-
Journal of Critical Care Apr 2019Guidelines recommend crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in sepsis/shock and switching to albumin in cases where crystalloids are insufficient. We evaluated hemodynamic... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Guidelines recommend crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in sepsis/shock and switching to albumin in cases where crystalloids are insufficient. We evaluated hemodynamic response to crystalloids/colloids in critically ill adults.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The primary research question was: "Are crystalloids sufficient for volume replacement in severe indications (intensive care unit [ICU]/critical illness)?" Randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) were identified using PubMed and EMBASE, and screened against predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were performed on extracted data.
RESULTS
Fifty-five RCTs (N = 27,036 patients) were eligible. Central venous pressure was significantly lower with crystalloids than with albumin, hydroxyethyl starch (HES), or gelatin (all p < .001). Mean arterial pressure was significantly lower with crystalloids vs. albumin (mean difference [MD]: -3.5 mm Hg; p = .03) or gelatin (MD: -9.2 mm Hg; p = .02). Significantly higher volumes of crystalloids were administered vs. HES (MD: +1775 mL); volume administered was numerically higher vs. albumin (MD: +1985 mL). Compared with the albumin group, cardiac index was significantly lower in the crystalloid group (MD: -0.6 L/min/m, p < .001). All mortality and 90-day mortality were significantly lower for crystalloids compared with HES (relative risk 0.91; p = .009 and 0.9; p = .005, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
Crystalloids were less efficient than colloids at stabilizing resuscitation endpoints; guidance on when to switch is urgently required.
Topics: Albumins; Central Venous Pressure; Colloids; Critical Care; Critical Illness; Crystalloid Solutions; Fluid Therapy; Gelatin; Hemodynamics; Humans; Hydroxyethyl Starch Derivatives; Intensive Care Units; Isotonic Solutions; Resuscitation; Shock, Septic
PubMed: 30540968
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.11.031 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017Theoretically, autologous serum eye drops (AS) offer a potential advantage over traditional therapies on the assumption that AS not only serve as a lacrimal substitute... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Theoretically, autologous serum eye drops (AS) offer a potential advantage over traditional therapies on the assumption that AS not only serve as a lacrimal substitute to provide lubrication but contain other biochemical components that allow them to mimic natural tears more closely. Application of AS has gained popularity as second-line therapy for patients with dry eye. Published studies on this subject indicate that autologous serum could be an effective treatment for dry eye.
OBJECTIVES
We conducted this review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AS given alone or in combination with artificial tears as compared with artificial tears alone, saline, placebo, or no treatment for adults with dry eye.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to July 2016), Embase (January 1980 to July 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to July 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We also searched the Science Citation Index Expanded database (December 2016) and reference lists of included studies. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 5 July 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared AS versus artificial tears for treatment of adults with dry eye.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts and assessed full-text reports of potentially eligible trials. Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias and characteristics of included trials. We contacted investigators to ask for missing data. For both primary and secondary outcomes, we reported mean differences with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous outcomes. We did not perform meta-analysis owing to differences in outcome assessments across trials.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified five eligible RCTs (92 participants) that compared AS versus artificial tears or saline in individuals with dry eye of various origins (Sjögren's syndrome-related dry eye, non-Sjögren's syndrome dry eye, and postoperative dry eye induced by laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK)). We assessed the certainty of evidence as low or very low because of lack of reporting of quantitative data for most outcomes and unclear or high risk of bias among trials. We judged most risk of bias domains to have unclear risk in two trials owing to insufficient reporting of trial characteristics, and we considered one trial to have high risk of bias for most domains. We judged the remaining two trials to have low risk of bias; however, these trials used a cross-over design and did not report data in a way that could be used to compare outcomes between treatment groups appropriately. Incomplete outcome reporting and heterogeneity among outcomes and follow-up periods prevented inclusion of these trials in a summary meta-analysis.Three trials compared AS with artificial tears; however, only one trial reported quantitative data for analysis. Low-certainty evidence from one trial suggested that AS might provide some improvement in participant-reported symptoms compared with artificial tears after two weeks of treatment; the mean difference in mean change in symptom score measured on a visual analogue scale (range 0 to 100, with higher scores representing worse symptoms) was -12.