-
JAMA Otolaryngology-- Head & Neck... Jan 2022Sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) is an acute, usually unilateral deficit. Systemic and intratympanic steroids are accepted treatments. Although evidence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL) is an acute, usually unilateral deficit. Systemic and intratympanic steroids are accepted treatments. Although evidence suggests that hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) may be beneficial, it is not widely offered.
OBJECTIVES
To review and evaluate recent evidence of the association of HBOT with hearing outcomes in SSNHL and to determine if HBOT should be a single or part of a combination treatment regimen.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, CAB, ICTRP, Google Scholar, Clinicaltrials.gov, and ISRCTN databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English from January 1, 2000, and April 30, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Prospective RCTs involving only adult participants (≥18 years) with SSNHL and comparing HBOT, as a single or combination therapy, with control therapies, such as steroids and/or placebo. Only RCTs that used the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery's diagnostic criteria for SSNHL were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data were extracted independently by 2 researchers. A fixed-effects model was used for analysis and performed from November 30, 2020, to May 20, 2021.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The mean difference in absolute hearing gain recorded by pure-tone audiometric (PTA) thresholds averaged across 4 low (0.5, 1, 2, and 3 or 4 kHz) or 3 high (3 or 4, 6, and 8 kHz) frequencies was the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were the odds ratio of hearing recovery defined as a hearing gain of ≥10 decibels (dB) in PTA average and treatment-related adverse effects.
RESULTS
Of the 826 records initially identified, 358 duplicates and 451 articles were excluded based on article type, title, and abstract. The full texts of 17 articles were reviewed, of which 14 were excluded because they were either not prospective RCTs (11 articles), the participants were less than 18 years old (2 articles), or the PTA was not reported at frequencies of interest (1 article). Three prospective RCTs with a total of 88 participants who received HBOT in the intervention groups and 62 participants who received only medical therapy in the control groups were studied. The intergroup difference in mean absolute hearing gain (mean difference, 10.3 dB; 95% CI, 6.5-14.1 dB; I2 = 0%) and the odds ratio of hearing recovery (4.3; 95% CI, 1.6-11.7; I2 = 0%) favored HBOT over the control therapy.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, HBOT as part of a combination treatment was significantly associated with improved hearing outcomes in patients with SSNHL over control treatments.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42020193191.
Topics: Audiometry, Pure-Tone; Combined Modality Therapy; Hearing Loss, Sensorineural; Hearing Loss, Sudden; Humans; Hyperbaric Oxygenation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34709348
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoto.2021.2685 -
Lancet (London, England) Apr 2018Supplemental oxygen is often administered liberally to acutely ill adults, but the credibility of the evidence for this practice is unclear. We systematically reviewed... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Supplemental oxygen is often administered liberally to acutely ill adults, but the credibility of the evidence for this practice is unclear. We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of liberal versus conservative oxygen therapy in acutely ill adults.
METHODS
In the Improving Oxygen Therapy in Acute-illness (IOTA) systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, HealthSTAR, LILACS, PapersFirst, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry from inception to Oct 25, 2017, for randomised controlled trials comparing liberal and conservative oxygen therapy in acutely ill adults (aged ≥18 years). Studies limited to patients with chronic respiratory diseases or psychiatric disease, patients on extracorporeal life support, or patients treated with hyperbaric oxygen therapy or elective surgery were excluded. We screened studies and extracted summary estimates independently and in duplicate. We also extracted individual patient-level data from survival curves. The main outcomes were mortality (in-hospital, at 30 days, and at longest follow-up) and morbidity (disability at longest follow-up, risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia, any hospital-acquired infection, and length of hospital stay) assessed by random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed quality of evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017065697.
FINDINGS
25 randomised controlled trials enrolled 16 037 patients with sepsis, critical illness, stroke, trauma, myocardial infarction, or cardiac arrest, and patients who had emergency surgery. Compared with a conservative oxygen strategy, a liberal oxygen strategy (median baseline saturation of peripheral oxygen [SpO] across trials, 96% [range 94-99%, IQR 96-98]) increased mortality in-hospital (relative risk [RR] 1·21, 95% CI 1·03-1·43, I=0%, high quality), at 30 days (RR 1·14, 95% CI 1·01-1·29, I=0%, high quality), and at longest follow-up (RR 1·10, 95% CI 1·00-1·20, I=0%, high quality). Morbidity outcomes were similar between groups. Findings were robust to trial sequential, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses.
