-
PloS One 2015International guidelines recommend dopamine or norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor agents in septic shock. Phenylephrine, epinephrine, vasopressin and terlipressin... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
International guidelines recommend dopamine or norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor agents in septic shock. Phenylephrine, epinephrine, vasopressin and terlipressin are considered second-line agents. Our objective was to assess the evidence for the efficiency and safety of all vasopressors in septic shock.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched electronic database of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, LILACS and conference proceedings up to June 2014. We included randomized controlled trials comparing different vasopressors for the treatment of adult patients with septic shock. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Other clinical and hemodynamic measurements were extracted as secondary outcomes. Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled.
RESULTS
Thirty-two trials (3,544 patients) were included. Compared to dopamine (866 patients, 450 events), norepinephrine (832 patients, 376 events) was associated with decreased all-cause mortality, RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.81-0.98), corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 11% and number needed to treat of 9. Norepinephrine was associated with lower risk for major adverse events and cardiac arrhythmias compared to dopamine. No other mortality benefit was demonstrated for the comparisons of norepinephrine to epinephrine, phenylephrine and vasopressin / terlipressin. Hemodynamic data were similar between the different vasopressors, with some advantage for norepinephrine in central venous pressure, urinary output and blood lactate levels.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests a survival benefit, better hemodynamic profile and reduced adverse events rate for norepinephrine over dopamine. Norepinephrine should be regarded as the first line vasopressor in the treatment of septic shock.
Topics: Epinephrine; Hemodynamics; Humans; Lypressin; Norepinephrine; Phenylephrine; Shock, Septic; Terlipressin; Treatment Outcome; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Vasopressins
PubMed: 26237037
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129305 -
Allergy May 2021This systematic review used the GRADE approach to compile evidence to inform the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) anaphylaxis guideline.
BACKGROUND
This systematic review used the GRADE approach to compile evidence to inform the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) anaphylaxis guideline.
METHODS
We searched five bibliographic databases from 1946 to 20 April 2020 for studies about the diagnosis, management and prevention of anaphylaxis. We included 50 studies with 18 449 participants: 29 randomized controlled trials, seven controlled clinical trials, seven consecutive case series and seven case-control studies. Findings were summarized narratively because studies were too heterogeneous to conduct meta-analysis.
RESULTS
It is unclear whether the NIAID/FAAN criteria or Brighton case definition are valid for immediately diagnosing anaphylaxis due to the very low certainty of evidence. There was also insufficient evidence about the impact of most anaphylaxis management and prevention strategies. Adrenaline is regularly used for first-line emergency management of anaphylaxis but little robust research has assessed its effectiveness. Newer models of adrenaline autoinjectors may slightly increase the proportion of people correctly using the devices and reduce time to administration. Face-to-face training for laypeople may slightly improve anaphylaxis knowledge and competence in using autoinjectors. We searched for but found little or no comparative effectiveness evidence about strategies such as fluid replacement, oxygen, glucocorticosteroids, methylxanthines, bronchodilators, management plans, food labels, drug labels and similar.
CONCLUSIONS
Anaphylaxis is a potentially life-threatening condition but, due to practical and ethical challenges, there is a paucity of robust evidence about how to diagnose and manage it.