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) -20.16 to -3.84; 20 participants). This same trial found mixed results with respect to ocular surface outcomes; the mean difference in mean change in scores between AS and artificial tears was -0.9 (95% CI -1.47 to -0.33; 20 participants; low-certainty evidence) for fluorescein staining and -2.2 (95% CI -2.73 to -1.67; 20 participants; low-certainty evidence) for Rose Bengal staining. Both staining scales range from 0 to 9, with higher scores indicating worse results. The mean change in tear film break-up time was 2.00 seconds longer (95% CI 0.99 to 3.01; 20 participants; low-certainty evidence) in the AS group than in the artificial tears group. Investigators reported no clinically meaningful differences in Schirmer's test scores between groups (mean difference -0.40 mm, 95% CI -2.91 to 2.11; 20 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of these three trials reported tear hyperosmolarity and adverse events.Two trials compared AS versus saline; however, only one trial reported quantitative data for analysis of only one outcome (Rose Bengal staining). Trial investigators of the two studies reported no differences in symptom scores, fluorescein staining scores, tear film break-up times, or Schirmer's test scores between groups at two to four weeks' follow-up. Very low-certainty evidence from one trial suggested that AS might provide some improvement in Rose Bengal staining scores compared with saline after four weeks of treatment; the mean difference in Rose Bengal staining score (range from 0 to 9, with higher scores showing worse results) was -0.60 (95% CI -1.11 to -0.09; 35 participants). Neither trial reported tear hyperosmolarity outcomes. One trial reported adverse events; two of 12 participants had signs of conjunctivitis with negative culture that did resolve.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, investigators reported inconsistency in possible benefits of AS for improving participant-reported symptoms and other objective clinical measures. There might be some benefit in symptoms with AS compared with artificial tears in the short-term, but we found no evidence of an effect after two weeks of treatment. Well-planned, large, high-quality RCTs are warranted to examine participants with dry eye of different severities by using standardized questionnaires to measure participant-reported outcomes, as well as objective clinical tests and objective biomarkers to assess the benefit of AS therapy for dry eye.
Topics: Adult; Dry Eye Syndromes; Humans; Lubricant Eye Drops; Ophthalmic Solutions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serum; Sodium Chloride; Tears
PubMed: 28245347
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009327.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Critically ill people may lose fluid because of serious conditions, infections (e.g. sepsis), trauma, or burns, and need additional fluids urgently to prevent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Critically ill people may lose fluid because of serious conditions, infections (e.g. sepsis), trauma, or burns, and need additional fluids urgently to prevent dehydration or kidney failure. Colloid or crystalloid solutions may be used for this purpose. Crystalloids have small molecules, are cheap, easy to use, and provide immediate fluid resuscitation, but may increase oedema. Colloids have larger molecules, cost more, and may provide swifter volume expansion in the intravascular space, but may induce allergic reactions, blood clotting disorders, and kidney failure. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of using colloids versus crystalloids in critically ill people requiring fluid volume replacement on mortality, need for blood transfusion or renal replacement therapy (RRT), and adverse events (specifically: allergic reactions, itching, rashes).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two other databases on 23 February 2018. We also searched clinical trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of critically ill people who required fluid volume replacement in hospital or emergency out-of-hospital settings. Participants had trauma, burns, or medical conditions such as sepsis. We excluded neonates, elective surgery and caesarean section. We compared a colloid (suspended in any crystalloid solution) versus a crystalloid (isotonic or hypertonic).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Independently, two review authors assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and synthesised findings. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 69 studies (65 RCTs, 4 quasi-RCTs) with 30,020 participants. Twenty-eight studied starch solutions, 20 dextrans, seven gelatins, and 22 albumin or fresh frozen plasma (FFP); each type of colloid was compared to crystalloids.Participants had a range of conditions typical of critical illness. Ten studies were in out-of-hospital settings. We noted risk of selection bias in some studies, and, as most studies were not prospectively registered, risk of selective outcome reporting. Fourteen studies included participants in the crystalloid group who received or may have received colloids, which might have influenced results.We compared four types of colloid (i.e. starches; dextrans; gelatins; and albumin or FFP) versus crystalloids.Starches versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using starches or crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.09; 11,177 participants; 24 studies); within 90 days (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 10,415 participants; 15 studies); or within 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.09; 10,135 participants; 11 studies).We found moderate-certainty evidence that starches probably slightly increase the need for blood transfusion (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.39; 1917 participants; 8 studies), and RRT (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.48; 8527 participants; 9 studies). Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether either fluid affected adverse events: we found little or no difference in allergic reactions (RR 2.59, 95% CI 0.27 to 24.91; 7757 participants; 3 studies), fewer incidences of itching with crystalloids (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.82; 6946 participants; 2 studies), and fewer incidences of rashes with crystalloids (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.89; 7007 participants; 2 studies).Dextrans versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using dextrans or crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.11; 4736 participants; 19 studies); or within 90 days or 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; 3353 participants; 10 studies). We are uncertain whether dextrans or crystalloids reduce the need for blood transfusion, as we found little or no difference in blood transfusions (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10; 1272 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). We found little or no difference in allergic reactions (RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 144.93; 739 participants; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies measured RRT.Gelatins versus crystalloidsWe found low-certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference between gelatins or crystalloids in mortality: at end of follow-up (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.08; 1698 participants; 6 studies); within 90 days (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09; 1388 participants; 1 study); or within 30 days (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.16; 1388 participants; 1 study). Evidence for blood transfusion was very low certainty (3 studies), with a low event rate or data not reported by intervention. Data for RRT were not reported separately for gelatins (1 study). We found little or no difference between groups in allergic reactions (very low-certainty evidence).Albumin or FFP versus crystalloidsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using albumin or FFP or using crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 13,047 participants; 20 studies); within 90 days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.04; 12,492 participants; 10 studies); or within 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 12,506 participants; 10 studies). We are uncertain whether either fluid type reduces need for blood transfusion (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.80; 290 participants; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Using albumin or FFP versus crystalloids may make little or no difference to the need for RRT (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.27; 3028 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), or in allergic reactions (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.33; 2097 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Using starches, dextrans, albumin or FFP (moderate-certainty evidence), or gelatins (low-certainty evidence), versus crystalloids probably makes little or no difference to mortality. Starches probably slightly increase the need for blood transfusion and RRT (moderate-certainty evidence), and albumin or FFP may make little or no difference to the need for renal replacement therapy (low-certainty evidence). Evidence for blood transfusions for dextrans, and albumin or FFP, is uncertain. Similarly, evidence for adverse events is uncertain. Certainty of evidence may improve with inclusion of three ongoing studies and seven studies awaiting classification, in future updates.
Topics: Colloids; Critical Illness; Crystalloid Solutions; Fluid Therapy; Humans; Isotonic Solutions; Plasma Substitutes; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rehydration Solutions; Renal Replacement Therapy
PubMed: 30073665
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000567.pub7 -
PharmacoEconomics May 2023Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib versus current biologics, considering combinations of first-line (1L) and second-line (2L) therapies, from a Japanese payer's perspective in patients with moderate-to-severe active UC following an inadequate response to conventional therapy and in those who were naïve to biologics.
METHODS
A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted during the time horizon specified in the Markov model, which considers a patient's lifetime as 60 years and an annual discount rate of 2% on costs and effects. The model compared tofacitinib with vedolizumab, infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, and ustekinumab. The time of active treatment was divided into induction and maintenance phases. Patients not responding to their biologic treatment after induction or during the maintenance phase were switched to a subsequent line of therapy. Treatment response and remission probabilities (for induction and maintenance phases) were obtained through a systematic literature review and a network meta-analysis that employed a multinomial analysis with fixed effects. Patient characteristics were sourced from the OCTAVE Induction trials. Mean utilities associated with UC health states and adverse events (AEs) were obtained from published sources. Direct medical costs related to drug acquisition, administration, surgery, patient management, and AEs were derived from the JMDC database analysis, which corresponded with the medical procedure fees from 2021. The drug prices were adjusted to April 2021. Further validation through all processes by clinical experts in Japan was conducted to fit the costs to real-world practices. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were also performed to confirm the accuracy and robustness of the base-case results.
RESULTS
In the base-case, the treatment pattern including 1L tofacitinib was more cost-effective than vedolizumab, infliximab, golimumab, and ustekinumab for 1L therapies in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (based on the Japanese threshold of 5,000,000 yen/QALY [38,023 United States dollars {USD}/QALY]). The base-case results demonstrated that the incremental costs would be reduced for all biologics, and decreases in incremental QALYs were observed for all biologics other than adalimumab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was found to be dominant for adalimumab; for the other biologics, it was found to be less costly and less efficacious. The efficiency frontier on the cost-effectiveness plane indicated that tofacitinib-infliximab and infliximab-tofacitinib were more cost-effective than the other treatment patterns. When infliximab-tofacitinib was compared with tofacitinib-infliximab, the ICER was 282,609,856 yen/QALY (2,149,157 USD/QALY) and the net monetary benefit (NMB) was -12,741,342 yen (-96,894 USD) with a threshold of 5,000,000 yen (38,023 USD) in Japan. Therefore, infliximab-tofacitinib was not acceptable by this threshold, and tofacitinib-infliximab was the cost-effective treatment pattern.