INTERPRETATION
In acutely ill adults, high-quality evidence shows that liberal oxygen therapy increases mortality without improving other patient-important outcomes. Supplemental oxygen might become unfavourable above an SpO range of 94-96%. These results support the conservative administration of oxygen therapy.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Conservative Treatment; Critical Illness; Cross Infection; Female; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Iatrogenic Disease; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Morbidity; Myocardial Infarction; Oxygen; Oxygen Inhalation Therapy; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sepsis
PubMed: 29726345
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30479-3 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Sep 2022The benefits of remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remain debated with the National Institutes of Health and the World Health... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The benefits of remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remain debated with the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization providing contradictory recommendations for and against use.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the role of remdesivir for hospitalized inpatients as a function of oxygen requirements.
DATA SOURCES
Beginning with our prior systematic review, we searched MEDLINE using PubMed from 15 January 2021 through 5 May 2022.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials; all languages.
PARTICIPANTS
All hospitalized adults with COVID-19.
INTERVENTIONS
Remdesivir, in comparison to either placebo, or standard of care.
ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS
We used the ROB-2 criteria.
METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS
The primary outcome was mortality, stratified by oxygen use (none, supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation, and mechanical ventilation). We conducted a frequentist random effects meta-analysis on the risk ratio scale and, to contextualize the probabilistic benefits, we also performed a Bayesian random effects meta-analysis on the risk difference scale. A ≥1% absolute risk reduction was considered clinically important.
RESULTS
We identified eight randomized trials, totaling 10 751 participants. The risk ratio for mortality comparing remdesivir vs. control was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.5-1.19) in the patients who did not require supplemental oxygen; 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79-0.99) for nonventilated patients requiring oxygen; and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.88-1.31) in the setting of mechanical ventilation. Using neutral priors, the probabilities that remdesivir reduces mortality were 76.8%, 93.8%, and 14.7%, respectively. The probability that remdesivir reduced mortality by ≥ 1% was 77.4% for nonventilated patients requiring oxygen.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on this meta-analysis, there is a high probability that remdesivir reduces mortality for nonventilated patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen therapy. Treatment guidelines should be re-evaluated.
Topics: Adenosine Monophosphate; Adult; Alanine; Bayes Theorem; Humans; Oxygen; SARS-CoV-2; United States; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35598856
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.04.018 -
Asian Journal of Surgery Jan 2022The present systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The present systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). Relevant articles were retrieved from PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE and other databases through November 2020. A total of 20 randomized clinical trials and 1263 trials were included in the meta-analysis. For each trial, the average difference, odds ratio and 95% confidence interval were calculated to evaluate the efficacy. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy increased the healing rate of diabetic foot ulcers (relative risk, 1.901; 95% CI = 1.484-2.435, p < 0.0001), shortened the healing time (MD = -19.360; 95% CI = -28.753~-9.966, p < 0.001), and reduced the incidence of major amputation (relative risk, 0.518, 95% CI = 0.323-0.830, P < 0.01). In summary, our meta-analysis confirmed that hyperbaric oxygen therapy offers great benefits in the treatment of DFU and the reduction of amputation. In addition, larger and well-designed randomized controlled trials need to be planned and conducted to verify this conclusion.
Topics: Amputation, Surgical; Diabetes Mellitus; Diabetic Foot; Humans; Hyperbaric Oxygenation; Risk; Wound Healing
PubMed: 34376365
DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2021.07.047 -
Intensive Care Medicine May 2019This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes the safety and efficacy of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes the safety and efficacy of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.
METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science. We identified randomized controlled trials that compared HFNC to conventional oxygen therapy. We pooled data and report summary estimates of effect using relative risk for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference or standardized mean difference for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane tool and certainty in pooled effect estimates using GRADE methods.
RESULTS
We included 9 RCTs (n = 2093 patients). We found no difference in mortality in patients treated with HFNC (relative risk [RR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-1.31, moderate certainty) compared to conventional oxygen therapy. We found a decreased risk of requiring intubation (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.99) or escalation of oxygen therapy (defined as crossover to HFNC in the control group, or initiation of non-invasive ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation in either group) favouring HFNC-treated patients (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51-0.98), although certainty in both outcomes was low due to imprecision and issues related to risk of bias. HFNC had no effect on intensive care unit length of stay (mean difference [MD] 1.38 days more, 95% CI 0.90 days fewer to 3.66 days more, low certainty), hospital length of stay (MD 0.85 days fewer, 95% CI 2.07 days fewer to 0.37 days more, moderate certainty), patient reported comfort (SMD 0.12 lower, 95% CI 0.61 lower to 0.37 higher, very low certainty) or patient reported dyspnea (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.16 lower, 95% CI 1.10 lower to 1.42 higher, low certainty). Complications of treatment were variably reported amongst included studies, but little harm was associated with HFNC use.
CONCLUSION
In patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, HFNC may decrease the need for tracheal intubation without impacting mortality.
