events, adiposity and lipids.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to April 2017, plus ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry to September 2016, with no language restrictions. We handsearched systematic review references and bibliographies and contacted authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that lasted at least 12 months and compared supplementation and/or advice to increase LCn3 or ALA intake versus usual or lower intake.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies 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.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 79 RCTs (112,059 participants) in this review update and found that 25 were at low summary risk of bias. Trials were of 12 to 72 months' duration and included adults at varying cardiovascular risk, mainly in high-income countries. Most studies assessed LCn3 supplementation with capsules, but some used LCn3- or ALA-rich or enriched foods or dietary advice compared to placebo or usual diet.Meta-analysis and sensitivity analyses suggested little or no effect of increasing LCn3 on all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03, 92,653 participants; 8189 deaths in 39 trials, high-quality evidence), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03, 67,772 participants; 4544 CVD deaths in 25 RCTs), cardiovascular events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.04, 90,378 participants; 14,737 people experienced events in 38 trials, high-quality evidence), coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.09, 73,491 participants; 1596 CHD deaths in 21 RCTs), stroke (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16, 89,358 participants; 1822 strokes in 28 trials) or arrhythmia (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.05, 53,796 participants; 3788 people experienced arrhythmia in 28 RCTs). There was a suggestion that LCn3 reduced CHD events (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.97, 84,301 participants; 5469 people experienced CHD events in 28 RCTs); however, this was not maintained in sensitivity analyses - LCn3 probably makes little or no difference to CHD event risk. All evidence was of moderate GRADE quality, except as noted.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, 5 RCTs),cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.25, 18,619 participants; 219 cardiovascular deaths, 4 RCTs), and it may make little or no difference to CHD events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.22, 19,061 participants, 397 CHD events, 4 RCTs, low-quality evidence). However, increased ALA may slightly reduce risk of cardiovascular events (from 4.8% to 4.7%, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07, 19,327 participants; 884 CVD events, 5 RCTs, low-quality evidence), and probably reduces risk of CHD mortality (1.1% to 1.0%, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.26, 18,353 participants; 193 CHD deaths, 3 RCTs), and arrhythmia (3.3% to 2.6%, RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10, 4,837 participants; 141 events, 1 RCT). Effects on stroke are unclear.Sensitivity analysis retaining only trials at low summary risk of bias moved effect sizes towards the null (RR 1.0) for all LCn3 primary outcomes except arrhythmias, but for most ALA outcomes, effect sizes moved to suggest protection. LCn3 funnel plots suggested that adding in missing studies/results would move effect sizes towards null for most primary outcomes. There were no dose or duration effects in subgrouping or meta-regression.There was no evidence that increasing LCn3 or ALA altered serious adverse events, adiposity or lipids, although LCn3 slightly reduced triglycerides and increased HDL. ALA probably reduces HDL (high- or moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This is the most extensive systematic assessment of effects of omega-3 fats on cardiovascular health to date. Moderate- and high-quality evidence suggests that increasing EPA and DHA has little or no effect on mortality or cardiovascular health (evidence mainly from supplement trials). Previous suggestions of benefits from EPA and DHA supplements appear to spring from trials with higher risk of bias. Low-quality evidence suggests ALA may slightly reduce CVD event risk, CHD mortality and arrhythmia.

Omega-6 fats for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

Omega-6 fats are polyunsaturated fats vital for many physiological functions, but their effect on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk is debated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effects of increasing omega-6 fats (linoleic acid (LA), gamma-linolenic acid (GLA), dihomo-gamma-linolenic acid (DGLA) and arachidonic acid (AA)) on CVD and all-cause mortality.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to May 2017 and clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to September 2016, without language restrictions. We checked trials included in relevant systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing higher versus lower omega-6 fat intake in adults with or without CVD, assessing effects over at least 12 months. We included full texts, abstracts, trials registry entries and unpublished studies. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, CVD mortality, CVD events, risk factors (blood lipids, adiposity, blood pressure), and potential adverse events. We excluded trials where we could not separate omega-6 fat effects from those of other dietary, lifestyle or medication interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened titles/abstracts, assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included trials. We wrote to authors of included studies. Meta-analyses used random-effects analysis, while sensitivity analyses used fixed-effects and limited analyses to trials at low summary risk of bias. We assessed GRADE quality of evidence for 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 RCTs in 6461 participants who were followed for one to eight years. Seven trials assessed the effects of supplemental GLA and 12 of LA, none DGLA or AA; the omega-6 fats usually displaced dietary saturated or monounsaturated fats. We assessed three RCTs as being at low summary risk of bias.Primary outcomes: we found low-quality evidence that increased intake of omega-6 fats may make little or no difference to all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.12, 740 deaths, 4506 randomised, 10 trials) or CVD events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.15, 1404 people experienced events of 4962 randomised, 7 trials). We are uncertain whether increasing omega-6 fats affects CVD mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.55, 472 deaths, 4019 randomised, 7 trials), coronary heart disease events (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.17, 1059 people with events of 3997 randomised, 7 trials), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.20, 817 events, 2879 participants, 2 trials) or stroke (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.11, 54 events, 3730 participants, 4 trials), as we assessed the evidence as being of very low quality. We found no evidence of dose-response or duration effects for any primary outcome, but there was a suggestion of greater protection in participants with lower baseline omega-6 intake across outcomes.Additional key outcomes: we found increased intake of omega-6 fats may reduce myocardial infarction (MI) risk (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.02, 609 events, 4606 participants, 7 trials, low-quality evidence). High-quality evidence suggests increasing omega-6 fats reduces total serum cholesterol a little in the long term (mean difference (MD) -0.33 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.16, I2 = 81%; heterogeneity partially explained by dose, 4280 participants, 10 trials). Increasing omega-6 fats probably has little or no effect on adiposity (body mass index (BMI) MD -0.20 kg/m2, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.16, 371 participants, 1 trial, moderate-quality evidence). It may make little or no difference to serum triglycerides (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.21, 834 participants, 5 trials), HDL (MD -0.01 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02, 1995 participants, 4 trials) or low-density lipoprotein (MD -0.04 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.14, 244 participants, 2 trials, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This is the most extensive systematic assessment of effects of omega-6 fats on cardiovascular health, mortality, lipids and adiposity to date, using previously unpublished data. We found no evidence that increasing omega-6 fats reduces cardiovascular outcomes other than MI, where 53 people may need to increase omega-6 fat intake to prevent 1 person from experiencing MI. Although benefits of omega-6 fats remain to be proven, increasing omega-6 fats may be of benefit in people at high risk of MI. Increased omega-6 fats reduce serum total cholesterol but not other blood fat fractions or adiposity.

