-
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis :... Oct 2023Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) represent a cornerstone of adult venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment. Recently, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) represent a cornerstone of adult venous thromboembolism (VTE) treatment. Recently, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating DOACs in pediatrics have been performed.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of DOACs in the pediatric population.
METHODS
We systematically searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from initiation up to August 20, 2022, for RCTs comparing DOACs to standard of care (SOC) in patients aged <18 years according to PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration CRD42022353870). The primary analysis was performed according to the anticoagulation intensity and clinical setting (ie, prophylaxis in cardiac disease or treatment in VTE). Efficacy outcomes were all-cause mortality and VTE. Safety outcomes were major bleeding (MB), clinically relevant non-MB, any bleeding, serious adverse events, and discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS
Seven RCTs were included in the systematic review and 6 in the meta-analysis (3 prophylaxis in cardiac disease and 3 treatment in VTE). DOACs showed a significant reduction of VTE recurrence for treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.94) and a nonsignificant reduction in VTE occurrence in prophylaxis (OR = 0.22; 95% CI, 0.03-1.55). No differences were observed for any bleeding, serious AEs, and MB in prophylaxis. Nonsignificant trends were observed for clinically relevant non-MB, MB in treatment, and discontinuation due to AE in prophylaxis. We found a significant increase in discontinuation due to AE in treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
DOAC treatment seems to reduce VTE compared with SOC without major safety issues in the pediatric population, whereas DOAC prophylaxis seems at least comparable to SOC.
Topics: Humans; Child; Anticoagulants; Venous Thromboembolism; Hemorrhage; Blood Coagulation; Heart Diseases; Administration, Oral
PubMed: 37481075
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtha.2023.07.011 -
European Heart Journal. Cardiovascular... Apr 2021The aim of the present meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K oral antagonists (NOACs) vs. vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in elderly... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Safety and efficacy of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation: systematic review and meta-analysis of 22 studies and 440 281 patients.
AIMS
The aim of the present meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K oral antagonists (NOACs) vs. vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and indirectly compare NOACs in this population.
METHODS AND RESULTS
MEDLINE, Cochrane, ISI Web of Sciences, and SCOPUS were searched for randomized or adjusted observational studies comparing NOACs vs. VKAs for stroke prevention in AF patients ≥75 years. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes of this meta-analysis were the composite of stroke and systemic embolism (SSE) and major bleedings, respectively. Other secondary outcomes were also analysed. The analysis included 22 studies enrolling 440 281 AF patients ≥ 75 years. The risk of SSE was significantly lower with NOACs vs. VKAs [hazard ratio (HR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.89], whereas no differences were found for major bleedings (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.85-1.05). NOACs reduced the risk of intracranial bleeding (HR 0.46; 95% CI 0.38-0.58), haemorrhagic stroke (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.48-0.79) and fatal bleeding (HR 0.46; 95% CI 0.30-0.72) but increased gastrointestinal (GI) bleedings (HR 1.46; 95% CI 1.30-1.65), compared to VKAs. The adjusted indirect comparison showed no significant differences in term of SSE between NOAC agents. Conversely, the risk of major bleeding was higher for rivaroxaban vs. apixaban (HR 1.69; 95% CI 1.39-2.08) and edoxaban (HR 1.37; 95% CI 1.14-1.67), and for dabigatran vs. apixaban (HR 1.47; 95% CI 1.18-1.85).
CONCLUSION
In elderly patients with AF, NOACs are associated to a lower risk of SSE, intracranial bleeding, haemorrhagic stroke and fatal bleeding than VKAs, but increase GI bleedings. In this analysis, the safety profile of individual NOAC agents was significantly different.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Aged; Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Vitamin K
PubMed: 31830264
DOI: 10.1093/ehjcvp/pvz073 -
Journal of Investigational Allergology... Jul 2021According to current guidelines, oral antihistamines are the first-line treatment for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). Up-dosing antihistamines to 4-fold the...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
According to current guidelines, oral antihistamines are the first-line treatment for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). Up-dosing antihistamines to 4-fold the licensed dose is recommended if control is not achieved. Such indications are based mainly on expert opinion. Objectives: To critically review and analyze clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of higher-than-licensed dosage of second-generation oral antihistamines in the treatment of CSU.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed following a sensitive search strategy. All articles published in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library between 1961 and October 2018 were examined. Publications with CSU patients prescribed secondgeneration antihistamines in monotherapy compared with placebo, licensed dosages, and/or higher dosages were included. Articles were evaluated by peer reviewers. Quality was evaluated using the Jadad and Oxford scores.
