Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11392629.

BackgroundLow-dose aspirin has been shown to reduce the incidence of cancer, but its role in the treatment of cancer is uncertain.ObjectivesWe conducted a systematic search of the scientific literature on aspirin taken by patients following a diagnosis of cancer, together with appropriate meta-analyses.MethodsSearches were completed in Medline and Embase in December 2015 using a pre-defined search strategy. References and abstracts of all the selected papers were scanned and expert colleagues were contacted for additional studies. Two reviewers applied pre-determined eligibility criteria (cross-sectional, cohort and controlled studies, and aspirin taken after a diagnosis of cancer), assessed study quality and extracted data on cancer cause-specific deaths, overall mortality and incidence of metastases. Random effects meta-analyses and planned sub-group analyses were completed separately for observational and experimental studies. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed in sensitivity analyses and appropriate omissions made. Papers were examined for any reference to bleeding and authors of the papers were contacted and questioned.ResultsFive reports of randomised trials were identified, together with forty two observational studies: sixteen on colorectal cancer, ten on breast and ten on prostate cancer mortality. Pooling of eleven observational reports of the effect of aspirin on cause-specific mortality from colon cancer, after the omission of one report identified on the basis of sensitivity analyses, gave a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.76 (95% CI 0.66, 0.88) with reduced heterogeneity (P = 0.04). The cause specific mortality in five reports of patients with breast cancer showed significant heterogeneity (P<0.0005) but the omission of one outlying study reduced heterogeneity (P = 0.19) and led to an HR = 0.87 (95% CI 0.69, 1.09). Heterogeneity between nine studies of prostate cancer was significant, but again, the omission of one study led to acceptable homogeneity (P = 0.26) and an overall HR = 0.89 (95% CI 0.79–0.99). Six single studies of other cancers suggested reductions in cause specific mortality by aspirin, and in five the effect is statistically significant. There were no significant differences between the pooled HRs for the three main cancers and after the omission of three reports already identified in sensitivity analyses heterogeneity was removed and revealed an overall HR of 0.83 (95% CI 0.76–0.90). A mutation of PIK3CA was present in about 20% of patients, and appeared to explain most of the reduction in colon cancer mortality by aspirin. Data were not adequate to examine the importance of this or any other marker in the effect of aspirin in the other cancers. On bleeding attributable to aspirin two reports stated that there had been no side effect or bleeding attributable to aspirin. Authors on the other reports were written to and 21 replied stating that no data on bleeding were available.Conclusions and ImplicationsThe study highlights the need for randomised trials of aspirin treatment in ...

No abstract

Background Digital technologies such as wearables, websites and mobile applications are increasingly used in interventions targeting physical activity (PA). Increasing access to such technologies makes an attractive prospect for helping individuals of low socioeconomic status (SES) in becoming more active and healthier. However, little is known about their effectiveness in such populations. The aim of this systematic review was to explore whether digital interventions were effective in promoting PA in low SES populations, whether interventions are of equal benefit to higher SES individuals and whether the number or type of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) used in digital PA interventions was associated with intervention effects. Methods A systematic search strategy was used to identify eligible studies from MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus and The Cochrane Library, published between January 1990 and March 2020. Randomised controlled trials, using digital technology as the primary intervention tool, and a control group that did not receive any digital technology-based intervention were included, provided they had a measure of PA as an outcome. Lastly, studies that did not have any measure of SES were excluded from the review. Risk of Bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2. Results Of the 14,589 records initially identified, 19 studies were included in the final meta-analysis. Using random-effects models, in low SES there was a standardised mean difference (SMD (95%CI)) in PA between intervention and control groups of 0.06 (− 0.08,0.20). In high SES the SMD was 0.34 (0.22,0.45). Heterogeneity was modest in both low (I2 = 0.18) and high (I2 = 0) SES groups. The studies used a range of digital technologies and BCTs in their interventions, but the main findings were consistent across all of the sub-group analyses (digital interventions with a PA only focus, country, chronic disease, and duration of intervention) and there was no association with the number or type of BCTs. Discussion Digital interventions targeting PA do not show equivalent efficacy for people of low and high SES. For people of low SES, there is no evidence that digital PA interventions are effective, irrespective of the behaviour change techniques used. In contrast, the same interventions in high SES participants do indicate effectiveness. To reduce inequalities and improve effectiveness, future development of digital interventions aimed at improving PA must make more effort to meet the needs of low SES people within the target population.