CONCLUSION
The current analysis suggests that the treatment pattern including 1L tofacitinib is a cost-effective alternative to the biologics for patients with moderate-to-severe UC from a Japanese payer's perspective.
Topics: Humans; Colitis, Ulcerative; Infliximab; Adalimumab; Ustekinumab; Cost-Effectiveness Analysis; Japan; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Biological Products; Quality-Adjusted Life Years
PubMed: 36884164
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-023-01254-x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Airway oedema (swelling) and mucus plugging are the principal pathological features in infants with acute viral bronchiolitis. Nebulised hypertonic saline solution (≥... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Airway oedema (swelling) and mucus plugging are the principal pathological features in infants with acute viral bronchiolitis. Nebulised hypertonic saline solution (≥ 3%) may reduce these pathological changes and decrease airway obstruction. This is an update of a review first published in 2008, and updated in 2010, 2013, and 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of nebulised hypertonic (≥ 3%) saline solution in infants with acute bronchiolitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, and Web of Science on 13 January 2022. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 13 January 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs using nebulised hypertonic saline alone or in conjunction with bronchodilators as an active intervention and nebulised 0.9% saline or standard treatment as a comparator in children under 24 months with acute bronchiolitis. The primary outcome for inpatient trials was length of hospital stay, and the primary outcome for outpatients or emergency department (ED) trials was rate of hospitalisation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias in included studies. We conducted random-effects model meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We used mean difference (MD), risk ratio (RR), and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) as effect size metrics.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six new trials (N = 1010) in this update, bringing the total number of included trials to 34, involving 5205 infants with acute bronchiolitis, of whom 2727 infants received hypertonic saline. Eleven trials await classification due to insufficient data for eligibility assessment. All included trials were randomised, parallel-group, controlled trials, of which 30 were double-blinded. Twelve trials were conducted in Asia, five in North America, one in South America, seven in Europe, and nine in Mediterranean and Middle East regions. The concentration of hypertonic saline was defined as 3% in all but six trials, in which 5% to 7% saline was used. Nine trials had no funding, and five trials were funded by sources from government or academic agencies. The remaining 20 trials did not provide funding sources. Hospitalised infants treated with nebulised hypertonic saline may have a shorter mean length of hospital stay compared to those treated with nebulised normal (0.9%) saline or standard care (mean difference (MD) -0.40 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.69 to -0.11; 21 trials, 2479 infants; low-certainty evidence). Infants who received hypertonic saline may also have lower postinhalation clinical scores than infants who received normal saline in the first three days of treatment (day 1: MD -0.64, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.21; 10 trials (1 outpatient, 1 ED, 8 inpatient trials), 893 infants; day 2: MD -1.07, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.53; 10 trials (1 outpatient, 1 ED, 8 inpatient trials), 907 infants; day 3: MD -0.89, 95% CI -1.44 to -0.34; 10 trials (1 outpatient, 9 inpatient trials), 785 infants; low-certainty evidence). Nebulised hypertonic saline may reduce the risk of hospitalisation by 13% compared with nebulised normal saline amongst infants who were outpatients and those treated in the ED (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97; 8 trials, 1760 infants; low-certainty evidence). However, hypertonic saline may not reduce the risk of readmission to hospital up to 28 days after discharge (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25; 6 trials, 1084 infants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether infants who received hypertonic saline have a lower number of days to resolution of wheezing compared to those who received normal saline (MD -1.16 days, 95% CI -1.43 to -0.89; 2 trials, 205 infants; very low-certainty evidence), cough (MD -0.87 days, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.44; 3 trials, 363 infants; very low-certainty evidence), and pulmonary moist crackles (MD -1.30 days, 95% CI -2.28 to -0.32; 2 trials, 205 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Twenty-seven trials presented safety data: 14 trials (1624 infants; 767 treated with hypertonic saline, of which 735 (96%) co-administered with bronchodilators) did not report any adverse events, and 13 trials (2792 infants; 1479 treated with hypertonic saline, of which 416 (28%) co-administered with bronchodilators and 1063 (72%) hypertonic saline alone) reported at least one adverse event such as worsening cough, agitation, bronchospasm, bradycardia, desaturation, vomiting and diarrhoea, most of which were mild and resolved spontaneously (low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Nebulised hypertonic saline may modestly reduce length of stay amongst infants hospitalised with acute bronchiolitis and may slightly improve clinical severity score. Treatment with nebulised hypertonic saline may also reduce the risk of hospitalisation amongst outpatients and ED patients. Nebulised hypertonic saline seems to be a safe treatment in infants with bronchiolitis with only minor and spontaneously resolved adverse events, especially when administered in conjunction with a bronchodilator. The certainty of the evidence was low to very low for all outcomes, mainly due to inconsistency and risk of bias.