RESULTS
We identified 337 articles, of which 14 were included in the final evaluation (fexofenadine, 6; cetirizine, 2; levocetirizine and desloratadine, 1; levocetirizine, 1; rupatadine, 2; ebastine, 1; and bilastine, 1). Only 5 studies were placebo-controlled. The number of patients included ranged from 20 to 439. The observation lapse was ≤16 weeks. High fexofenadine doses produced a significant dosedependent response and controlled urticaria in most patients. Cetirizine, levocetirizine, rupatadine, and bilastine were more effective in up-dosing. The most frequent adverse events were headache and drowsiness.
CONCLUSION
The low quality and heterogeneity of the articles reviewed made it impossible to reach robust conclusions and reveal the need for large-scale randomized clinical trials.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Animals; Anti-Allergic Agents; Chronic Urticaria; Clinical Trials as Topic; Drug Dosage Calculations; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Histamine H1 Antagonists, Non-Sedating; Humans; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33030434
DOI: 10.18176/jiaci.0649 -
The British Journal of Dermatology Jan 2024Treatment failure is considered to be an important factor in relation to the increase in scabies incidence over the last decade. However, the regional and temporal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Treatment failure is considered to be an important factor in relation to the increase in scabies incidence over the last decade. However, the regional and temporal differences, in addition to the predictors of therapy failure, are unclear.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the prevalence of treatment failure in patients with scabies and investigation of associated factors.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, Global Health and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to August 2021 for randomized and quasi-randomized trials, in addition to observational studies that enrolled children or adults diagnosed with confirmed or clinical scabies treated with permethrin, ivermectin, crotamiton, benzyl benzoate, malathion, sulfur or lindane, and measured treatment failure or factors associated with treatment failure. We performed a random effects meta-analysis for all outcomes reported by at least two studies.
RESULTS
A total of 147 studies were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. The overall prevalence of treatment failure was 15.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.9-17.6; I2 = 95.3%, moderate-certainty evidence] with regional differences between World Health Organization regions (P = 0.003) being highest in the Western Pacific region (26.9%, 95% CI 14.5-41.2). Oral ivermectin (11.8%, 95% CI 8.4-15.4), topical ivermectin (9.3%, 95% CI 5.1-14.3) and permethrin (10.8%, 95% CI 7.5-14.5) had relatively lower failure prevalence compared with the overall prevalence. Failure prevalence was lower in patients treated with two doses of oral ivermectin (7.1%, 95% CI 3.1-12.3) compared with those treated with one dose (15.2%, 95% CI 10.8-20.2; P = 0.021). Overall and permethrin treatment failure prevalence in the included studies (1983-2021) increased by 0.27% and 0.58% per year, respectively. Only three studies conducted a multivariable risk factor analysis; no studies assessed resistance.
CONCLUSIONS
A second dose of ivermectin showed lower failure prevalence than single-dose ivermectin, which should be considered in all guidelines. The increase in treatment failure over time hints at decreasing mite susceptibility for several drugs, but reasons for failure are rarely assessed. Ideally, scabicide susceptibility testing should be implemented in future studies.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Administration, Oral; Hexachlorocyclohexane; Ivermectin; Malathion; Permethrin; Scabies; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 37625798
DOI: 10.1093/bjd/ljad308 -
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 -
European Journal of Drug Metabolism and... Jul 2021Short bowel syndrome is a clinical condition defined by malabsorption of nutrients and micronutrients, most commonly following extensive intestinal resection. Due to a...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Short bowel syndrome is a clinical condition defined by malabsorption of nutrients and micronutrients, most commonly following extensive intestinal resection. Due to a loss of absorptive surfaces, the absorption of orally administered drugs is also often affected. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the published literature and examine the effects of short bowel syndrome on drug pharmacokinetics and clinical outcomes.
METHODS
Studies were identified through searches of databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and SCOPUS, in addition to hand searches of studies' reference lists. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, yielding 50 studies involving 37 different drugs in patients with short bowel syndrome.
RESULTS
Evidence of decreased drug absorption was observed in 29 out of 37 drugs, 6 of which lost therapeutic effect, and 14 of which continued to demonstrate clinical benefit through drug monitoring.