Experience of sleep disruption in primary Sjögren's syndrome: A focus group study

INTRODUCTION

Primary Sjögren's syndrome is the third most common systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease, following rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus, and results in dryness, fatigue, discomfort and sleep disturbances. Sleep is relatively unexplored in primary Sjögren's syndrome. We investigated the experiences of sleep disturbances from the viewpoint of primary Sjögren's syndrome patients and their partners and explored the acceptability of cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia.

METHOD

We used focus groups to collect qualitative data from 10 patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome and three partners of patients. The data were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Five themes emerged from the data: (a) Experience of sleep disturbances; (b) variation and inconsistency in sleep disturbances; (c) the domino effect of primary Sjögren's syndrome symptoms; (d) strategies to manage sleep; (e) acceptability of evidence-based techniques. Sleep disturbances were problematic for all patients, but specific disturbances varied between participants. These included prolonged sleep onset time and frequent night awakenings and were aggravated by pain and discomfort. Patients deployed a range of strategies to try and self-manage. Cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia was seen as an acceptable intervention, as long as a rationale for its use is given and it is tailored for primary Sjögren's syndrome.

CONCLUSION

Primary Sjögren's syndrome patients described a range of sleep disturbances. Applying tailored, evidence-based sleep therapy interventions may improve sleep, severity of other primary Sjögren's syndrome symptoms and functional ability.

Physiotherapy for Parkinson's disease: a comparison of techniques

BACKGROUND

Despite medical therapies and surgical interventions for Parkinson's disease (PD), patients develop progressive disability. The role of physiotherapy is to maximise functional ability and minimise secondary complications through movement rehabilitation within a context of education and support for the whole person. The overall aim is to optimise independence, safety and wellbeing, thereby enhancing quality of life. Trials have shown that physiotherapy has short-term benefits in PD. However, which physiotherapy intervention is most effective remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of one physiotherapy intervention compared with a second approach in patients with PD.

SEARCH METHODS

Relevant trials were identified by electronic searches of numerous literature databases (for example MEDLINE, EMBASE) and trial registers, plus handsearching of major journals, abstract books, conference proceedings and reference lists of retrieved publications. The literature search included trials published up to the end of January 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of one physiotherapy intervention versus another physiotherapy intervention in patients with PD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were abstracted independently from each paper by two authors. Trials were classified into the following intervention comparisons: general physiotherapy, exercise, treadmill training, cueing, dance and martial arts.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 43 trials were identified with 1673 participants. All trials used small patient numbers (average trial size of 39 participants); the methods of randomisation and concealment of allocation were poor or not stated in most trials. Blinded assessors were used in just over half of the trials and only 10 stated that they used intention-to-treat analysis.A wide variety of validated and customised outcome measures were used to assess the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions. The most frequently reported physiotherapy outcomes were gait speed and timed up and go, in 19 and 15 trials respectively. Only five of the 43 trials reported data on falls (12%). The motor subscales of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale and Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39 were the most commonly reported clinician-rated disability and patient-rated quality of life outcome measures, used in 22 and 13 trials respectively. The content and delivery of the physiotherapy interventions varied widely in the trials included within this review, so no quantitative meta-analysis could be performed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Considering the small number of participants examined, the methodological flaws in many of the studies, the possibility of publication bias, and the variety of interventions, formal comparison of the different physiotherapy techniques could not be performed. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of one physiotherapy intervention over another in PD.This review shows that a wide range of physiotherapy interventions to treat PD have been tested . There is a need for more specific trials with improved treatment strategies to underpin the most appropriate choice of physiotherapy intervention and the outcomes measured.