Topics: Anaphylaxis; Bronchodilator Agents; Case-Control Studies; Epinephrine; Humans; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 32880997
DOI: 10.1111/all.14580 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2023Glucocorticoids are the mainstay for the treatment of croup. The existing evidence demonstrates that glucocorticoids are effective in the treatment of croup in children.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Glucocorticoids are the mainstay for the treatment of croup. The existing evidence demonstrates that glucocorticoids are effective in the treatment of croup in children. However, updating the evidence on their clinical relevance in croup is imperative. This is an update to a review first published in 1999, and updated in 2004, 2011, and 2018.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the effects and safety of glucocorticoids in the treatment of croup in children aged 18 years and below.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Library, which includes the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2022 Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 4 March 2022), Embase (Ovid) (1974 to 4 March 2022). We also searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov on 4 March 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children (aged 18 years and below) with croup. We assessed the effect of glucocorticoids compared to the following: placebo, any other pharmacologic agents, any other glucocorticoids, any combination of other glucocorticoids, given by different modes of administration, or given in different doses. The included studies must have assessed at least one of our primary outcomes (defined as the change in croup score or return visits, (re)admissions to the hospital or both) or secondary outcomes (defined as the length of stay in hospital or emergency departments, patient improvement, use of additional treatments, or adverse events).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Review authors independently extracted data, with another review author verified. We entered the data into Review Manager 5 for meta-analysis. Two review authors independently assessed studies for risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Two review authors assessed the certainty of the evidence for the primary outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
This updated review includes 45 RCTs with a total of 5888 children, an increase of two RCTs with 1323 children since the last update. We also identified one ongoing study and one study awaiting classification. We assessed most studies (98%) as at high or unclear risk of bias. Any glucocorticoid compared to placebo Compared to placebo, glucocorticoids may result in greater reductions in croup score after two hours (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.13 to -0.18; 7 RCTs, 426 children; low-certainty evidence); six hours (SMD -0.76, 95% CI -1.12 to -0.40; 11 RCTs, 959 children; low-certainty evidence); and 12 hours (SMD -1.03, 95% CI -1.53 to -0.53; 8 RCTs, 571 children; low-certainty evidence). The evidence for change in croup score after 24 hours is very uncertain (SMD -0.86, 95% CI -1.40 to -0.31; 8 RCTs, 351 children; very low-certainty evidence). One glucocorticoid compared to another glucocorticoid There was little to no difference between prednisolone and dexamethasone for reduction in croup score at two-hour post-baseline score (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.18; 1 RCT, 1231 children; high-certainty evidence). There was likely little to no difference between prednisolone and dexamethasone for reduction in croup score at six-hour post-baseline score (SMD 0.21, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.62; 1 RCT, 99 children; moderate-certainty evidence). However, dexamethasone probably reduced the return visits or (re)admissions for croup by almost half (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.11; 4 RCTs, 1537 children; moderate-certainty evidence), and showed a 28% reduction in the use of supplemental glucocorticoids as an additional treatment (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.97; 2 RCTs, 926 children). Dexamethasone given in different doses Compared to 0.15 mg/kg, 0.60 mg/kg dexamethasone probably reduced the severity of croup as assessed by the croup scoring scale at 24-hour postbaseline score (SMD 0.63, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.10; 1 RCT, 72 children; moderate-certainty evidence); however, this was not the case at two hours (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.76 to 0.22; 2 RCTs, 861 children; high-certainty evidence). There was probably no reduction at six hours (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -1.26 to 0.35; 3 RCTs, 178 children; moderate-certainty evidence), and the evidence at 12 hours is very uncertain (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -4.39 to 3.19; 2 RCTs, 113 children; very low-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference between doses of dexamethasone in return visits or (re)admissions of children or both (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.17; 3 RCTs, 949 children; high-certainty evidence) or length of stay in the hospital or emergency department (mean difference 0.12, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.56; 2 RCTs, 892 children). The need for additional treatments, such as epinephrine (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.75; 2 RCTs, 885 children); intubation (risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.00; 2 RCTs, 861 children); or use of supplemental glucocorticoids (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.15; 2 RCTs, 617 children), also did not differ between doses of dexamethasone. There were moderate to high levels of heterogeneity in the analyses for most comparisons. Adverse events were observed for some of the comparisons reported in the review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence that glucocorticoids reduce symptoms of croup at two hours, shorten hospital stays, and reduce the rate of return visits or (re)admissions has not changed in this update. A smaller dose of 0.15 mg/kg of dexamethasone may be as effective as the standard dose of 0.60 mg/kg. More RCTs are needed to strengthen the evidence for effectiveness of low-dose dexamethasone at 0.15 mg/kg to treat croup.
