-
Emergency Medicine Australasia : EMA Dec 2022The optimal approach for peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion in adult hospitalised patients with difficult intravenous access (DIVA) is unknown. The present... (Review)
Review
Review article: Peripheral intravenous catheter insertion in adult patients with difficult intravenous access: A systematic review of assessment instruments, clinical practice guidelines and escalation pathways.
The optimal approach for peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion in adult hospitalised patients with difficult intravenous access (DIVA) is unknown. The present study aimed to critically appraise the quality of (i) assessment instruments and (ii) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) or escalation pathways for identifying and managing patients with DIVA. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EBSCO MEDLINE, EMBASE (OVID) and EBSCO CINAHL databases were searched on 22 March 2021. Studies describing a DIVA assessment measure, CPG or escalation pathway for PIVC insertion in adults (≥18 years of age) were included. Data were extracted using a standardised data extraction form including study design, type of resource and reported clinical outcomes. Quality of DIVA assessment instruments were reviewed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments checklist. Methodological quality of CPGs and escalation pathways was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-II (AGREE-II) instrument. Overall, 24 DIVA resources comprising 16 DIVA assessment instruments and nine CPGs or escalation pathways (including one combined assessment instrument and escalation pathway) were identified. Instruments commonly focused on vein visibility and palpability as indicators of DIVA. CPGs and escalation pathways unanimously recommended use of vessel visualisation technology for patients with or suspected of DIVA. Methodological quality of the resources was mixed. Consensus and standardisation of resources to identify DIVA and recommendations for managing patients with DIVA is limited. Adopting consistent, evidence-based CPGs, escalation pathways or DIVA assessment instruments may significantly improve clinical outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Catheterization, Peripheral; Administration, Intravenous; Evidence-Based Practice; Checklist; Catheters
PubMed: 36038953
DOI: 10.1111/1742-6723.14069 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021Misoprostol given orally is a commonly used labour induction method. Our Cochrane Review is restricted to studies with low-dose misoprostol (initially ≤ 50 µg), as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Misoprostol given orally is a commonly used labour induction method. Our Cochrane Review is restricted to studies with low-dose misoprostol (initially ≤ 50 µg), as higher doses pose unacceptably high risks of uterine hyperstimulation.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of low-dose oral misoprostol for labour induction in women with a viable fetus in the third trimester of pregnancy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (14 February 2021) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials comparing low-dose oral misoprostol (initial dose ≤ 50 µg) versus placebo, vaginal dinoprostone, vaginal misoprostol, oxytocin, or mechanical methods; or comparing oral misoprostol protocols (one- to two-hourly versus four- to six-hourly; 20 µg to 25 µg versus 50 µg; or 20 µg hourly titrated versus 25 µg two-hourly static).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Using Covidence, two review authors independently screened reports, extracted trial data, and performed quality assessments. Our primary outcomes were vaginal birth within 24 hours, caesarean section, and hyperstimulation with foetal heart changes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 61 trials involving 20,026 women. GRADE assessments ranged from moderate- to very low-certainty evidence, with downgrading decisions based on imprecision, inconsistency, and study limitations. Oral misoprostol versus placebo/no treatment (four trials; 594 women) Oral misoprostol may make little to no difference in the rate of caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.11; 4 trials; 594 women; moderate-certainty evidence), while its effect on uterine hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes is uncertain (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.25 to 105.31; 3 trials; 495 women; very low-certainty evidence). Vaginal births within 24 hours was not reported. In all trials, oxytocin could be commenced after 12 to 24 hours and all women had pre-labour ruptured membranes. Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone (13 trials; 9676 women) Oral misoprostol probably results in fewer caesarean sections (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.90; 13 trials, 9676 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis indicated that 10 µg to 25 µg (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.87; 9 trials; 8652 women) may differ from 50 µg (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.34; 4 trials; 1024 women) for caesarean section. Oral misoprostol may decrease vaginal births within 24 hours (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.00; 10 trials; 8983 women; low-certainty evidence) and hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.59; 11 trials; 9084 women; low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol versus vaginal misoprostol (33 trials; 6110 women) Oral use may result in fewer vaginal births within 24 hours (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95; 16 trials, 3451 women; low-certainty evidence), and less hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.92, 25 trials, 4857 women, low-certainty evidence), with subgroup analysis suggesting that 10 µg to 25 µg orally (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.57; 6 trials, 957 women) may be superior to 50 µg orally (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.11; 19 trials; 3900 women). Oral misoprostol probably does not increase caesarean sections overall (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; 32 trials; 5914 women; low-certainty evidence) but likely results in fewer caesareans for foetal distress (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.99; 24 trials, 4775 women). Oral misoprostol versus intravenous oxytocin (6 trials; 737 women, 200 with ruptured membranes) Misoprostol may make little or no difference to vaginal births within 24 hours (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.33; 3 trials; 466 women; low-certainty evidence), but probably results in fewer caesarean sections (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; 6 trials; 737 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect on hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes is uncertain (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.26; 3 trials, 331 women; very low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol versus mechanical methods (6 trials; 2993 women) Six trials compared oral misoprostol to transcervical Foley catheter. Misoprostol may increase vaginal birth within 24 hours (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.79; 4 trials; 1044 women; low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the risk of caesarean section (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95; 6 trials; 2993 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.21; 4 trials; 2828 women; low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol one- to two-hourly versus four- to six-hourly (1 trial; 64 women) The evidence on hourly titration was very uncertain due to the low numbers reported. Oral misoprostol 20 µg hourly titrated versus 25 µg two-hourly static (2 trials; 296 women) The difference in regimen may have little or no effect on the rate of vaginal births in 24 hours (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.16; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is of very low certainty for all other reported outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-dose oral misoprostol is probably associated with fewer caesarean sections (and therefore more vaginal births) than vaginal dinoprostone, and lower rates of hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes. However, time to birth may be increased, as seen by a reduced number of vaginal births within 24 hours. Compared to transcervical Foley catheter, low-dose oral misoprostol is associated with fewer caesarean sections, but equivalent rates of hyperstimulation. Low-dose misoprostol given orally rather than vaginally is probably associated with similar rates of vaginal birth, although rates may be lower within the first 24 hours. However, there is likely less hyperstimulation with foetal heart changes, and fewer caesarean sections performed due to foetal distress. The best available evidence suggests that low-dose oral misoprostol probably has many benefits over other methods for labour induction. This review supports the use of low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour, and demonstrates the lower risks of hyperstimulation than when misoprostol is given vaginally. More trials are needed to establish the optimum oral misoprostol regimen, but these findings suggest that a starting dose of 25 µg may offer a good balance of efficacy and safety.
Topics: Administration, Intravaginal; Administration, Oral; Apgar Score; Cesarean Section; Dinoprostone; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Heart Rate, Fetal; Humans; Intensive Care, Neonatal; Labor, Induced; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Oxytocin; Parturition; Placebos; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Uterus
PubMed: 34155622
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014484 -
ESC Heart Failure Apr 2023There is considerable variability in the effect of intravenous iron on hard cardiovascular (CV)-related outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) in randomized... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
There is considerable variability in the effect of intravenous iron on hard cardiovascular (CV)-related outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We use a meta-analytic approach to analyse data from existing RCTs to derive a more robust estimate of the effect size of intravenous iron infusion on CV-related outcomes in patients with HF.
METHOD AND RESULTS
PubMed/Medline was searched using the following terms: ('intravenous' and 'iron' and 'heart failure') from inception till 6 November 2022 for RCTs comparing intravenous iron infusion with placebo or standard of care in patients with HF and iron deficiency. Outcomes were the composite of CV mortality and first hospitalization for HF; all-cause mortality; CV mortality; first hospitalization for HF; and total hospitalizations for HF. Random effects risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Ten RCTs with a total of 3438 patients were included. Intravenous iron resulted in a significant reduction in the composite of CV mortality and first hospitalization for HF [RR 0.0.85; 95% CI (0.77, 0.95)], first hospitalization for HF [RR 0.82; 95% CI (0.67, 0.99)], and total hospitalizations for HF [RR 0.74; 95% CI (0.60, 0.91)] but no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality [RR 0.95; 95% CI. (0.83, 1.09)] or CV mortality [OR 0.89; 95% CI (0.75, 1.05)].
CONCLUSIONS
Intravenous iron infusion in patients with HF reduces the composite risk of first hospitalization for HF and CV mortality as well as the risks of first and recurrent hospitalizations for HF, with no effect on all-cause mortality or CV mortality alone.
Topics: Humans; Heart Failure; Infusions, Intravenous; Iron Deficiencies; Administration, Intravenous
PubMed: 36734033
DOI: 10.1002/ehf2.14310 -
Nutrients Apr 2019Many cancer patients on intensive chemotherapy lack vitamin C. Vitamin C stimulates the production and activation of immune cells, so perhaps supplementation could be...