Physiotherapy versus placebo or no intervention in Parkinson's disease

BACKGROUND

Despite medical therapies and surgical interventions for Parkinson's disease (PD), patients develop progressive disability. Physiotherapy aims to maximise functional ability and minimise secondary complications through movement rehabilitation within a context of education and support for the whole person. The overall aim is to optimise independence, safety, and well-being, thereby enhancing quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of physiotherapy intervention compared with no intervention in patients with PD.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified relevant trials by conducting electronic searches of numerous literature databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE) and trial registers, and by handsearching major journals, abstract books, conference proceedings, and reference lists of retrieved publications. The literature search included trials published up to the end of January 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy intervention versus no physiotherapy intervention in patients with PD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from each article. We used standard meta-analysis methods to assess the effectiveness of physiotherapy intervention compared with no physiotherapy intervention. Trials were classified into the following intervention comparisons: general physiotherapy, exercise, treadmill training, cueing, dance, and martial arts. We used tests for heterogeneity to assess for differences in treatment effect across these different physiotherapy interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 39 trials with 1827 participants. We considered the trials to be at a mixed risk of bias as the result of unreported allocation concealment and probable detection bias. Compared with no intervention, physiotherapy significantly improved the gait outcomes of speed (mean difference 0.04 m/s, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.06, P = 0.0002); two- or six-minute walk test (13.37 m, 95% CI 0.55 to 26.20, P = 0.04) and Freezing of Gait questionnaire (-1.41, 95% CI -2.63 to -0.19, P = 0.02); functional mobility and balance outcomes of Timed Up & Go test (-0.63 s, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.21, P = 0.003), Functional Reach Test (2.16 cm, 95% CI 0.89 to 3.43, P = 0.0008), and Berg Balance Scale (3.71 points, 95% CI 2.30 to 5.11, P < 0.00001); and clinician-rated disability using the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) (total -6.15 points, 95% CI-8.57 to -3.73, P < 0.00001; activities of daily living: -1.36, 95% CI -2.41 to -0.30, P = 0.01; and motor: -5.01, 95% CI -6.30 to -3.72, P < 0.00001). No difference between arms was noted in falls (Falls Efficacy Scale: -1.91 points, 95% CI -4.76 to 0.94, P = 0.19) or patient-rated quality of life (PDQ-39 Summary Index: -0.38 points, 95% CI -2.58 to 1.81, P = 0.73). One study reported that adverse events were rare; no other studies reported data on this outcome. Indirect comparisons of the different physiotherapy interventions revealed no evidence that the treatment effect differed across physiotherapy interventions for any of the outcomes assessed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Benefit for physiotherapy was found in most outcomes over the short term (i.e. < 3 months) but was significant only for speed, two- or six-minute walk test, Freezing of Gait questionnaire, Timed Up & Go, Functional Reach Test, Berg Balance Scale, and clinician-rated UPDRS. Most of the observed differences between treatments were small. However, for some outcomes (e.g. speed, Berg Balance Scale, UPDRS), the differences observed were at, or approaching, what are considered minimal clinically important changes. These benefits should be interpreted with caution because the quality of most of the included trials was not high. Variation in measurements of outcome between studies meant that our analyses include a small proportion of the participants recruited.This review illustrates that a wide range of approaches are employed by physiotherapists to treat patients with PD. However, no evidence of differences in treatment effect was noted between the different types of physiotherapy interventions being used, although this was based on indirect comparisons. A consensus menu of 'best practice' physiotherapy is needed, as are large, well-designed randomised controlled trials undertaken to demonstrate the longer-term efficacy and cost-effectiveness of 'best practice' physiotherapy in PD.

Amantadine in Parkinson's disease

BACKGROUND

Although levodopa is the most common drug prescribed to relieve the symptoms of Parkinson's disease it is associated with motor and psychiatric side-effects. Consequently, interest has turned to alternative drugs with improved side-effect profiles to replace or augment levodopa. Amantadine, originally used as an antiviral drug, has been shown to improve the symptoms of Parkinson's disease.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of amantadine therapy (monotherapy or adjuvant therapy) versus placebo in treating people with Parkinson's disease.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2001), MEDLINE (1966-2001), EMBASE (1974-2001), SCISEARCH (1974-2001), BIOSIS (1993-2001), GEROLIT (1979-2001), OLDMEDLINE (1957-1965), LILACS (1982-2001), MedCarib (17th Century - 2001), PASCAL (1973-2001), JICST-EPLUS (1985-2001), RUSSMED (1973-2001), DISSERTATION ABSTRACTS (2000-2001), SIGLE (1980-2001), ISI-ISTP (1990-2001), Aslib Index to Theses (2001), Clinicaltrials.gov (2001), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (2001), NIDRR (2001) and NRR (2001) were conducted. Grey literature was hand searched and the reference lists of identified studies and reviews examined. The manufacturers of amantadine were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing amantadine with placebo in the treatment of patients with a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson's disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data was abstracted independently by NC and KD onto standardised forms and disagreements were resolved by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

Six randomised controlled trials were found comparing amantadine monotherapy or adjuvant therapy with placebo in the treatment of idiopathic Parkinson's disease. Five examined amantadine as adjuvant therapy with optimal levels of levodopa or anticholinergics and one examined amantadine as an adjuvant therapy with minimum tolerated levels of anticholinergics or as a monotherapy. Five were double-blind cross-over studies and one was a double-blind parallel group study. In total they examined 215 patients. The parallel group study allowed the randomisation codes to be broken and allowed patients in the placebo group to then receive amantadine. This could have led to bias. One study did not present the results of the placebo arm of the trial, hence we could not determine the difference between the two treatment groups. Two cross-over studies presented the results of the combined data from both treatment and placebo arms. The risk of carry-over effect into the second arm meant that these results could not be analysed. The final two studies presented at least some of their data from the end of the first arm of the trials. However only means were given, without standard deviations, so we could not determine the statistical significance of any difference between the amantadine and placebo groups. Although the authors did report on the side-effects from amantadine (such as livido recticularis, dry mouth and blurred vision), they state that none of them were severe.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

A considerable amount of evidence on the effectiveness of amantadine has accrued from non-controlled trials, often in patients with Parkinsonian conditions other than idiopathic Parkinson's disease. However, rigorous analysis of the six randomised controlled trials of amantadine reveals insufficient evidence of its efficacy and safety in the treatment of idiopathic Parkinson's disease.