Topics: Child; Humans; Infant; Bronchiolitis; Bronchodilator Agents; Cough; Saline Solution; Saline Solution, Hypertonic
PubMed: 37014057
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006458.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021Leg ulcers are open skin wounds that occur below the knee but above the foot. The majority of leg ulcers are venous in origin, occurring as a result of venous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Leg ulcers are open skin wounds that occur below the knee but above the foot. The majority of leg ulcers are venous in origin, occurring as a result of venous insufficiency, where the flow of blood through the veins is impaired; they commonly arise due to blood clots and varicose veins. Compression therapy, using bandages or stockings, is the primary treatment for venous leg ulcers. Wound cleansing can be used to remove surface contaminants, bacteria, dead tissue and excess wound fluid from the wound bed and surrounding skin, however, there is uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of cleansing and the best method or solution to use.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of wound cleansing, wound cleansing solutions and wound cleansing techniques for treating venous leg ulcers.
SEARCH METHODS
In September 2019 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing wound cleansing with no wound cleansing, or RCTs comparing different wound cleansing solutions, or different wound cleansing techniques.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We screened studies for their appropriateness for inclusion, assessed their risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and used GRADE methodology to determine the certainty of evidence. Two review authors undertook these tasks independently, using predetermined criteria. We contacted study authors for missing data where possible.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four studies with a total of 254 participants. All studies included comparisons between different types of cleansing solutions, and three of these reported our primary outcomes of complete wound healing or change in ulcer size over time, or both. Two studies reported the secondary outcome, pain. One study (27 participants), which compared polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) solution with saline solution for cleansing venous leg ulcers, did not report any of the review's primary or secondary outcomes. We did not identify any studies that compared cleansing with no cleansing, or that explored comparisons between different cleansing techniques. One study (61 participants) compared aqueous oxygen peroxide with sterile water. We are uncertain whether aqueous oxygen peroxide makes any difference to the number of wounds completely healed after 12 months of follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 3.20). Similarly, we are uncertain whether aqueous oxygen peroxide makes any difference to change in ulcer size after eight weeks of follow-up (mean difference (MD) -1.38 cm, 95% CI -4.35 to 1.59 cm). Finally, we are uncertain whether aqueous oxygen peroxide makes any difference to pain reduction, assessed after eight weeks of follow-up using a 0 to 100 pain rating, (MD 3.80, 95% CI -10.83 to 18.43). The evidence for these outcomes is of very low certainty (we downgraded for study limitations and imprecision; for the pain outcome we also downgraded for indirectness). Another study (40 participants) compared propyl betaine and polihexanide with a saline solution. The authors did not present the raw data in the study report so we were unable to conduct independent statistical analysis of the data. We are uncertain whether propyl betaine and polihexanide make any difference to the number of wounds completely healed, change in ulcer size over time, or wound pain reduction. The evidence is of very low certainty (we downgraded for study limitations and imprecision). The final study (126 participants) compared octenidine dihydrochloride/phenoxyethanol (OHP) with Ringer's solution. We are uncertain whether OHP makes any difference to the number of wounds healed (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.72) or to the change in ulcer size over time (we were unable to conduct independent statistical analysis of available data). The evidence is of very low certainty (we downgraded for study limitations and imprecision). None of the studies reported patient preference, ease of use of the method of cleansing, cost or health-related quality of life. In one study comparing propyl betaine and polihexanide with saline solution the authors do not report any adverse events occurring. We are uncertain whether OHP makes any difference to the number of adverse events compared with Ringer's solution (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.14). The evidence is of very low certainty (we downgraded for study limitations and imprecision).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently a lack of RCT evidence to guide decision making about the effectiveness of wound cleansing compared with no cleansing and the optimal approaches to cleansing of venous leg ulcers. From the four studies identified, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate whether the use of PHMB solution compared with saline solution; aqueous oxygen peroxide compared with sterile water; propyl betaine and polihexanide compared with a saline solution; or OHP compared with Ringer's solution makes any difference in the treatment of venous leg ulcers. Evidence from three of the studies is of very low certainty, due to study limitations and imprecision. One study did not present data for the primary or secondary outcomes. Further well-designed studies that address important clinical, quality of life and economic outcomes may be important, based on the clinical and patient priority of this uncertainty.