Many cancer patients on intensive chemotherapy lack vitamin C. Vitamin C stimulates the production and activation of immune cells, so perhaps supplementation could be used to improve the immunity in those patients. This review assesses the effectiveness and safety of vitamin C administration in cancer. The PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched and all study designs except for phase I studies, and case reports were included in this review. A total of 19 trials were included. In only 4 trials randomization was used to determine if patients received vitamin C or a placebo. The result of this review does not prove that there is a clinically relevant positive effect of vitamin C supplementation in cancer patients in general on the overall survival, clinical status, quality of life (QOL) and performance status (PS), since the quality of the studies published is low. Interventions and patient groups are very diverse, hence an effect in some patient groups is possible. There seems to be a better effect with intravenous than oral administration. Nevertheless, treatment with vitamin C is safe with minimal side effects. Thereby, we think it is safe to examine the effects of vitamin C on specific groups of patients in a randomized controlled setting.
Topics: Ascorbic Acid; Dietary Supplements; Drug Administration Routes; Humans; Neoplasms
PubMed: 31035414
DOI: 10.3390/nu11050977 -
Farmacia Hospitalaria : Organo Oficial... 2024The off-label use in clinical practice of non-approved syringes for intravitreal drug administration has resulted in the detection of silicone oil drops in the vitreous... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The off-label use in clinical practice of non-approved syringes for intravitreal drug administration has resulted in the detection of silicone oil drops in the vitreous of some patients. This situation derives from the lack of approved syringes for intraocular use in the Spanish market. The aim of this work is to review the use of syringes for intraocular administration, as well as to search for alternatives that meet the legal requirements for these unmet needs.
METHOD
A systematic review was performed following the PRISMA 2020 Guidelines by searching PubMed with the descriptors: "silicone" AND "syringes" AND ("intraocular" OR "intravitreal") and filtering all existing publications from January 2006 to December 2023, including all those articles dealing with silicone oil release in intravitreal injections and analysing the possible consequences.
RESULTS
Sixty-eight results were found, 23 of which were excluded because they did not deal with the subject under study, leaving a total of 45 articles for the systematic review. These were classified according to the conclusions obtained in 4 groups: the adverse reactions produced by silicone, the administration technique, the physicochemical aspects of silicone release, and the characteristics of the medical device. After reviewing the current manufacturers and technical data sheets of commercialized syringes, the existing syringes for this use have been collected, finding two that will probably be commercialized in Spain at the beginning of 2024: Zero Residual™ 0.2 ml SiO-free and VitreJect® Ophthalmic.
CONCLUSIONS
From the results obtained, it can be interpreted that the use of syringes and needles with silicone for intravitreal use is a concern for health professionals due to the implications and consequences that may arise in patients, the most important being adverse reactions, so it is necessary to have silicone-free syringes on the market that are specific for intraocular use. Safety and legality in the use of intraocular syringes and needles is essential to guarantee ocular integrity and patient health.
Topics: Syringes; Humans; Silicone Oils; Intravitreal Injections; Off-Label Use; Spain
PubMed: 38556370
DOI: 10.1016/j.farma.2024.01.008 -
Neurosurgical Focus Oct 2023Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an antifibrinolytic drug associated with reduced blood loss in a range of surgical specialties, including neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an antifibrinolytic drug associated with reduced blood loss in a range of surgical specialties, including neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and cardiac surgery. Concerns about venous thromboembolism and seizures from intravenous (IV) TXA have led to increased use of topical TXA. Given the relative scarcity of the literature on topical TXA compared with that on IV TXA within neurosurgery, the authors aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the safety, efficacy, and optimal administration of topical TXA in a wide range of spinal procedures and pathologies.
METHODS
The PRISMA guidelines, Cochrane risk of bias tool, and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to extract randomized controlled trials and high-quality case-control and cross-sectional/cohort studies (adult studies only) from PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase published between 2016 and 2023. Studies were analyzed by two independent reviewers for variables including dosage, TXA administration route, type of spine procedure, blood loss, adverse events including thromboembolism and infection, postoperative hemoglobin level, and hospitalization length. Pooled analysis comparing intraoperative and postoperative blood loss, postoperative hemoglobin levels, and hospitalization length of stay on the basis of route of TXA administration was conducted.