Topics: Child; Humans; Croup; Dexamethasone; Epinephrine; Glucocorticoids; Prednisolone; Respiratory Tract Infections; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Adolescent
PubMed: 36626194
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001955.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 8, 2011, on 'Drug therapy for treating post-dural puncture headache'.Post-dural puncture... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 8, 2011, on 'Drug therapy for treating post-dural puncture headache'.Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) is the most common complication of lumbar puncture, an invasive procedure frequently performed in the emergency room. Numerous pharmaceutical drugs have been proposed to treat PDPH but there are still some uncertainties about their clinical effectiveness.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of drugs for treating PDPH in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
The searches included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 6), MEDLINE and MEDLINE in Process (from 1950 to 29 July 2014), EMBASE (from 1980 to 29 July 2014) and CINAHL (from 1982 to July 2014). There were no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of any pharmacological drug used for treating PDPH. Outcome measures considered for this review were: PDPH persistence of any severity at follow-up (primary outcome), daily activity limited by headache, conservative supplementary therapeutic option offered, epidural blood patch performed, change in pain severity scores, improvements in pain severity scores, number of days participants stay in hospital, any possible adverse events and missing data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We estimated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. We calculated a 95% confidence interval (CI) for each RR and MD. We did not undertake meta-analysis because the included studies assessed different sorts of drugs or different outcomes. We performed an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 small RCTs (479 participants) in this review (at least 274 participants were women, with 118 parturients after a lumbar puncture for regional anaesthesia). In the original version of this Cochrane review, only seven small RCTs (200 participants) were included. Pharmacological drugs assessed were oral and intravenous caffeine, subcutaneous sumatriptan, oral gabapentin, oral pregabalin, oral theophylline, intravenous hydrocortisone, intravenous cosyntropin and intramuscular adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH).Two RCTs reported data for PDPH persistence of any severity at follow-up (primary outcome). Caffeine reduced the number of participants with PDPH at one to two hours when compared to placebo. Treatment with caffeine also decreased the need for a conservative supplementary therapeutic option.Treatment with gabapentin resulted in better visual analogue scale (VAS) scores after one, two, three and four days when compared with placebo and also when compared with ergotamine plus caffeine at two, three and four days. Treatment with hydrocortisone plus conventional treatment showed better VAS scores at six, 24 and 48 hours when compared with conventional treatment alone and also when compared with placebo. Treatment with theophylline showed better VAS scores compared with acetaminophen at two, six and 12 hours and also compared with conservative treatment at eight, 16 and 24 hours. Theophylline also showed a lower mean "sum of pain" when compared with placebo. Sumatriptan and ACTH did not show any relevant effect for this outcome.Theophylline resulted in a higher proportion of participants reporting an improvement in pain scores when compared with conservative treatment.There were no clinically significant drug adverse events.The rest of the outcomes were not reported by the included RCTs or did not show any relevant effect.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
None of the new included studies have provided additional information to change the conclusions of the last published version of the original Cochrane review. Caffeine has shown effectiveness for treating PDPH, decreasing the proportion of participants with PDPH persistence and those requiring supplementary interventions, when compared with placebo. Gabapentin, hydrocortisone and theophylline have been shown to decrease pain severity scores. Theophylline has also been shown to increase the proportion of participants that report an improvement in pain scores when compared with conventional treatment.There is a lack of conclusive evidence for the other drugs assessed (sumatriptan, adrenocorticotropic hormone, pregabalin and cosyntropin).These conclusions should be interpreted with caution, due to the lack of information to allow correct appraisal of risk of bias, the small sample sizes of the studies and also their limited generalisability, as nearly half of the participants were postpartum women in their 30s.