Topics: Cannula; Humans; Hypoxia; Oxygen; Oxygen Inhalation Therapy; Respiratory Insufficiency; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30888444
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-019-05590-5 -
Journal of Advanced Nursing Nov 2017To determine the effects of low-flow oxygen therapy with humidified or non-humidified oxygen in adult patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
To determine the effects of low-flow oxygen therapy with humidified or non-humidified oxygen in adult patients.
BACKGROUND
Although non-humidified oxygen in low-flow oxygen therapy is recommended by many guidelines, humidifying oxygen regardless of oxygen flow has been routinely performed in China and Japan and further studies are needed to evaluate the evidence.
DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis that comply with the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration were conducted.
DATA SOURCES
Studies (1980-2016) were identified by searching PUBMED, EMBASE, Science Direct, Cochrane library, CNKI and Wanfang Database.
METHODS
We performed a comprehensive, systematic meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of humidified and non-humidified low-flow oxygen therapy. Summary risk ratios or weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a fixed- or random-effects model.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials with a total number of 8,876 patients were included. Non-humidified oxygen offers more benefits in reducing the bacterial contamination of humidifier bottles, as shown by the mean operating time for oxygen administration and the respiratory infections compared with humidified oxygen therapy. No significant differences were found in dry nose, dry nose and throat, nosebleed, chest discomfort, the smell of oxygen and SpO changes.
CONCLUSIONS
The routine humidification of oxygen in low-flow oxygen therapy is not justifiable and non-humidified oxygen tends to be more beneficial. However, considering that the quality of most included studies is poor, rigorously designed, large-scale randomized controlled trials are still needed to identify the role of non-humidified oxygen therapy.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Humidity; Oxygen Inhalation Therapy
PubMed: 28440960
DOI: 10.1111/jan.13323 -
Intensive Care Medicine Feb 2022Systematic review and network meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of noninvasive respiratory strategies, including noninvasive positive pressure ventilation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Systematic review and network meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of noninvasive respiratory strategies, including noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), in reducing extubation failure among critically ill adults.
METHODS
We searched databases from inception through October 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating noninvasive respiratory support therapies (NIPPV, HFNC, conventional oxygen therapy, or a combination of these) following extubation in critically ill adults. Two reviewers performed screening, full text review, and extraction independently. The primary outcome of interest was reintubation. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of our findings.
RESULTS
We included 36 RCTs (6806 patients). Compared to conventional oxygen therapy, NIPPV (OR 0.65 [95% CI 0.52-0.82]) and HFNC (OR 0.63 [95% CI 0.45-0.87]) reduced reintubation (both moderate certainty). Sensitivity analyses showed that the magnitude of the effect was highest in patients with increased baseline risk of reintubation. As compared to HFNC, no difference in incidence of reintubation was seen with NIPPV (OR 1.04 [95% CI 0.78-1.38], low certainty). Compared to conventional oxygen therapy, neither NIPPV (OR 0.8 [95% CI 0.61-1.04], moderate certainty) or HFNC (OR 0.9 [95% CI 0.66-1.24], low certainty) reduced short-term mortality. Consistent findings were demonstrated across multiple subgroups, including high- and low-risk patients. These results were replicated when evaluating noninvasive strategies for prevention (prophylaxis), but not in rescue (application only after evidence of deterioration) situations.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that both NIPPV and HFNC reduced reintubation in critically ill adults, compared to conventional oxygen therapy. NIPPV did not reduce incidence of reintubation when compared to HFNC. These findings support the preventative application of noninvasive respiratory support strategies to mitigate extubation failure in critically ill adults, but not in rescue conditions.
Topics: Adult; Airway Extubation; Cannula; Critical Illness; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Noninvasive Ventilation; Oxygen Inhalation Therapy; Respiratory Insufficiency
PubMed: 34825256
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-021-06581-1 -
Frontiers in Psychiatry 2022Fatigue is recognized as one of the most commonly presented long-term complaints in individuals previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. This systematic review was performed...