Recognition of the 60 kilodalton cysteine-rich outer membrane protein OMP2 by CD4(+) T cells from humans infected with Chlamydia trachomatis

T cell-mediated immunity is important in the control of chlamydia infection but chlamydia-specific T cells are also implicated in the inflammation and tissue damage which characterize chlamydia associated diseases. To investigate target antigens of the T cell-mediated immune response to chlamydia infection, Chlamydia trachomatis-specific CD4+ T cell clones were isolated from a patient with chlamydia-induced reactive arthritis. T cell immunoblotting indicated that an antigen of approximately 60 kilodaltons molecular mass was recognized, and recombinant 60 kilodalton cysteine-rich outer membrane 2 (OMP2) proved to be stimulatory. By using deletion constructs and synthetic peptides an epitope presented by HLA-DRB1*0401 was defined and proved to contain the nonamer peptide within the OMP2 sequence predicted to have the greatest binding affinity for DRB1*0401 The sequence of the epitope is conserved in all C. trachomatis strains but not in C. pneumoniae. Investigation of patients with acute urethritis and additional patients with sexually acquired reactive arthritis showed that OMP2-reactive T cells were readily detectable in peripheral blood and synovial fluid. Thus OMP2 is a target antigen of the T cell-mediated immune response to CT infection.

A comparison of physiotherapy techniques for patients with Parkinson's disease

BACKGROUND

Despite optimal medical and surgical therapies for Parkinson's disease, patients develop progressive disability. The role of the physiotherapist is to maximise functional ability and minimise secondary complications through movement rehabilitation within a context of education and support for the whole person. What form of physiotherapy is most effective in the treatment of Parkinson's disease remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

1. To compare the efficacy and effectiveness of novel physiotherapy techniques versus 'standard' physiotherapy in patients with Parkinson's disease. Standard physiotherapy is defined as the type of therapy that the physiotherapist would usually use to treat Parkinson's disease. 2. To compare the efficacy and effectiveness of one physiotherapy technique versus a second form of physiotherapy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Relevant trials were identified by electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ISI-SCI, AMED, MANTIS, REHABDATA, REHADAT, GEROLIT, Pascal, LILACS, MedCarib, JICST-EPlus, AIM, IMEMR, SIGLE, ISI-ISTP, DISSABS, Conference Papers Index, Aslib Index to Theses, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the CentreWatch Clinical Trials listing service, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, CRISP, PEDro, NIDRR and NRR; and examination of the reference lists of identified studies and other reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data was abstracted independently by KD and CEH and differences settled by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven trials were identified with 142 patients. All used small numbers of patients and the method of randomisation and concealment of allocation was poor or not statedin all of the trials. These methodological problems could potentially lead to bias from a number of sources. The methods of physiotherapy varied so widely that the data could not be combined.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Considering the small number of patients examined, the methodological flaws in many of the studies and the possibility of publication bias, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the efficacy of any given form of physiotherapy over another in Parkinson's disease. Another Cochrane review, Physiotherapy for patients with Parkinson's Disease, found that there was insufficient evidence to support or refute the efficacy of physiotherapy compared to no physiotherapy in Parkinson's disease. A wide range of physiotherapy approaches were used in these studies and a survey of UK physiotherapists confirmed that they also use an eclectic combination of techniques in the treatment of Parkinson's disease (Plant 1999). Therefore a consensus must be found as to 'best practice' physiotherapy for Parkinson's disease. The efficacy of 'standard' physiotherapy should be proved first before examining variations in physiotherapy methods. Therefore large well designed randomised controlled trials are needed to judge the effect of physiotherapy in Parkinson's disease. After this large RCTs are needed to demonstrate the most effective form of physiotherapy in Parkinson's disease. Outcome measures with particular relevance to patients, carers, physiotherapists and physicians should be chosen and the patients monitored for at least 6 months to determine the duration of any effect. The trials should be reported according to CONSORT guidelines (CONSORT 1996).

Speech and language therapy for dysarthria in Parkinson's disease

BACKGROUND

Dysarthria is a common manifestation of Parkinson's disease which increases in frequency and intensity with the progress of the disease (Streifler 1984). Up to 20% of Parkinsonian patients are referred for speech and language therapy (S & L T), its aim being to improve the intelligibility of the patient's speech.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of speech and language therapy versus placebo or no interventions in patients with Parkinson's disease.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Relevant trials were identified by electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ISI-SCI, AMED, MANTIS, REHABDATA, REHADAT, GEROLIT, Pascal, LILACS, MedCarib, JICST-EPlus, AIM, IMEMR, SIGLE, ISI-ISTP, DISSABS, Conference Papers Index, Aslib Index to Theses, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the CentreWatch Clinical Trials listing service, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, CRISP, PEDro, NIDRR and NRR; and examination of the reference lists of identified studies and other reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were abstracted independently by KD and RW and differences settled by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

Three randomised controlled trials were found comparing speech and language therapy with placebo for speech disorders in Parkinson's disease. A total of 63 patients were examined. The loudness of the patients' voices were increased by between 7-18%, depending on the speaking task being performed. It is likely that this is a clinically significant improvement. After six months the degree of improvement was reduced but was still statistically significant. Overall measures of dysarthria were measured in two trials and also improved. The clinical significance of these improvements was less clear cut as intelligibility of speech was not measured in any of these studies.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Considering the small number of patients examined, the methodological flaws in many of the studies, and the possibility of publication bias, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the efficacy of speech and language therapy for dysarthria in Parkinson's disease. A Delphi-style survey is needed to develop a consensus as to what is 'standard' S< for dysarthria in Parkinson's disease. Then a large well designed placebo-controlled RCT is needed to demonstrate speech and language therapy's effectiveness for dysarthria in Parkinson's disease. The trial should conform to CONSORT guidelines. Outcome measures with particular relevance to patients should be chosen and the patients followed for at least 6 months to determine the duration of any improvement.