Topics: Adrenocorticotropic Hormone; Adult; Amines; Analgesics; Blood Patch, Epidural; Caffeine; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Female; Gabapentin; Humans; Hydrocortisone; Male; Middle Aged; Pain Measurement; Post-Dural Puncture Headache; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spinal Puncture; Sumatriptan; Theophylline; Treatment Outcome; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 26176166
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007887.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022Although combination formulas containing antihistamines, decongestants, and/or analgesics are sold over-the-counter in large quantities for the common cold, the evidence... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Although combination formulas containing antihistamines, decongestants, and/or analgesics are sold over-the-counter in large quantities for the common cold, the evidence for their effectiveness is limited. This is an update of a review first published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations compared with placebo or other active controls (excluding antibiotics) in reducing the duration of symptoms and alleviating symptoms (general feeling of illness, nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, sneezing, and cough) in children and adults with the common cold.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE via EBSCOhost, Embase, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, LILACS, and Web of Science to 10 June 2021. We searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov on 10 June 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations compared with placebo, other active treatment (excluding antibiotics), or no treatment in children and adults with the common cold.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We categorised the included trials according to the active ingredients.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 30 studies (6304 participants) including 31 treatment comparisons. The control intervention was placebo in 26 trials and an active substance (paracetamol, chlorphenindione + phenylpropanolamine + belladonna, diphenhydramine) in six trials (two trials had placebo as well as active treatment arms). Reporting of methods was generally poor, and there were large differences in study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes. Most of the included trials involved adult participants. Children were included in nine trials. Three trials included very young children (from six months to five years), and five trials included children aged 2 to 16. One trial included adults and children aged 12 years or older. The trials took place in different settings: university clinics, paediatric departments, family medicine departments, and general practice surgeries. Antihistamine-decongestant: 14 trials (1298 participants). Eight trials reported on global effectiveness, of which six studies were pooled (281 participants on active treatment and 284 participants on placebo). The odds ratio (OR) of treatment failure was 0.31 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.48; moderate certainty evidence); number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3.9 (95% CI 3.03 to 5.2). On the final evaluation day (follow-up: 3 to 10 days), 55% of participants in the placebo group had a favourable response compared to 70% on active treatment. Of the two trials not pooled, one showed some global effect, whilst the other showed no effect. Adverse effects: the antihistamine-decongestant group experienced more adverse effects than the control group: 128/419 (31%) versus 100/423 (13%) participants suffered one or more adverse effects (OR 1.58, 95%CI 0.78 to 3.21; moderate certainty of evidence). Antihistamine-analgesic: four trials (1608 participants). Two trials reported on global effectiveness; data from one trial were presented (290 participants on active treatment and 292 participants on ascorbic acid). The OR of treatment failure was 0.33 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.46; moderate certainty evidence); NNTB 6.67 (95% CI 4.76 to 12.5). Forty-three per cent of participants in the control group and 70% in the active treatment group were cured after six days of treatment. The second trial also showed an effect in favour of the active treatment. Adverse effects: there were not significantly more adverse effects in the active treatment group compared to placebo (drowsiness, hypersomnia, sleepiness 10/152 versus 4/120; OR 1.64 (95 % CI 0.48 to 5.59; low certainty evidence). Analgesic-decongestant: seven trials (2575 participants). One trial reported on global effectiveness: 73% of participants in the analgesic-decongestant group reported a benefit compared with 52% in the control group (paracetamol) (OR of treatment failure 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.52; moderate certainty evidence; NNTB 4.7). Adverse effects: the decongestant-analgesic group experienced significantly more adverse effects than the control group (199/1122 versus 75/675; OR 1.62 95% CI 1.18 to 2.23; high certainty evidence; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH 17). Antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant: six trials (1014 participants). Five trials reported on global effectiveness, of which two studies in adults could be pooled: global effect reported with active treatment (52%) and placebo (34%) was equivalent to a difference of less than one point on a four- or five-point scale; the OR of treatment failure was 0.47 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.67; low certainty evidence); NNTB 5.6 (95% CI 3.8 to 10.2). One trial in children aged 2 to 12 years, and two trials in adults found no beneficial effect. Adverse effects: in one trial 5/224 (2%) suffered adverse effects with the active treatment versus 9/208 (4%) with placebo. Two other trials reported no differences between treatment groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found a lack of data on the effectiveness of antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant combinations for the common cold. Based on these scarce data, the effect on individual symptoms is probably too small to be clinically relevant. The current evidence suggests that antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant combinations have some general benefit in adults and older children. These benefits must be weighed against the risk of adverse effects. There is no evidence of effectiveness in young children. In 2005, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning about adverse effects associated with the use of over-the-counter nasal preparations containing phenylpropanolamine.