UNLABELLED
Fatigue is recognized as one of the most commonly presented long-term complaints in individuals previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. This systematic review was performed to describe symptoms, etiology, possible risk factors related to post-COVID-19 fatigue and the therapeutic approaches used for the treatment of post-COVID-19 fatigue. For the systematic literature search the databases PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PsycInfo were used. All articles that met the inclusion criteria were analyzed for demographics, clinical data and treatment. Included were studies which focused on an adult population (18-65 years old); elderly patients and patients with chronic somatic diseases which can also cause fatigue were excluded. We identified 2,851, screened 2,193 and finally included 20 studies with moderate to high methodological quality, encompassing 5,629 participants. Potential risk factors for post-COVID-19 fatigue were old age, female sex, severe clinical status in the acute phase of infection, a high number of comorbidities, and a prediagnosis of depression/anxiety. Lastly, a possible autoimmune etiology was suspected. Several treatment approaches have been tested mostly in small and uncontrolled studies so far: a Chinese herbal formulation improved breathlessness and fatigue. Moreover, molecular hydrogen (H) inhalation had beneficial health effects in terms of improved physical (6-min walking test) and respiratory function in patients with post-COVID-19. Patients also noticed improvement in fatigue after undergoing hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) and enhanced external counterpulsation (EECP). Lastly. muscle strength and physical function were improved after undergoing an 8-weeks biweekly physical therapy course including aerobic training, strengthening exercises, diaphragmatic breathing techniques, and mindfulness training. However, larger and controlled studies e.g., investigating the effect of physical and / or psychotherapy for patients with post-COVID-19 fatigue are urgently warranted.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
Unique Identifier: CRD42022320676, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/.
PubMed: 36032234
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.947973 -
Indian Journal of Dermatology,... 2019Hidradenitis suppurativa is a chronic inflammatory condition that affects skin regions bearing apocrine glands. Although hidradenitis suppurativa is difficult to treat... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Hidradenitis suppurativa is a chronic inflammatory condition that affects skin regions bearing apocrine glands. Although hidradenitis suppurativa is difficult to treat and cure, the currently available treatments are directed toward managing the lesions and associated symptoms. This review presents an evidence-based outline of the available treatment options. We searched four electronic databases and extracted data from retrieved studies for qualitative or quantitative analysis. Meta-analysis was conducted using the comprehensive meta-analysis software to generate pooled standardized mean differences or risk ratios. Numerous medical treatments are available for hidradenitis suppurativa such as antibiotics, retinoids, antiandrogens, immunosuppressive and anti-inflammatory agents and radiotherapy for early lesions. Adalimumab, an anti-tumor necrosis factor antibody, was superior to placebo in reducing Sartorius score (standardized mean difference = -0.32, confidence interval [-0.46, -0.18], P < 0.0001) and pain (risk ratio = 1.42, confidence interval [1.07, 1.9], P = 0.02), when given weekly (not every other week). Combination therapies (such as antibiotics and hyperbaric oxygen therapy) have been tested, which have shown promising results that are yet to be confirmed. Based on the quality of evidence, the most recommended treatments for hidradenitis suppurativa include adalimumab and laser therapy. Surgery (either by simple excision or complete local excision followed by skin graft) is the first choice for intractable disease presenting in the late stages. However, the evidence on most of these treatments is deficient and further randomized trials are needed to establish the most efficient therapies for hidradenitis suppurativa management.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Combined Modality Therapy; Hidradenitis Suppurativa; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Laser Therapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retinoids
PubMed: 30924446
DOI: 10.4103/ijdvl.IJDVL_69_18 -
International Journal of Chronic... 2022To evaluate the clinical efficacy of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy versus Non-Invasive Ventilation for AECOPD Patients After Extubation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the clinical efficacy of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) after extubation.
RESEARCH METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statements. The primary outcome measures analyzed included: reintubation rate, mortality, complication rate, and ICU length of stay.
RESULTS
Eight studies were included, with a total of 612 subjects, including 297 in the HFNC group and 315 in the NIV group. The effect of HFNC and NIV on the reintubation rate of AECOPD patients after extubation, RR (1.49 [95% CI,0.95 to 2.33], P = 0.082). Subgroup analysis with or without hypercapnia according to the included AECOPD population, with hypercapnia, RR (0.69 [95% CI,0.33 to 1.44], P=0.317), without hypercapnia, RR (2.61 [95% CI,1.41 to 4.83], P=0.002). Mortality, RR (0.92 [95% CI,0.56 to 1.52], P = 0.752). ICU length of stay, MD (-0.44 [95% CI,-1.01 to 0.13], P = 0.132). Complication rate, RR (0.22 [95% CI,0.13 to 0.39], P = 0.000). After subgroup analysis, the reintubation rate of HFNC and NIV has no statistical difference in patients with hypercapnia, but NIV can significantly reduce the reintubation rate in patients without hypercapnia. In the outcome measures of complication rate, HFNC significantly reduced complication rate compared with NIV. In mortality and ICU length of stay, analysis results showed that HFNC and NIV were not statistically different.
CONCLUSION
According to the available evidence, the application of HFNC can be used as an alternative treatment for NIV after extubation in AECOPD patients with hypercapnia, but in the patients without hypercapnia, HFNC is less effective than NIV.
Topics: Airway Extubation; Cannula; Humans; Hypercapnia; Noninvasive Ventilation; Oxygen; Oxygen Inhalation Therapy; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Insufficiency
PubMed: 36065316
DOI: 10.2147/COPD.S375107