Cabergoline versus bromocriptine for levodopa-induced complications in Parkinson's disease

BACKGROUND

Long term levodopa therapy in Parkinson's disease is associated with the development of motor complications including abnormal involuntary movements and a shortening response to each dose (wearing off phenomenon). It is thought that dopamine agonists can reduce the duration of immobile off periods and the need for levodopa therapy whilst maintaining or improving motor impairments and only minimally increasing dopaminergic adverse events.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of adjuvant cabergoline therapy versus bromocriptine in patients with Parkinson's disease, already established on levodopa and suffering from motor complications.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Handsearching of the neurology literature as part of the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group's strategy. Examination of the reference lists of identified studies and other reviews. Contact with Pharmacia Upjohn Limited.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of cabergoline versus bromocriptine in patients with a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson's disease and long-term complications of levodopa therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were abstracted independently by the authors and differences settled by discussion. The outcome measures used included Parkinson's disease rating scales, levodopa dosage, off time measurements and the frequency of withdrawals and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Cabergoline has been compared with bromocriptine in five randomised, double-blind, parallel group studies including 1071 patients. Only one of the phase II studies was medium term (36 weeks), the others all being short term (12 -15 weeks). The non-significant difference in off time reduction produced by cabergoline compared with bromocriptine was 0.29 hours/day in favour of the former (weighted mean difference; 95% CI -0.10, 0.68; p = 0.15). Dyskinesia reported as an adverse event was significantly increased with cabergoline compared with bromocriptine (Peto odds ratio 1.57; 95% CI 1.05, 2.35; p = 0.03). Motor impairment and disability were measured in four of the studies using the UPDRS rating scale but the small differences in UPDRS ADL (part II) and motor (part III) scores were not statistically significant in any study. Similarly, no significant difference in Schwab and England score was seen. The number of patients rated as much or very much improved on a clinician's global impression scale was similar with both agonists. Levodopa dose reduction was no different between cabergoline and bromocriptine. There was more confusion with cabergoline (Peto odds ratio 2.02; 95% CI 1.09, 3.76; p = 0.03). Otherwise, dopaminergic adverse events were comparable with these agonists and no significant difference in all cause withdrawal rate was found.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Cabergoline produces similar benefits to bromocriptine in off time reduction, motor impairment and disability ratings, and levodopa dose reduction over the first three months of therapy. Dyskinesia and confusion were increased with cabergoline but otherwise the frequency of adverse events and withdrawals from treatment were similar with the two agonists.

Occupational therapy for patients with Parkinson's disease

BACKGROUND

Despite drug and surgical therapies for Parkinson's disease, patients develop progressive disability. The role of the occupational therapist is to support the patient and help them maintain their usual level of self-care, work and leisure activities for as long as possible. When it is no longer possible to maintain their usual activities, occupational therapists support individuals in changing and adapting their relationship with their physical and social environment to develop new valued activities and roles.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and effectiveness of occupational therapy with placebo or no interventions (control group) in patients with Parkinson's disease.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Relevant trials were identified by electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ISI-SCI, AMED, MANTIS, REHABDATA, REHADAT, GEROLIT, Pascal, LILACS, MedCarib, JICST-EPlus, AIM, IMEMR, SIGLE, ISI-ISTP, DISSABS, Conference Papers Index, Aslib Index to Theses, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the CentreWatch Clinical Trials listing service, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, CRISP, PEDro, NIDRR and NRR; and the reference lists of identified studies and other reviews were examined.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included, however those trials that allowed quasi-random methods of allocation were allowed.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data was abstracted independently by two authors and differences were settled by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials were identified with 84 patients in total. Although both trials reported a positive effect from occupational therapy, all of the improvements were small. The trials did not have adequate placebo treatments, used small numbers of patients and the method of randomisation and concealment of allocation was not specified in one trial. These methodological problems could potentially lead to bias from a number of sources reducing the strength of the studies further.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Considering the significant methodological flaws in the studies, the small number of patients examined, and the possibility of publication bias, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the efficacy of occupational therapy in Parkinson's disease. There does not appear to be a consensus as to the best practice in occupational therapy when treating people with Parkinson's disease. A survey of therapists is needed to determine what methods of occupational therapy are currently being used by therapists to treat Parkinson's disease, and whether there is a consensus as to 'best-practice'. Large well designed placebo-controlled RCTs are needed to demonstrate occupational therapy's effectiveness in Parkinson's disease. Outcome measures with particular relevance to patients, carers, occupational therapists and physicians should be chosen and the patients monitored for at least six months to determine the duration of benefit. The trials should be reported using CONSORT guidelines.

A comparison of speech and language therapy techniques for dysarthria in Parkinson's disease

BACKGROUND

Dysarthria is a common manifestation of Parkinson's disease that increases in frequency and intensity with the progress of the disease (Streifler 1984). Up to 20% of Parkinsonian patients are referred for speech and language therapy (S & LT), its aim being to improve the intelligibility of the patient's speech.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and effectiveness of novel S & LT techniques versus standard S & LT to treat dysarthria in patients with Parkinson's disease. To compare the efficacy and effectiveness of one S & LT technique versus a second form of S & LT to treat Parkinsonian dysarthria.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Relevant trials were identified by electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ISI-SCI, AMED, MANTIS, REHABDATA, REHADAT, GEROLIT, Pascal, LILACS, MedCarib, JICST-EPlus, AIM, IMEMR, SIGLE, ISI-ISTP, DISSABS, Conference Papers Index, Aslib Index to Theses, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the CentreWatch Clinical Trials listing service, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, CRISP, PEDro, NIDRR and NRR; and examination of the reference lists of identified studies and other reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data was abstracted independently by KD and RW and differences settled by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