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Analgesics; Child; Child, Preschool; Common Cold; Cough; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Nasal Decongestants; United States
PubMed: 35060618
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004976.pub4 -
JAMA May 2018Vasopressin is an alternative to catecholamine vasopressors for patients with distributive shock-a condition due to excessive vasodilation, most frequently from severe... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Association of Vasopressin Plus Catecholamine Vasopressors vs Catecholamines Alone With Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Distributive Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
IMPORTANCE
Vasopressin is an alternative to catecholamine vasopressors for patients with distributive shock-a condition due to excessive vasodilation, most frequently from severe infection. Blood pressure support with a noncatecholamine vasopressor may reduce stimulation of adrenergic receptors and decrease myocardial oxygen demand. Atrial fibrillation is common with catecholamines and is associated with adverse events, including mortality and increased length of stay (LOS).
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether treatment with vasopressin + catecholamine vasopressors compared with catecholamine vasopressors alone was associated with reductions in the risk of adverse events.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to February 2018. Experts were asked and meta-registries searched to identify ongoing trials.
STUDY SELECTION
Pairs of reviewers identified randomized clinical trials comparing vasopressin in combination with catecholamine vasopressors to catecholamines alone for patients with distributive shock.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers abstracted data independently. A random-effects model was used to combine data.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was atrial fibrillation. Other outcomes included mortality, requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT), myocardial injury, ventricular arrhythmia, stroke, and LOS in the intensive care unit and hospital. Measures of association are reported as risk ratios (RRs) for clinical outcomes and mean differences for LOS.
RESULTS
Twenty-three randomized clinical trials were identified (3088 patients; mean age, 61.1 years [14.2]; women, 45.3%). High-quality evidence supported a lower risk of atrial fibrillation associated with vasopressin treatment (RR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.67 to 0.88]; risk difference [RD], -0.06 [95% CI, -0.13 to 0.01]). For mortality, the overall RR estimate was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.97; RD, -0.04 [95% CI, -0.07 to 0.00]); however, when limited to trials at low risk of bias, the RR estimate was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.11). The overall RR estimate for RRT was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.51 to 1.08; RD, -0.07 [95% CI, -0.12 to -0.01]). However, in an analysis limited to trials at low risk of bias, RR was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.53 to 0.92, P for interaction = .77). There were no significant differences in the pooled risks for other outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the addition of vasopressin to catecholamine vasopressors compared with catecholamines alone was associated with a lower risk of atrial fibrillation. Findings for secondary outcomes varied.
Topics: Atrial Fibrillation; Catecholamines; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Length of Stay; Male; Publication Bias; Shock; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Vasopressins
PubMed: 29801010
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2018.4528 -
Journal of Critical Care Jun 2015The aim of this study was to collect and describe all published reports of local tissue injury or extravasation from vasopressor administration via either peripheral... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to collect and describe all published reports of local tissue injury or extravasation from vasopressor administration via either peripheral intravenous (IV) or central venous catheter.
METHODS
A systematic search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed from inception through January 2014 for reports of adults who received vasopressor intravenously via peripheral IV or central venous catheter for a therapeutic purpose. We included primary studies or case reports of vasopressor administration that resulted in local tissue injury or extravasation of vasopressor solution.
RESULTS
Eighty-five articles with 270 patients met all inclusion criteria. A total of 325 separate local tissue injury and extravasation events were identified, with 318 events resulting from peripheral vasopressor administration and 7 events resulting from central administration. There were 204 local tissue injury events from peripheral administration of vasopressors, with an average duration of infusion of 55.9 hours (±68.1), median time of 24 hours, and range of 0.08 to 528 hours. In most of these events (174/204, 85.3%), the infusion site was located distal to the antecubital or popliteal fossae.