RESULTS
Four cohort studies, 1 cross-sectional study, 1 case-control study, and 12 randomized controlled trials, together involving 2045 patients, were included. The most common route of topical TXA administration was via TXA in saline solution. Other routes of topical TXA included retrograde injection and TXA-soaked Gelfoam. In pooled analysis, topical TXA significantly reduced visible blood loss (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.22, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.00001), postoperative blood loss (SMD -1.63, 95% CI -2.03 to -1.22), and length of hospital stay (SMD -1.02, 95% CI -1.42 to -0.61), as well as higher postoperative hemoglobin (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.34-0.83), compared with non-TXA controls. No significant differences in outcomes were found between topical and IV TXA or between combined (topical and IV) and IV TXA. Thromboembolism and infection rates did not significantly differ between any TXA administration group and non-TXA controls.
CONCLUSIONS
In pooled analyses, topical TXA was associated with decreased perioperative blood loss in a wide range of scenarios, including cervical spine surgery and thoracolumbar trauma, as well as in patients with a thromboembolic history.
Topics: Humans; Tranexamic Acid; Cross-Sectional Studies; Case-Control Studies; Blood Loss, Surgical; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Thromboembolism; Hemoglobins
PubMed: 37778051
DOI: 10.3171/2023.7.FOCUS23363 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018Bronchiectasis is a chronic inflammatory disease characterised by a recurrent cycle of respiratory bacterial infections associated with cough, sputum production and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Bronchiectasis is a chronic inflammatory disease characterised by a recurrent cycle of respiratory bacterial infections associated with cough, sputum production and impaired quality of life. Antibiotics are the main therapeutic option for managing bronchiectasis exacerbations. Evidence suggests that inhaled antibiotics may be associated with more effective eradication of infective organisms and a lower risk of developing antibiotic resistance when compared with orally administered antibiotics. However, it is currently unclear whether antibiotics are more effective when administered orally or by inhalation.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the comparative efficacy and safety of oral versus inhaled antibiotics in the treatment of adults and children with bronchiectasis.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified studies through searches of the Cochrane Airways Group's Specialised Register (CAGR), which is maintained by the Information Specialist for the group. The Register contains trial reports identified through systematic searches of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, and PsycINFO, and handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO trials portal. We searched all databases in March 2018 and imposed no restrictions on language of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We planned to include studies which compared oral antibiotics with inhaled antibiotics. We would have considered short-term use (less than four weeks) for treating acute exacerbations separately from longer-term use as a prophylactic (4 weeks or more). We would have considered both intraclass and interclass comparisons. We planned to exclude studies if the participants received continuous or high-dose antibiotics immediately before the start of the trial, or if they have received a diagnosis of cystic fibrosis (CF), sarcoidosis, active allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis or active non-tuberculous Mycobacterial infection.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently applied study inclusion criteria to the searches and we planned for two authors to independently extract data, assess risk of bias and assess overall quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. We also planned to obtain missing data from the authors where possible and to report results with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 313 unique records through database searches and a further 21 records from trial registers. We excluded 307 on the basis of title and abstract alone and a further 27 after examining full-text reports. No studies were identified for inclusion in the review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently no evidence indicating whether orally administered antibiotics are more beneficial compared to inhaled antibiotics. The recent ERS bronchiectasis guidelines provide a practical approach to the use of long-term antibiotics. New research is needed comparing inhaled versus oral antibiotic therapies for bronchiectasis patients with a history of frequent exacerbations, to establish which approach is the most effective in terms of exacerbation prevention, quality of life, treatment burden, and antibiotic resistance.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Administration, Oral; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bronchiectasis; Child; Humans
PubMed: 29587336
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012579.pub2 -
Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2021Overactive bladder syndrome (OAB) is characterised by urgency symptoms, with or without urgency incontinence, usually with frequency and nocturia and severely affects... (Review)
Review
Overactive bladder syndrome (OAB) is characterised by urgency symptoms, with or without urgency incontinence, usually with frequency and nocturia and severely affects the quality of life. This systematic review evaluates the various drug delivery strategies used in practice to manage OAB. Advanced drug delivery strategies alongside traditional strategies were comprehensively analysed and comparatively evaluated. The present review was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. A total of 24 studies reporting the development of novel formulations for the treatment of OAB were considered eligible and were further categorised according to the route of drug administration. The review found that various drug delivery routes (transdermal, intravesicular, oral, vaginal and intramuscular) are used for the administration of drugs for managing OAB, however, the outcomes illustrated the marked potential of transdermal drug delivery route. The findings of the current review are expected to be helpful for pharmaceutical scientists to better comprehend the existing literature and challenges and is anticipated to provide a basis for designing and fabricating novel drug delivery systems to manage OAB.