Only two trials were identified with only 71 patients. The method of randomisation was good in only one trial and the concealment of allocation was inadequate in both trials. These methodological problems could potentially lead to bias from a number of sources. The methods used in the two studies varied so much that meta-analysis of the results was not possible. Scott 83 compared prosodic exercises with visual cues with prosodic exercises alone (See Glossary: Table 01). The authors examined prosody and intelligibility as outcome measures immediately after therapy. Ramig 95 compared the Lee Silverman Voice Therapy (LSVT) which emphasises increased vocal effort, with respiratory therapy which aimed to increase respiratory muscle activity. Ramig 95 examined a wide range of vocal characteristics, activities of daily living affected by speech, depression and the carer's impressions of the patient's speech quality. Some of these outcomes were measured up to 24 months after the end of the therapy. However, in neither study were changes in outcomes due to 'Therapy A' compared with the changes due to 'Therapy B' statistically. Therefore no comment on the comparative efficacy of these types of speech and language therapy can be made.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Considering the methodological flaws in both of these studies, the small number of patients examined, and the possibility of publication bias, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the efficacy of any given form of S & LT over another to treat dysarthria in Parkinson's disease. Given the lack of evidence from RCTs to support or refute the efficacy of S & LT in Parkinson's disease (see Cochrane review 'Speech and Language therapy for Dysarthria in Patients with Parkinson's Disease'), the consensus as to what is considered 'best-practice' S & LT must be proved first through a large well-designed placebo-controlled randomised trial before examining variations in S & LT methodology. The design of these trials should minimise bias and be reported fully using CONSORT guidelines (CONSORT 1996). Outcome measures with particular relevance to patients, their carers, physicians and speech and language therapists should be chosen and the patients followed for at least 6 months to determine the duration of any improvement.

Cabergoline for levodopa-induced complications in Parkinson's disease

BACKGROUND

Long term levodopa therapy in Parkinson's disease is associated with the development of motor complications including abnormal involuntary movements and a shortening response to each dose (wearing off phenomenon). It is thought that dopamine agonists can reduce the duration of immobile off periods and the need for levodopa therapy whilst maintaining or improving motor impairments and only minimally increasing dopaminergic adverse events.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of adjuvant cabergoline therapy versus placebo in patients with Parkinson's disease, already established on levodopa and suffering from motor complications.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Handsearching of the neurology literature as part of the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group's strategy. Examination of the reference lists of identified studies and other reviews. Contact with Pharmacia Upjohn Limited.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of cabergoline versus placebo in patients with a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson's disease and long-term complications of levodopa therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data was abstracted independently by the authors and differences settled by discussion. The outcome measures used included Parkinson's disease rating scales, levodopa dosage, off time measurements and the frequency of withdrawals and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Cabergoline has been compared with placebo in two phase II (6 - 12 weeks) and one phase III randomised controlled trials (24 weeks). These were double-blind, parallel group, multicentre studies including 268 patients with Parkinson's disease and motor complications. The reduction of 1.14 hours (WMD; 95% CI -0.06, 2.33; p = 0.06) in off time in favour of cabergoline was not statistically significant. Inadequate data on dyskinesia was collected either on rating scales or as adverse event reporting to allow a conclusion to be drawn. A small but statistically significant advantage of cabergoline over placebo was seen in one study for UPDRS ADL (part II) score and UPDRS motor score. No such advantage was seen in one other study due to small numbers of patients and the comparatively low doses of cabergoline used. No significant differences in Schwab and England scale were seen in two studies. Levodopa dose reduction was significantly greater with cabergoline (WMD 149.6 mg/d; 95% CI 94.1, 205.1; p < 0.00001). There was a trend towards more dopaminergic adverse events with cabergoline but this did not reach statistical significance at the p < 0.01 level. However, there was a trend towards fewer withdrawals from cabergoline.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

In the management of the motor complications seen in Parkinson's disease, cabergoline can be used to reduce levodopa dose and modestly improve motor impairment and disability with an acceptable adverse event profile. These conclusions are based on, at best, medium term evidence.

Physiotherapy for patients with Parkinson's Disease: a comparison of techniques

BACKGROUND

Despite optimal medical and surgical therapies for Parkinson's disease, patients develop progressive disability. The role of the physiotherapist is to maximise functional ability and minimise secondary complications through movement rehabilitation within a context of education and support for the whole person.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and effectiveness of physiotherapy with placebo or no interventions in patients with Parkinson's disease.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Relevant trials were identified by electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ISI-SCI, AMED, MANTIS, REHABDATA, REHADAT, GEROLIT, Pascal, LILACS, MedCarib, JICST-EPlus, AIM, IMEMR, SIGLE, ISI-ISTP, DISSABS, Conference Papers Index, Aslib Index to Theses, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the CentreWatch Clinical Trials listing service, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, CRISP, PEDro, NIDRR and NRR; and examination of the reference lists of identified studies and other reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included, however those trials that allowed quasi-random methods of allocation were allowed.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data was abstracted independently by KD and DJ and differences settled by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials were identified with 280 patients. Eight trials did not have adequate placebo treatments, all used small numbers of patients and the method of randomisation and concealment of allocation was good in only four trials. These methodological problems could potentially lead to bias from a number of sources. Although ten of the trials claimed a positive effect from physiotherapy, few outcomes measured were statistically significant. Walking velocity was measured in four trials and increased significantly in two of them. Stride length was the only other outcome measured in more than one trial, it was significantly improved in two trials. Five other outcomes improved significantly in individual studies, but eight other outcomes did not improve significantly.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Considering the methodological flaws in many of the studies, the small number of patients examined, and the possibility of publication bias, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the efficacy of physiotherapy in Parkinson's disease. The studies illustrate that a wide range of approaches are being employed by physiotherapists to treat Parkinson's disease. This was confirmed by the UK survey of physiotherapists. There is a need to develop a consensus as to 'best-practice'. Large well designed placebo-controlled RCTs are then needed to demonstrate the efficacy and effectiveness of 'best practice' physiotherapy in Parkinson's disease. The stage of the disease at which the physiotherapy is given should be specified at the outset. Outcome measures with particular relevance to patients, carers, physiotherapists and physicians should be chosen and the patients monitored for at least six months to determine the duration of any beneficial effects. The trials should be reported according to CONSORT guidelines.