CONCLUSIONS
Published data on tissue injury or extravasation from vasopressor administration via peripheral IVs are derived mainly from case reports. Further study is warranted to clarify the safety of vasopressor administration via peripheral IVs.
Topics: Catheterization, Central Venous; Catheterization, Peripheral; Central Venous Catheters; Critical Illness; Extravasation of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Materials; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Necrosis; Soft Tissue Injuries; Vascular Access Devices; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 25669592
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2015.01.014 -
BMC Nephrology Jul 2020Due to the high incidence and mortality of sepsis-associated acute kidney injury, a significant number of studies have explored the causes of sepsis-associated acute... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Due to the high incidence and mortality of sepsis-associated acute kidney injury, a significant number of studies have explored the causes of sepsis-associated acute kidney injury (AKI). However, the opinions on relevant predictive risk factors remain inconclusive. This study aimed to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the predisposing factors for sepsis-associated AKI.
METHOD
A systematic literature search was performed in the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Web of Science, databases, with an end-date of 25th May 2019. Valid data were retrieved in compliance with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria.
RESULT
Forty-seven observational studies were included for analysis, achieving a cumulative patient number of 55,911. The highest incidence of AKI was caused by septic shock. Thirty-one potential risk factors were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis showed that 20 factors were statistically significant. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), as well as the prevalence of the most frequently-seen predisposing factors for sepsis-associated AKI, were as follows: septic shock [2.88 (2.36-3.52), 60.47%], hypertension [1.43 (1.20-1.70), 38.39%], diabetes mellitus [1.59 (1.47-1.71), 27.57%], abdominal infection [1.44 (1.32-1.58), 30.87%], the administration of vasopressors [2.95 (1.67-5.22), 64.61%], the administration of vasoactive drugs [3.85 (1.89-7.87), 63.22%], mechanical ventilation [1.64 (1.24-2.16), 68.00%], positive results from blood culture [1.60 (1.35-1.89), 41.19%], and a history of smoking [1.60 (1.09-2.36), 43.09%]. Other risk factors included cardiovascular diseases, coronary artery diseases, liver diseases, unknown infections, the administration of diuretics and ACEI/ARB, the infection caused by gram-negative bacteria, and organ transplantation.
CONCLUSION
Risk factors of S-AKI arise from a wide range of sources, making it difficult to predict and prevent this condition. Comorbidities, and certain drugs, are the main risk factors for S-AKI. Our review can provide guidance on the application of interventions to reduce the risks associated with sepsis-associated acute kidney injury and can also be used to tailor patient-specific treatment plans and management strategies in clinical practice.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Bacteremia; Blood Culture; Diabetes Mellitus; Humans; Hypertension; Intraabdominal Infections; Respiration, Artificial; Risk Factors; Sepsis; Shock, Septic; Smoking; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 32736541
DOI: 10.1186/s12882-020-01974-8 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Many treatments for the common cold exist and are sold over-the-counter. Nevertheless, evidence on the effectiveness and safety of nasal decongestants is limited. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Many treatments for the common cold exist and are sold over-the-counter. Nevertheless, evidence on the effectiveness and safety of nasal decongestants is limited.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy, and short- and long-term safety, of nasal decongestants used in monotherapy to alleviate symptoms of the common cold in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 6, June 2016), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to July 2016), Embase (2010 to 15 July 2016), CINAHL (1981 to 15 July 2016), LILACS (1982 to July 2016), Web of Science (1955 to July 2016) and clinical trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs investigating the effectiveness and adverse effects of nasal decongestants compared with placebo for treating the common cold in adults and children. We excluded quasi-RCTs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently extracted and summarised data on subjective measures of nasal congestion, overall patient well-being score, objective measures of nasal airway resistance, adverse effects and general recovery. One review author acted as arbiter in cases of disagreement. We categorised trials as single and multi-dose and analysed data both separately and together. We also analysed studies using an oral or topical nasal decongestant separately and together.