Topics: Aged; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Betaine; Bias; Biguanides; Confidence Intervals; Detergents; Disinfectants; Ethylene Glycols; Female; Humans; Hydrogen Peroxide; Imines; Male; Middle Aged; Pain Measurement; Pyridines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ringer's Solution; Saline Solution; Varicose Ulcer; Wound Healing
PubMed: 33734426
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011675.pub2 -
JAMA Network Open Oct 2022Although topical antibiotics are often prescribed for treating acute infective conjunctivitis in children, their efficacy is uncertain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Although topical antibiotics are often prescribed for treating acute infective conjunctivitis in children, their efficacy is uncertain.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy of topical antibiotic therapy for acute infective conjunctivitis.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
A randomized clinical trial was conducted in primary health care in Oulu, Finland, from October 15, 2014, to February 7, 2020. Children aged 6 months to 7 years with acute infective conjunctivitis were eligible for enrollment. The participants were followed up for 14 days. A subsequent meta-analysis included the present trial and 3 previous randomized clinical trials enrolling pediatric patients aged 1 month to 18 years with acute infective conjunctivitis.
INTERVENTIONS
Participants in the present randomized clinical trial were randomized to moxifloxacin eye drops, placebo eye drops, or no intervention.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome in the present randomized clinical trial was time to clinical cure (in days); in the meta-analysis, the primary outcome was the proportion of participants with conjunctival symptoms on days 3 to 6.
RESULTS
The randomized clinical trial included 88 participants (46 [52%] girls), of whom 30 were randomized to moxifloxacin eye drops (mean [SD] age, 2.8 [1.6] years), 27 to placebo eye drops (mean [SD], age 3.0 [1.3] years), and 31 to no intervention (mean [SD] age, 3.2 [1.8] years). The time to clinical cure was significantly shorter in the moxifloxacin eye drop group than in the no intervention group (3.8 vs 5.7 days; difference, -1.9 days; 95% CI, -3.7 to -0.1 days; P = .04), while in the survival analysis both moxifloxacin and placebo eye drops significantly shortened the time to clinical cure relative to no intervention. In the meta-analysis, a total of 584 children were randomized (300 to topical antibiotics and 284 to a placebo), and the use of topical antibiotics was associated with a significant reduction in the proportion of children who had symptoms of conjunctivitis on days 3 to 6 compared with placebo eye drops (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.91).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this randomized clinical trial and systematic review and meta-analysis, topical antibiotics were associated with significantly shorter durations of conjunctival symptoms in children with acute infective conjunctivitis.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu Identifier: 2013-005623-16.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Conjunctivitis; Female; Humans; Male; Moxifloxacin; Ophthalmic Solutions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36194412
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.34459 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Corticosteroids are often preferred over enteral nutrition (EN) as induction therapy for Crohn's disease (CD). Prior meta-analyses suggest that corticosteroids are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Corticosteroids are often preferred over enteral nutrition (EN) as induction therapy for Crohn's disease (CD). Prior meta-analyses suggest that corticosteroids are superior to EN for induction of remission in CD. Treatment failures in EN trials are often due to poor compliance, with dropouts frequently due to poor acceptance of a nasogastric tube and unpalatable formulations. This systematic review is an update of a previously published Cochrane review.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of exclusive EN as primary therapy to induce remission in CD and to examine the importance of formula composition on effectiveness.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL from inception to 5 July 2017. We also searched references of retrieved articles and conference abstracts.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials involving patients with active CD were considered for inclusion. Studies comparing one type of EN to another type of EN or conventional corticosteroids were selected for review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were extracted independently by at least two authors. The primary outcome was clinical remission. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, serious adverse events and withdrawal due to adverse events. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). A random-effects model was used to pool data. We performed intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses for the primary outcome. Heterogeneity was explored using the Chi and I statistics. The studies were separated into two comparisons: one EN formulation compared to another EN formulation and EN compared to corticosteroids. Subgroup analyses were based on formula composition and age. Sensitivity analyses included abstract publications and poor quality studies. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess study quality. We used the GRADE criteria to assess the overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary outcome and selected secondary outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-seven studies (1,011 participants) were included. Three studies were rated as low risk of bias. Seven studies were rated as high risk of bias and 17 were rated as unclear risk of bias due to insufficient information. Seventeen trials compared different formulations of EN, 13 studies compared one or more elemental formulas to a non-elemental formula, three studies compared EN diets of similar protein composition but different fat composition, and one study compared non-elemental diets differing in glutamine enrichment. Meta-analysis of 11 trials (378 participants) demonstrated no difference in remission rates. Sixty-four per cent (134/210) of patients in the elemental group achieved remission compared to 62% (105/168) of patients in the non-elemental group (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.18; GRADE very low quality). A per-protocol analysis (346 participants) produced similar results (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.18). Subgroup analyses performed to evaluate the different types of elemental and non-elemental diets (elemental, semi-elemental and polymeric) showed no differences in remission rates. An analysis of 7 trials including 209 patients treated with EN formulas of differing fat content (low fat: < 20 g/1000 kCal versus high fat: > 20 g/1000 kCal) demonstrated no difference in remission rates (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.26). Very low fat content (< 3 g/1000 kCal) and very low long chain triglycerides demonstrated higher remission rates than higher content EN formulas. There was no difference between elemental and non-elemental diets in adverse event rates (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.60; GRADE very low quality), or withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.09; GRADE very low quality). Common adverse events included nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and bloating.Ten trials compared EN to steroid therapy. Meta-analysis of eight trials (223 participants) demonstrated no difference in remission rates between EN and steroids. Fifty per cent (111/223) of patients in the EN group achieved remission compared to 72% (133/186) of patients in the steroid group (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.03; GRADE very low quality). Subgroup analysis by age showed a difference in remission rates for adults but not for children. In adults 45% (87/194) of EN patients achieved remission compared to 73% (116/158) of steroid patients (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.82; GRADE very low quality). In children, 83% (24/29) of EN patients achieved remission compared to 61% (17/28) of steroid patients (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.97; GRADE very low quality). A per-protocol analysis produced similar results (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.14). The per-protocol subgroup analysis showed a difference in remission rates for both adults (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95) and children (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.97). There was no difference in adverse event rates (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.11; GRADE very low quality). However, patients on EN were more likely to withdraw due to adverse events than those on steroid therapy (RR 2.95, 95% CI 1.02 to 8.48; GRADE very low quality). Common adverse events reported in the EN group included heartburn, flatulence, diarrhea and vomiting, and for steroid therapy acne, moon facies, hyperglycemia, muscle weakness and hypoglycemia. The most common reason for withdrawal was inability to tolerate the EN diet.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Very low quality evidence suggests that corticosteroid therapy may be more effective than EN for induction of clinical remission in adults with active CD. Very low quality evidence also suggests that EN may be more effective than steroids for induction of remission in children with active CD. Protein composition does not appear to influence the effectiveness of EN for the treatment of active CD. EN should be considered in pediatric CD patients or in adult patients who can comply with nasogastric tube feeding or perceive the formulations to be palatable, or when steroid side effects are not tolerated or better avoided. Further research is required to confirm the superiority of corticosteroids over EN in adults. Further research is required to confirm the benefit of EN in children. More effort from industry should be taken to develop palatable polymeric formulations that can be delivered without use of a nasogastric tube as this may lead to increased patient adherence with this therapy.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Crohn Disease; Enteral Nutrition; Food, Formulated; Humans; Intention to Treat Analysis; Parenteral Nutrition Solutions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remission Induction
PubMed: 29607496
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000542.pub3 -
Pediatric Nephrology (Berlin, Germany) Jan 2024Iatrogenic hyponatremia is a common complication following intravenous maintenance fluid therapy (IV-MFT) in hospitalized children. Despite the American Academy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy and safety of isotonic versus hypotonic intravenous maintenance fluids in hospitalized children: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Iatrogenic hyponatremia is a common complication following intravenous maintenance fluid therapy (IV-MFT) in hospitalized children. Despite the American Academy of Pediatrics' 2018 recommendations, IV-MFT prescribing practices still vary considerably.
OBJECTIVES
This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of isotonic versus hypotonic IV-MFT in hospitalized children.