Ropinirole for levodopa-induced complications in Parkinson's disease

BACKGROUND

Long-term levodopa therapy for Parkinson's disease is complicated by the development of motor fluctuations and abnormal involuntary movements. One approach is to add a dopamine agonist at this stage of the disease to reduce the time the patient spends immobile or off and to reduce the dose of levodopa in the hope of reducing such problems in the future.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of adjuvant ropinirole therapy versus placebo in patients with Parkinson's disease already established on levodopa therapy and suffering from motor complications.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Handsearching of the neurology literature as part of the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group's strategy. Examination of the reference lists of identified studies and other reviews. Contact with SmithKline Beecham.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of ropinirole versus placebo in patients with a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson's disease and long-term complications of levodopa therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data was abstracted independently by the authors and differences settled by discussion. The outcome measures used included Parkinson's disease rating scales, levodopa dosage, 'off' time measurements and the frequency of withdrawals and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Three double-blind, parallel group, randomised, controlled trials have been conducted on 263 patients. The two phase II studies were relatively small, were conducted over the short term (12 weeks), and used relatively low doses of ropinirole (mean administered doses 3.3 and 3.5 mg/d) in a twice daily regime. In view of this clinical heterogeneity and some statistical heterogeneity, the results of these trials have not been included in a meta-analysis. The conclusions of this review are based on the evidence from a single phase III study which was medium term (26 weeks) and used ropinirole doses in line with the current UK licensed maximum in a thrice daily regime. In view of difficulties in assessing changes in off time in ~~ Leiberman 98~~, caused by the initial imbalance between the arms of the trial, it is unsafe to draw any firm conclusion about the effect of ropinirole on off time. However, as an adverse event, dyskinesia was significantly increased in those who received ropinirole (~~ Leiberman 98~~; odds ratio 2.90; 1.36, 6.19 95% CI; Table 8). Measurements of motor impairments and disability were poor in this study with incomplete information available. Levodopa dose could be reduced in ~~ Leiberman 98~~ with a significantly larger reduction on ropinirole than on placebo (weighted mean difference 180 mg/d; 106, 253 95% CI; Table 2). No significant differences in the frequency of adverse event reports were noted between ropinirole and placebo apart from the increase in dyskinesia with ropinirole. There was a trend towards fewer withdrawals from ropinirole in ~~ Leiberman 98~~ but this did not reach statistical significance.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Ropinirole therapy can reduce levodopa dose but at the expense of increased dyskinetic adverse events. No clear effect on off time reduction was found but this may have been due to the under-powering of the single evaluable trial. Inadequate data on motor impairments and disability was collected to assess these outcomes. These conclusions apply to short and medium term treatment, up to 26 weeks. Further longer term trials are required, with measurements of effectiveness, and also studies to compare the newer with the older dopamine agonists.

Ropinirole versus bromocriptine for levodopa-induced complications in Parkinson's disease

BACKGROUND

Long-term levodopa therapy for Parkinson's disease is complicated by the development of motor fluctuations and abnormal involuntary movements. One approach is to add a dopamine agonist at this stage of the disease to reduce the time the patient spends immobile or off and to reduce the dose of levodopa in the hope of reducing such problems in the future.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of adjuvant ropinirole therapy with bromocriptine in patients with Parkinson's disease already established on levodopa therapy and suffering from motor complications.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Handsearching of the neurology literature as part of the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group's strategy. Examination of the reference lists of identified studies and other reviews. Contact with SmithKline Beecham.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of ropinirole versus bromocriptine in patients with a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson's disease and long-term complications of levodopa therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data was abstracted independently by the authors and differences settled by discussion. The outcome measures used included Parkinson's disease rating scales, levodopa dosage, 'off' time measurements and the frequency of withdrawals and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

No significant differences between ropinirole and bromocriptine were found in off time reduction, dyskinesia as an adverse event, motor impairment and disability, or levodopa dose reduction. Withdrawal rates and adverse event frequency were similar with the two agents apart from significantly less nausea with ropinirole (odds ratio 0.50; 0.29, 0. 84 95% CI; p =0.01).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Ropinirole is at least as good as bromocriptine in patients with Parkinson's disease with motor complications in terms of improving off time and reducing levodopa dose, without increasing adverse events including dyskinesia. However, these comparitor studies may have been underpowered to detect clinically meaningful differences between the agonists. Further, much larger, phase IV studies are required to examine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of all of the dopamine agonists as adjuvant therapy in Parkinson's disease.