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 trials with 1838 participants. Fourteen studies included adult participants only (aged 18 years and over). In six studies the intervention was a single dose and in nine studies multiple doses were used. Nine studies used pseudoephedrine and three studies used oxymetazoline. Other decongestants included phenylpropanolamine, norephedrine and xylometazoline. Phenylpropanolamine (or norephedrine) is no longer available on the market therefore we did not include the results of these studies in the meta-analyses. Eleven studies used oral decongestants; four studies used topical decongestants.Participants were included after contracting the common cold. The duration of symptoms differed among studies; in 10 studies participants had symptoms for less than three days, in three studies symptoms were present for less than five days, one study counted the number of colds over one year, and one study experimentally induced the common cold. In the single-dose studies, the effectiveness of a nasal decongestant was measured on the same day, whereas the follow-up in multi-dose studies ranged between one and 10 days.Most studies were conducted in university settings (N = eight), six at a specific university common cold centre. Three studies were conducted at a university in collaboration with a hospital and two in a hospital only setting. In two studies the setting was unclear.There were large differences in the reporting of outcomes and the reporting of methods in most studies was limited. Therefore, we judged most studies to be at low or unclear risk of bias. Pooling was possible for a limited number of studies only; measures of effect are expressed as standardised mean differences (SMDs). A positive SMD represents an improvement in congestion. There is no defined minimal clinically important difference for measures of subjective improvement in nasal congestion, therefore we used the SMDs as a guide to assess whether an effect was small (0.2 to 0.49), moderate (0.5 to 0.79) or large (≥ 0.8).Single-dose decongestant versus placebo: 10 studies compared a single dose of nasal decongestant with placebo and their effectiveness was tested between 15 minutes and 10 hours after dosing. Seven of 10 studies reported subjective symptom scores for nasal congestion; none reported overall patient well-being. However, pooling was not possible due to the large diversity in the measurement and reporting of symptoms of congestion. Two studies recorded adverse events. Both studies used an oral decongestant and each of them showed that there was no statistical difference between the number of adverse events in the treatment group versus the placebo group.Multi-dose decongestant versus placebo: nine studies compared multiple doses of nasal decongestants with placebo, but only five reported on the primary outcome, subjective symptom scores for nasal congestion. Only one study used a topical decongestant; none reported overall patient well-being. Subjective measures of congestion were significantly better for the treatment group compared with placebo approximately three hours after the last dose (SMD 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.92; P = 0.02; GRADE: low-quality evidence). However, the SMD of 0.49 only indicates a small clinical effect. Pooling was based on two studies, one oral and one topical, therefore we were unable to assess the effects of oral and topical decongestants separately. Seven studies reported adverse events (six oral and one topical decongestant); meta-analysis showed that there was no statistical difference between the number of adverse events in the treatment group (125 per 1000) compared to the placebo group (126 per 1000). The odds ratio (OR) for adverse events in the treatment group was 0.98 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.40; P = 0.90; GRADE: low-quality evidence). The results remained the same when we only considered studies using an oral decongestant (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.39; P = 0.80; GRADE: low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We were unable to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of single-dose nasal decongestants due to the limited evidence available. For multiple doses of nasal decongestants, the current evidence suggests that these may have a small positive effect on subjective measures of nasal congestion in adults with the common cold. However, the clinical relevance of this small effect is unknown and there is insufficient good-quality evidence to draw any firm conclusions. Due to the small number of studies that used a topical nasal decongestant, we were also unable to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of oral versus topical decongestants. Nasal decongestants do not seem to increase the risk of adverse events in adults in the short term. The effectiveness and safety of nasal decongestants in children and the clinical relevance of their small effect in adults is yet to be determined.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Adult; Child; Common Cold; Humans; Imidazoles; Nasal Decongestants; Oxymetazoline; Phenylpropanolamine; Pseudoephedrine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 27748955
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009612.pub2 -
Clinical Toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.) Nov 2014Calcium channel blocker poisoning is a common and sometimes life-threatening ingestion. (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Calcium channel blocker poisoning is a common and sometimes life-threatening ingestion.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the reported effects of treatments for calcium channel blocker poisoning. The primary outcomes of interest were mortality and hemodynamic parameters. The secondary outcomes included length of stay in hospital, length of stay in intensive care unit, duration of vasopressor use, functional outcomes, and serum calcium channel blocker concentrations.
