Risk Factors for Premature Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 77 Studies

Objective

To evaluate the magnitude of the association between risk factors and premature myocardial infarction (MI) (men aged 18-55 years; women aged 18-65 years).

Patients and Methods

We searched MEDLINE and other databases from inception through April 30, 2020, as well as bibliography of articles selected for data extraction. We selected observational studies reporting the magnitude of the association of at least 1 risk factor (demographic characteristics, lifestyle factors, clinical risk factors, or biomarkers) with premature MI and a control group. Pooled risk estimates (random effects) from all studies unadjusted and adjusted for risk factors were reported as summary odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs.

Results

From 35,320 articles of 12.7 million participants, we extracted data on 19 risk factors from 77 studies across 58 countries. Men had a higher risk of premature MI (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.71 to 3.35) than did women. Family history of cardiac disease was associated with a higher risk of premature MI (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 2.29 to 3.27). Major modifiable risk factors associated with higher risk were current smoking (OR, 4.34; 95% CI, 3.68 to 5.12 vs no/former), diabetes mellitus (OR, 3.54; 95% CI, 2.69 to 4.65), dyslipidemia (OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.76 to 4.91), and hypertension (OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 2.48 to 3.27). Higher body mass index carried higher risk (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.24 to 1.71 for ≥25 kg/m² vs <25 kg/m²). Biomarkers associated with 2- to 3-fold higher risk were total cholesterol levels greater than 200 mg/dL, triglyceride levels higher than 150 mg/dL, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels less than 60 mg/dL (to convert to mmol/L, multiply by 0.0259).

Conclusion

Major risk factors for premature MI are mostly amenable to patient, population, and policy level interventions. Mild elevations in body mass index and triglyceride levels were associated with higher risk, which has implications for the growing worldwide epidemic of cardiometabolic diseases.

Effect of Action Observation Therapy in the Rehabilitation of Neurologic and Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of action observation therapy (AOT) in the rehabilitation of neurologic and musculoskeletal conditions.

DATA SOURCES

Searches were completed until July 2020 from the electronic databases Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (via OVID SP), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials comparing AOT with standard care were assessed. Musculoskeletal (amputee, orthopedic) and neurologic (dementia, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson disease, stroke) conditions were included. There were no age limitations. Articles had to be available in English.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full extracts of studies for eligibility and assessed the risk of bias of each study using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Data extraction included participant characteristics and intervention duration, frequency, and type.

RESULTS

The effect of AOT in different outcome measures (OMs) was referenced in terms of body structures and functions, activities and participation, and environmental factors as outlined by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). Of the 3448 articles identified, 36 articles with 1405 patients met the inclusion criteria. Seven of the 11 meta-analyses revealed a significant effect of intervention, with results presented using the mean difference and 95% CI. A best evidence synthesis was used across all OMs. Strong evidence supports the use of AOT in the rehabilitation of individuals with stroke and Parkinson disease; moderate evidence supports AOT in the rehabilitation of populations with orthopedic and multiple sclerosis diagnoses. However, moderate evidence is provided for and against the effect of AOT in persons with Parkinson disease and cerebral palsy.

CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that AOT is advantageous in the rehabilitation of certain conditions in improving ICF domains. No conclusions can be drawn regarding treatment parameters because of the heterogeneity of the intervention. AOT has been considerably less explored in musculoskeletal conditions.

Medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stones: Analysing the evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analysis of powered double-blinded randomised controlled trials

Objective

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the efficacy and safety of medical expulsive therapy (MET) in low risk of bias (RoB) randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

A Cochrane style systematic review was conducted on published literature from 1990 to 2016, to include low RoB and a power calculation. A pooled meta-analysis was conducted.

Results

The MET group included 1387 vs 1381 patients in the control group. The analysis reveals α-blockers increased stone expulsion rates (78% vs 74%) (P < 0.001), whilst calcium channel blockers (CCBs) had no effect compared to controls (79% vs 75%) (P = 0.38). In the subgroup analysis, α-blockers had a shorter time to stone expulsion vs the control group (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in expulsion rates between the treatment groups and control group for stones <5 mm in size (P = 0.48), proximal or mid-ureteric stones (P = 0.63 and P = 0.22, respectively). However, α-blockers increased stone expulsion in stones >5 mm (P = 0.02), as well as distal ureteric stones (P < 0.001). The α-blocker group developed more side-effects (6.6% of patients; P < 0.001). The numbers needed to treat for α-blockers was one in 14, for stones >5 mm one in eight, and for distal stones one in 10.

Conclusion

The primary findings show a small overall benefit for α-blockers as MET for ureteric stones but no benefit with CCBs. α-blockers show a greater benefit for large (>5 mm) ureteric stones and those located in the distal ureter, but no benefit for smaller or more proximal stones. α-blockers are associated with a greater risk of side-effects compared to placebo or CCBs.