Ropinirole versus bromocriptine for levodopa-induced complications in Parkinson's disease

BACKGROUND

Long-term levodopa therapy for Parkinson's disease is complicated by the development of motor fluctuations and abnormal involuntary movements. One approach is to add a dopamine agonist at this stage of the disease to reduce the time the patient spends immobile or off and to reduce the dose of levodopa in the hope of reducing such problems in the future.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of adjuvant ropinirole therapy with bromocriptine in patients with Parkinson's disease already established on levodopa therapy and suffering from motor complications.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Handsearching of the neurology literature as part of the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group's strategy. Examination of the reference lists of identified studies and other reviews. Contact with SmithKline Beecham.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of ropinirole versus bromocriptine in patients with a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson's disease and long-term complications of levodopa therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data was abstracted independently by the authors and differences settled by discussion. The outcome measures used included Parkinson's disease rating scales, levodopa dosage, 'off' time measurements and the frequency of withdrawals and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

No significant differences between ropinirole and bromocriptine were found in off time reduction, dyskinesia as an adverse event, motor impairment and disability, or levodopa dose reduction. Withdrawal rates and adverse event frequency were similar with the two agents apart from significantly less nausea with ropinirole (odds ratio 0.50; 0.29, 0. 84 95% CI; p =0.01).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Ropinirole is at least as good as bromocriptine in patients with Parkinson's disease with motor complications in terms of improving off time and reducing levodopa dose, without increasing adverse events including dyskinesia. However, these comparitor studies may have been underpowered to detect clinically meaningful differences between the agonists. Further, much larger, phase IV studies are required to examine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of all of the dopamine agonists as adjuvant therapy in Parkinson's disease.

Identification and characterization of a DR4-restricted T cell epitope within chlamydia heat shock protein 60

An epitope within the 60 kD Chlamydia trachomatis heat shock protein (hsp) 60, recognized by a HLA-DRB1*0401-restricted T cell clone from a reactive arthritis patient, has been characterized. Stimulatory peptides contained a nine amino acid sequence (residues 38-46) predicted by algorithm to confer strong binding to DRB1*0401, with valine in the P1 position. The overall length of the peptide was critical for efficient recognition; peptides with at least one residue N-terminal to the putative P1 position were markedly more stimulatory than a peptide whose N-terminal is the P1 valine. Optimal responses were seen with 14mer peptides having two to three amino acids N- and C-terminal to the core 9mer. The sequence of the defined epitope is identical in hsp60 from both C. trachomatis and C. pneumoniae. Since the latter is a common respiratory pathogen, patients infected with C. trachomatis may already be primed for responses to hsp60 by prior infection with C. pneumoniae. Such secondary responses are important in the pathogenesis of chlamydia-induced inflammatory diseases such as trachoma. Priming by infection with enteric organisms was considered because of the similarity of the epitope sequence in Escherichia coli hsp60. However, although an E. coli-related peptide was recognized, intact E. coli hsp60 was not, suggesting that the epitope is cryptic in E. coli hsp60. Human hsp60 has six amino acid differences from chlamydial hsp60 in the epitope sequence and was not recognized. Thus cross-reactive recognition of self hsp60 could not be implicated in the pathogenesis of chlamydia-induced reactive arthritis in this patient.

Identification of 2 Chlamydia trachomatis antigens recognized by synovial fluid T cells from patients with Chlamydia induced reactive arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To identify antigens of Chlamydia trachomatis recognized by synovial T cell clones from patients with reactive arthritis (ReA).

METHODS

C. trachomatis specific T cell clones were isolated from synovial fluid of 2 patients with chlamydia induced ReA. The particular antigens/epitopes recognized by these clones were identified using T cell immunoblotting and testing recombinant chlamydial proteins and synthetic peptides.

RESULTS

Two sets of clones were shown by immunoblotting to recognize antigens of roughly 60 and 18 kilodaltons (kDa) respectively. By testing recombinant chlamydial proteins these antigens were identified as the 57 kDa heat shock protein and the 18 kDa histone-like protein, Hc1. Mapping the epitope in Hc1 using synthetic peptides identified a peptide containing a sequence motif compatible with binding to HLA-DR1, the restricting antigen for the Hc1 specific clones.

CONCLUSION

These are the first 2 chlamydial antigens to be identified as targets of the synovial T cell response in chlamydia induced ReA. Both have properties that are shared with target antigens identified in ReA induced by enteric infection and relevant to the pathogenesis of joint inflammation.

An alternative pathway of B cell activation: stilbene disulfonates interact with a Cl- binding motif on AEn-related proteins to stimulate mitogenesis

Stilbene disulfonates are known to competitively inhibit Cl-/HCO3- flux through Band 3-related anion exchange (AE) proteins. To study the role of AE in lymphocyte activation, stilbene disulfonates were added to cultures of rat splenocytes (SPL). Four different stilbene derivatives were tested and each directly stimulated mitogenic proliferative responses of SPL. The mitogenic activity of these analogs paralleled their known patterns of interaction with Band 3-related AE proteins, as measured by; (a) their effective mitogenic concentrations, (b) their rank order of mitogenic potency [DIDS greater than SITS greater than DNDS congruent to DAzDS], (c) their patterns of nonreversible binding to the mitogenic receptor [DIDS much greater than SITS, DNDS], and (d) the specific, noncompetitive inhibition of their activity by the antagonist niflumic acid. Stilbene disulfonates directly activated purified B cell populations but not isolated T cells and furthermore, acted in synergy with anti-IgM to stimulate proliferation of SPL. These findings show that stilbene disulfonates represent a novel class of mitogens that interact with AEn-related proteins to stimulate an alternative activation pathway in B cells. These studies also indicate that immunomodulating activities of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as niflumic acid may be mediated, in part, by their interactions with AEn-related proteins.