METHODS
Medline/Ovid, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, TOXLINE, International pharmaceutical abstracts, Google Scholar, and the gray literature up to December 31, 2013 were searched without time restriction to identify all types of studies that examined effects of various treatments for calcium channel blocker poisoning for the outcomes of interest. The search strategy included the following Keywords: [calcium channel blockers OR calcium channel antagonist OR calcium channel blocking agent OR (amlodipine or bencyclane or bepridil or cinnarizine or felodipine or fendiline or flunarizine or gallopamil or isradipine or lidoflazine or mibefradil or nicardipine or nifedipine or nimodipine or nisoldipine or nitrendipine or prenylamine or verapamil or diltiazem)] AND [overdose OR medication errors OR poisoning OR intoxication OR toxicity OR adverse effect]. Two reviewers independently selected studies and a group of reviewers abstracted all relevant data using a pilot-tested form. A second group analyzed the risk of bias and overall quality using the STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) checklist and the Thomas tool for observational studies, the Institute of Health Economics tool for Quality of Case Series, the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines, and the modified NRCNA (National Research Council for the National Academies) list for animal studies. Qualitative synthesis was used to summarize the evidence. Of 15,577 citations identified in the initial search, 216 were selected for analysis, including 117 case reports. The kappa on the quality analysis tools was greater than 0.80 for all study types.
RESULTS
The only observational study in humans examined high-dose insulin and extracorporeal life support. The risk of bias across studies was high for all interventions and moderate to high for extracorporeal life support. High-dose insulin. High-dose insulin (bolus of 1 unit/kg followed by an infusion of 0.5-2.0 units/kg/h) was associated with improved hemodynamic parameters and lower mortality, at the risks of hypoglycemia and hypokalemia (low quality of evidence). Extracorporeal life support. Extracorporeal life support was associated with improved survival in patients with severe shock or cardiac arrest at the cost of limb ischemia, thrombosis, and bleeding (low quality of evidence). Calcium, dopamine, and norepinephrine. These agents improved hemodynamic parameters and survival without documented severe side effects (very low quality of evidence). 4-Aminopyridine. Use of 4-aminopyridine was associated with improved hemodynamic parameters and survival in animal studies, at the risk of seizures. Lipid emulsion therapy. Lipid emulsion was associated with improved hemodynamic parameters and survival in animal models of intravenous verapamil poisoning, but not in models of oral verapamil poisoning. Other studies. Studies on decontamination, atropine, glucagon, pacemakers, levosimendan, and plasma exchange reported variable results, and the methodologies used limit their interpretation. No trial was documented in humans poisoned with calcium channel blockers for Bay K8644, CGP 28932, digoxin, cyclodextrin, liposomes, bicarbonate, carnitine, fructose 1,6-diphosphate, PK 11195, or triiodothyronine. Case reports were only found for charcoal hemoperfusion, dialysis, intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella device and methylene blue.
CONCLUSIONS
The treatment for calcium channel blocker poisoning is supported by low-quality evidence drawn from a heterogeneous and heavily biased literature. High-dose insulin and extracorporeal life support were the interventions supported by the strongest evidence, although the evidence is of low quality.
Topics: Animals; Calcium Channel Blockers; Disease Models, Animal; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Overdose; Guidelines as Topic; Hospitalization; Humans; Insulin; Length of Stay; Observational Studies as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 25283255
DOI: 10.3109/15563650.2014.965827