PubMed: 33925860
DOI: 10.3390/ph14050409 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Trachoma is the world's leading infectious cause of blindness. In 1996, WHO launched the Alliance for the Global Elimination of Trachoma by the year 2020, based on the...
BACKGROUND
Trachoma is the world's leading infectious cause of blindness. In 1996, WHO launched the Alliance for the Global Elimination of Trachoma by the year 2020, based on the 'SAFE' strategy (surgery, antibiotics, facial cleanliness, and environmental improvement).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the evidence supporting the antibiotic arm of the SAFE strategy by assessing the effects of antibiotics on both active trachoma (primary objective), Chlamydia trachomatis infection of the conjunctiva, antibiotic resistance, and adverse effects (secondary objectives).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched relevant electronic databases and trials registers. The date of the last search was 4 January 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that satisfied either of two criteria: (a) trials in which topical or oral administration of an antibiotic was compared to placebo or no treatment in people or communities with trachoma, (b) trials in which a topical antibiotic was compared with an oral antibiotic in people or communities with trachoma. We also included studies addressing different dosing strategies in the population. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 14 studies where individuals with trachoma were randomised and 12 cluster-randomised studies. Any antibiotic versus control (individuals)Nine studies (1961 participants) randomised individuals with trachoma to antibiotic or control (no treatment or placebo). All of these studies enrolled children and young people with active trachoma. The antibiotics used in these studies included topical (oxy)tetracycline (5 studies), doxycycline (2 studies), and sulfonamides (4 studies). Four studies had more than two study arms. In general these studies were poorly reported, and it was difficult to judge risk of bias.These studies provided low-certainty evidence that people with active trachoma treated with antibiotics experienced a reduction in active trachoma at three months (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.89; 1961 people; 9 RCTs; I = 73%) and 12 months (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.00; 1035 people; 4 RCTs; I = 90%). Low-certainty evidence was available for ocular infection at three months (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.04; 297 people; 4 RCTs; I = 0%) and 12 months (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.78; 129 people; 1 RCT). None of these studies assessed antimicrobial resistance. In those studies that reported harms, no serious adverse effects were reported (low-certainty evidence).Oral versus topical antibiotics (individuals)Eight studies (1583 participants) compared oral and topical antibiotics. Only one study included people older than 21 years of age. Oral antibiotics included azithromycin (5 studies), sulfonamides (2 studies), and doxycycline (1 study). Topical antibiotics included (oxy)tetracycline (6 studies), azithromycin (1 study), and sulfonamide (1 study). These studies were poorly reported, and it was difficult to judge risk of bias.There was low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in effect between oral and topical antibiotics on active trachoma at three months (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.16; 953 people; 6 RCTs; I = 63%) and 12 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15; 886 people; 5 RCTs; I = 56%). There was very low-certainty evidence for ocular infection at three or 12 months. Antimicrobial resistance was not assessed. In those studies that reported adverse effects, no serious adverse effects were reported; one study reported abdominal pain with azithromycin; one study reported a couple of cases of nausea with azithromycin; and one study reported three cases of reaction to sulfonamides (low-certainty evidence).Oral azithromycin versus control (communities)Four cluster-randomised studies compared antibiotic with no or delayed treatment. Data were available on active trachoma at 12 months from two studies but could not be pooled because of reporting differences. One study at low risk of bias found a reduced prevalence of active trachoma 12 months after a single dose of azithromycin in communities with a high prevalence of infection (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.65; 1247 people). The other, lower quality, study in low-prevalence communities reported similar median prevalences of infection at 12 months: 9.3% in communities treated with azithromycin and 8.2% in untreated communities. We judged this moderate-certainty evidence for a reduction in active trachoma with treatment, downgrading one level for inconsistency between the two studies. Two studies reported ocular infection at 12 months and data could be pooled. There was a reduction in ocular infection (RR 0.36, 0.31 to 0.43; 2139 people) 12 months after mass treatment with a single dose compared with no treatment (moderate-certainty evidence). There was high-certainty evidence of an increased risk of resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, and Escherichia coli to azithromycin, tetracycline, and clindamycin in communities treated with azithromycin, with approximately 5-fold risk ratios at 12 months. The evidence did not support increased resistance to penicillin or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. None