DATA SOURCES
We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central from inception to October 1, 2022.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing isotonic versus hypotonic IV-MFT in hospitalized children, either with medical or surgical conditions. Our primary outcome was hyponatremia following IV-MFT. Secondary outcomes included hypernatremia, serum sodium, serum potassium, serum osmolarity, blood pH, blood sugar, serum creatinine, serum chloride, urinary sodium, length of hospital stay, and adverse outcomes.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
Random-effects models were used to pool the extracted data. We performed our analysis based on the duration of fluid administration (i.e., ≤ 24 and > 24 h). The Grades of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) scale was used to evaluate the strength and level of evidence for recommendations.
RESULTS
A total of 33 RCTs, comprising 5049 patients were included. Isotonic IV-MFT significantly reduced the risk of mild hyponatremia at both ≤ 24 h (RR = 0.38, 95% CI [0.30, 0.48], P < 0.00001; high quality of evidence) and > 24 h (RR = 0.47, 95% CI [0.37, 0.62], P < 0.00001; high quality of evidence). This protective effect of isotonic fluid was maintained in most examined subgroups. Isotonic IV-MFT significantly increased the risk of hypernatremia in neonates (RR = 3.74, 95% CI [1.42, 9.85], P = 0.008). In addition, it significantly increased serum creatinine at ≤ 24 h (MD = 0.89, 95% CI [0.84, 0.94], P < 0.00001) and decreased blood pH (MD = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.08 to -0.02], P = 0.0006). Mean serum sodium, serum osmolarity, and serum chloride were lower in the hypotonic group at ≤ 24 h. The two fluids were comparable in terms of serum potassium, length of hospital stay, blood sugar, and the risk of adverse outcomes.
LIMITATIONS
The main limitation of our study was the heterogeneity of the included studies.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS
Isotonic IV-MFT was superior to the hypotonic one in reducing the risk of iatrogenic hyponatremia in hospitalized children. However, it increases the risk of hypernatremia in neonates and may lead to renal dysfunction. Given that the risk of hypernatremia is not important even in the neonates, we propose to use balanced isotonic IV-MFT in hospitalized children as it is better tolerated by the kidneys than 0.9% saline.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42022372359. Graphical abstract A higher resolution version of the Graphical abstract is available as Supplementary information.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Child; Humans; Hyponatremia; Child, Hospitalized; Hypernatremia; Blood Glucose; Chlorides; Creatinine; Infusions, Intravenous; Isotonic Solutions; Hypotonic Solutions; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Fluid Therapy; Saline Solution; Sodium; Iatrogenic Disease; Potassium
PubMed: 37365423
DOI: 10.1007/s00467-023-06032-7 -
Critical Care (London, England) Jun 2022Fluid challenges are widely adopted in critically ill patients to reverse haemodynamic instability. We reviewed the literature to appraise fluid challenge... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Fluid challenges are widely adopted in critically ill patients to reverse haemodynamic instability. We reviewed the literature to appraise fluid challenge characteristics in intensive care unit (ICU) patients receiving haemodynamic monitoring and considered two decades: 2000-2010 and 2011-2021.
METHODS
We assessed research studies and collected data regarding study setting, patient population, fluid challenge characteristics, and monitoring. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane search engines were used. A fluid challenge was defined as an infusion of a definite quantity of fluid (expressed as a volume in mL or ml/kg) in a fixed time (expressed in minutes), whose outcome was defined as a change in predefined haemodynamic variables above a predetermined threshold.
RESULTS
We included 124 studies, 32 (25.8%) published in 2000-2010 and 92 (74.2%) in 2011-2021, overall enrolling 6,086 patients, who presented sepsis/septic shock in 50.6% of cases. The fluid challenge usually consisted of 500 mL (76.6%) of crystalloids (56.6%) infused with a rate of 25 mL/min. Fluid responsiveness was usually defined by a cardiac output/index (CO/CI) increase ≥ 15% (70.9%). The infusion time was quicker (15 min vs 30 min), and crystalloids were more frequent in the 2011-2021 compared to the 2000-2010 period.
CONCLUSIONS
In the literature, fluid challenges are usually performed by infusing 500 mL of crystalloids bolus in less than 20 min. A positive fluid challenge response, reported in 52% of ICU patients, is generally defined by a CO/CI increase ≥ 15%. Compared to the 2000-2010 decade, in 2011-2021 the infusion time of the fluid challenge was shorter, and crystalloids were more frequently used.
Topics: Critical Illness; Crystalloid Solutions; Fluid Therapy; Hemodynamic Monitoring; Hemodynamics; Humans; Shock, Septic
PubMed: 35729632
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-022-04056-3