CONCLUSIONS
The influence of short bowel syndrome on drug absorption appears to be drug-specific and dependent on the location and extent of resection. The presence of a colon in continuity may also influence drug bioavailability as it can contribute significantly to the absorption of drugs (e.g., metoprolol); likewise, drugs that have a wide absorption window or are known to be absorbed in the colon are least likely to be malabsorbed. Individualized dosing may be necessary to achieve therapeutic efficacy, and therapeutic drug monitoring, where available, should be considered in short bowel syndrome patients, especially for drugs with narrow therapeutic indices.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Biological Availability; Humans; Intestinal Absorption; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Pharmacokinetics; Short Bowel Syndrome
PubMed: 34196913
DOI: 10.1007/s13318-021-00696-y -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2015Genital herpes is an infection with herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) or type 2 (HSV-2), and is among the most common sexually transmitted diseases. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Genital herpes is an infection with herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) or type 2 (HSV-2), and is among the most common sexually transmitted diseases.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of different oral antiviral treatments versus each other for a first episode of genital herpes in HIV-negative people? What are the effects of different antiviral treatments for genital herpes in HIV-positive people? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to October 2013 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found eight studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: aciclovir, famciclovir, and valaciclovir.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Antiviral Agents; Herpes Genitalis; Herpesvirus 1, Human; Herpesvirus 2, Human; Humans; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25853497
DOI: No ID Found -
Oral and intravenous steroids for multiple sclerosis relapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of Neurology Aug 2017Glucocorticoids are the standard of care for multiple sclerosis (MS) relapses, but the most desirable route of administration is still matter of debate. The aim of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Glucocorticoids are the standard of care for multiple sclerosis (MS) relapses, but the most desirable route of administration is still matter of debate. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of oral versus intravenous steroids for treatment of acute relapses in patients with MS. Randomized or quasi-randomized, parallel group trials with direct comparison between oral and intravenous steroid treatment in MS patients with acute relapse were identified through a systematic literature search. Six trials were included involving 419 participants, 210 for oral, and 209 for intravenous groups, respectively. The weighted mean differences (WMDs) in the Kurtzke's Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score reduction between the oral and intravenous groups were 0.32 [(-0.09 to 0.73); p = 0.129] and 0.11 [(-0.12 to 0.33); p = 0.355] at 1 and 4 weeks after treatment, respectively. The risk ratios (RRs) for improvement by at least one EDSS point were 0.79 [(0.37-1.68); p = 0.539] at week 1 and 0.92 (0.76-1.12); p = 0.400] at week 4. There were no differences in the relapse rate and relapse freedom at 6 months between groups. The WMDs in the mean percentage reduction of Gadolinium-enhancing lesions between oral and intravenous arms were 0.14 (-0.02, 0.29); p = 0.083] and 0.04 (-0.19, 0.28); p = 0.705] at 1 and 4 weeks from treatment. Among the adverse events, insomnia was significantly associated with the oral route of steroid administration [RR 1.25 (1.07-1.46); p = 0.005]. In adult patients with acute MS relapse, there were no clear-cut differences in the efficacy and overall tolerability between oral and intravenous steroids.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Administration, Oral; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Immunologic Factors; Multiple Sclerosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Steroids
PubMed: 28492970
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-017-8505-0 -
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 -
Diseases of the Colon and Rectum Jul 2015Oral mechanical bowel preparation is often used before elective colorectal surgery to reduce postoperative complications. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Oral mechanical bowel preparation is often used before elective colorectal surgery to reduce postoperative complications.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to synthesize the evidence on the comparative effectiveness and safety of oral mechanical bowel preparation versus no preparation or enema.
DATA SOURCES
We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and CINAHL without any language restrictions (last search on September 6, 2013). We also searched the US Food and Drug Administration Web site and ClinicalTrials.gov and supplemented our searches by asking technical experts and perusing reference lists.
STUDY SELECTION
We included English-language, full-text reports of randomized clinical trials and nonrandomized comparative studies of patients undergoing elective colon or rectal surgery. For adverse events we also included single-group cohort studies of at least 200 participants.
INTERVENTIONS
Interventions included oral mechanical bowel preparation, oral mechanical bowel preparation plus enema, enema only, and no oral mechanical bowel preparation or enema.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Anastomotic leakage, all-cause mortality, wound infection, peritonitis/intra-abdominal abscess, reoperation, surgical site infection, quality of life, length of stay, and adverse events were measured. We synthesized results across studies qualitatively and with Bayesian random-effects meta-analyses.
RESULTS
A total of 18 randomized clinical trials, 7 nonrandomized comparative studies, and 6 single-group cohorts were included. In meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials, the credibility intervals of the summary OR included the null value of 1.0 for comparisons of oral mechanical bowel preparation and either no oral preparation or enema for overall mortality, anastomotic leakage, wound infection, peritonitis, surgical site infection, and reoperation. These results were robust to extensive sensitivity analyses. Evidence on adverse events was sparse.
LIMITATIONS
The study was limited by weaknesses in the underlying evidence, such as incomplete reporting of relevant information, exclusion of non-English and relevant unpublished studies, and possible missed indexing of nonrandomized studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results could not exclude modest beneficial or harmful effects of oral mechanical bowel preparation compared with no preparation or enema.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Cathartics; Colon; Enema; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Preoperative Care; Rectum
PubMed: 26200685
DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000375