of the studies measured resistance to C trachomatis. No serious adverse events were reported. The main adverse effect noted for azithromycin (˜10%) was abdominal pain, vomiting, and nausea.Oral azithromycin versus topical tetracycline (communities)Three cluster-randomised studies compared oral azithromycin with topical tetracycline. The evidence was inconsistent for active trachoma and ocular infection at three and 12 months (low-certainty evidence) and was not pooled due to considerable heterogeneity. Antimicrobial resistance and adverse effects were not reported.Different dosing strategiesSix studies compared different strategies for dosing. There were: mass treatment at different dosing intervals; applying cessation or stopping rules to mass treatment; strategies to increase mass treatment coverage. There was no strong evidence to support any variation in the recommended annual mass treatment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Antibiotic treatment may reduce the risk of active trachoma and ocular infection in people infected with C trachomatis, compared to no treatment/placebo, but the size of the treatment effect in individuals is uncertain. Mass antibiotic treatment with single dose oral azithromycin reduces the prevalence of active trachoma and ocular infection in communities. There is no strong evidence to support any variation in the recommended periodicity of annual mass treatment. There is evidence of an increased risk of antibiotic resistance at 12 months in communities treated with antibiotics.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chlamydia trachomatis; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Trachoma; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31554017
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001860.pub4 -
Clinical Toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.) Dec 2017Intraosseous (IO) access is an established route of administration in resuscitation situations. Patients with serious poisoning presenting to the emergency department... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Intraosseous (IO) access is an established route of administration in resuscitation situations. Patients with serious poisoning presenting to the emergency department may require urgent antidote therapy. However, intravenous (IV) access is not always readily available.
OBJECTIVE
This study reviews the current evidence for IO administration of antidotes that could be used in poisoning. The primary outcome was mortality as a surrogate of efficacy. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic variables, electrocardiographic variables, neurological status, pharmacokinetics outcomes, and adverse effects as defined by each article.
METHODS
A medical librarian created a systematic search strategy for Medline, subsequently translated to Embase, BIOSIS, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), and the CENTRAL clinical trial register, all of which we searched from inception to 30 June 2016. Interventions included IO administration of selected antidotes. Articles included volunteer studies, poisoning, or other resuscitation contexts such as cardiac arrest, burns, dehydration, seizure, hemorrhagic shock, or undifferentiated shock. We considered all human studies and animal experiments to the exception of in vitro studies. Two reviewers independently selected studies, and a third adjudicated in case of disagreement. Three reviewers extracted all relevant data. Three reviewers evaluated the risk of bias and quality of the articles using specific scales according to each type of study design.
RESULTS
A total of 47 publications (46 articles and one abstract) met our inclusion criteria and described IO administration of 13 different antidotes. These included one case series and 21 case reports describing 26 patients, and 25 animal experiments. Of those, seven human case reports and four animal experiments specifically reported the use of antidotes in poisoning. Human case reports suggested favorable outcomes with IO use of atropine, diazepam, hydroxocobalamin, insulin, lipid emulsion, methylene blue, phentolamine, prothrombin complex concentrate, and sodium bicarbonate. Clinical outcomes varied according to the antidote used. The only reported adverse event was ventricular tachycardia following IO naloxone. Regarding the animal experiments, IO administration of lipid emulsion and of hydroxocobalamin showed improved survival in bupivacaine-poisoned rats and in cyanide-intoxicated swine, respectively. Animal data also suggested an equivalent bio-availability between IO and IV administration for atropine, calcium chloride, dextrose 50%, diazepam, methylene blue, pralidoxime, and sodium bicarbonate. Adverse effect reporting of fat emboli after IO administration of sodium bicarbonate, for example, was conflicting due to the significant heterogeneity in the timing of lung examination across studies.
CONCLUSION
The evidence supporting the use of IO route for the administration of antidotes in a context of poisoning is scarce. The majority of the evidence consists of case reports and animal experiments. Common antidotes such as acetylcysteine, fomepizole, and digoxin-specific antibody fragments have not been studied or reported with the use of the IO route. Despite the low-quality evidence available, IO access is a potential option for antidotal treatments in toxicological resuscitation when IV access is unavailable.
Topics: Animals; Antidotes; Humans; Infusions, Intraosseous; Poisoning; Resuscitation
PubMed: 28644688
DOI: 10.1080/15563650.2017.1337122