-
PloS One 2015Diagnosing obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is clinically relevant because untreated OSA has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The STOP-Bang... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Diagnosing obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is clinically relevant because untreated OSA has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The STOP-Bang questionnaire is a validated screening tool for OSA. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of STOP-Bang for screening patients suspected of having OSA and to predict its accuracy in determining the severity of OSA in the different populations.
METHODS
A search of the literature databases was performed. Inclusion criteria were: 1) Studies that used STOP-Bang questionnaire as a screening tool for OSA in adult subjects (>18 years); 2) The accuracy of the STOP-Bang questionnaire was validated by polysomnography--the gold standard for diagnosing OSA; 3) OSA was clearly defined as apnea/hypopnea index (AHI) or respiratory disturbance index (RDI) ≥ 5; 4) Publications in the English language. The quality of the studies were explicitly described and coded according to the Cochrane Methods group on the screening and diagnostic tests.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies including 9,206 patients met criteria for the systematic review. In the sleep clinic population, the sensitivity was 90%, 94% and 96% to detect any OSA (AHI ≥ 5), moderate-to-severe OSA (AHI ≥15), and severe OSA (AHI ≥30) respectively. The corresponding NPV was 46%, 75% and 90%. A similar trend was found in the surgical population. In the sleep clinic population, the probability of severe OSA with a STOP-Bang score of 3 was 25%. With a stepwise increase of the STOP-Bang score to 4, 5, 6 and 7/8, the probability rose proportionally to 35%, 45%, 55% and 75%, respectively. In the surgical population, the probability of severe OSA with a STOP-Bang score of 3 was 15%. With a stepwise increase of the STOP-Bang score to 4, 5, 6 and 7/8, the probability increased to 25%, 35%, 45% and 65%, respectively.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis confirms the high performance of the STOP-Bang questionnaire in the sleep clinic and surgical population for screening of OSA. The higher the STOP-Bang score, the greater is the probability of moderate-to-severe OSA.
Topics: Humans; Mass Screening; Polysomnography; Reproducibility of Results; Severity of Illness Index; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 26658438
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143697 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2017Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a chronic progressive or relapsing and remitting disease that usually causes weakness and sensory... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a chronic progressive or relapsing and remitting disease that usually causes weakness and sensory loss. The symptoms are due to autoimmune inflammation of peripheral nerves. CIPD affects about 2 to 3 per 100,000 of the population. More than half of affected people cannot walk unaided when symptoms are at their worst. CIDP usually responds to treatments that reduce inflammation, but there is disagreement about which treatment is most effective.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of any treatment for CIDP and to compare the effects of treatments.
METHODS
We considered all systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any treatment for any form of CIDP. We reported their primary outcomes, giving priority to change in disability after 12 months.Two overview authors independently identified published systematic reviews for inclusion and collected data. We reported the quality of evidence using GRADE criteria. Two other review authors independently checked review selection, data extraction and quality assessments.On 31 October 2016, we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (in theCochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Plus for systematic reviews of CIDP. We supplemented the RCTs in the existing CSRs by searching on the same date for RCTs of any treatment of CIDP (including treatment of fatigue or pain in CIDP), in the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Plus.
MAIN RESULTS
Five CSRs met our inclusion criteria. We identified 23 randomised trials, of which 15 had been included in these CSRs. We were unable to compare treatments as originally planned, because outcomes and outcome intervals differed. CorticosteroidsIt is uncertain whether daily oral prednisone improved impairment compared to no treatment because the quality of the evidence was very low (1 trial, 28 participants). According to moderate-quality evidence (1 trial, 41 participants), six months' treatment with high-dose monthly oral dexamethasone did not improve disability more than daily oral prednisolone. Observational studies tell us that prolonged use of corticosteroids sometimes causes serious side-effects. Plasma exchangeAccording to moderate-quality evidence (2 trials, 59 participants), twice-weekly plasma exchange produced more short-term improvement in disability than sham exchange. In the largest observational study, 3.9% of plasma exchange procedures had complications. Intravenous immunoglobulinAccording to high-quality evidence (5 trials, 269 participants), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) produced more short-term improvement than placebo. Adverse events were more common with IVIg than placebo (high-quality evidence), but serious adverse events were not (moderate-quality evidence, 3 trials, 315 participants). One trial with 19 participants provided moderate-quality evidence of little or no difference in short-term improvement of impairment with plasma exchange in comparison to IVIg. There was little or no difference in short-term improvement of disability with IVIg in comparison to oral prednisolone (moderate-quality evidence; 1 trial, 29 participants) or intravenous methylprednisolone (high-quality evidence; 1 trial, 45 participants). One unpublished randomised open trial with 35 participants found little or no difference in disability after three months of IVIg compared to oral prednisone; this trial has not yet been included in a CSR. We know from observational studies that serious adverse events related to IVIg do occur. Other immunomodulatory treatmentsIt is uncertain whether the addition of azathioprine (2 mg/kg) to prednisone improved impairment in comparison to prednisone alone, as the quality of the evidence is very low (1 trial, 27 participants). Observational studies show that adverse effects truncate treatment in 10% of people.According to low-quality evidence (1 trial, 60 participants), compared to placebo, methotrexate 15 mg/kg did not allow more participants to reduce corticosteroid or IVIg doses by 20%. Serious adverse events were no more common with methotrexate than with placebo, but observational studies show that methotrexate can cause teratogenicity, abnormal liver function, and pulmonary fibrosis.According to moderate-quality evidence (2 trials, 77 participants), interferon beta-1a (IFN beta-1a) in comparison to placebo, did not allow more people to withdraw from IVIg. According to moderate-quality evidence, serious adverse events were no more common with IFN beta-1a than with placebo.We know of no other completed trials of immunosuppressant or immunomodulatory agents for CIDP. Other treatmentsWe identified no trials of treatments for fatigue or pain in CIDP. Adverse effectsNot all trials routinely collected adverse event data; when they did, the quality of evidence was variable. Adverse effects in the short, medium, and long term occur with all interventions. We are not able to make reliable comparisons of adverse events between the interventions included in CSRs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We cannot be certain based on available evidence whether daily oral prednisone improves impairment compared to no treatment. However, corticosteroids are commonly used, based on widespread availability, low cost, very low-quality evidence from observational studies, and clinical experience. The weakness of the evidence does not necessarily mean that corticosteroids are ineffective. High-dose monthly oral dexamethasone for six months is probably no more or less effective than daily oral prednisolone. Plasma exchange produces short-term improvement in impairment as determined by neurological examination, and probably produces short-term improvement in disability. IVIg produces more short-term improvement in disability than placebo and more adverse events, although serious side effects are probably no more common than with placebo. There is no clear difference in short-term improvement in impairment with IVIg when compared with intravenous methylprednisolone and probably no improvement when compared with either oral prednisolone or plasma exchange. According to observational studies, adverse events related to difficult venous access, use of citrate, and haemodynamic changes occur in 3% to17% of plasma exchange procedures.It is uncertain whether azathioprine is of benefit as the quality of evidence is very low. Methotrexate may not be of benefit and IFN beta-1a is probably not of benefit.We need further research to identify predictors of response to different treatments and to compare their long-term benefits, safety and cost-effectiveness. There is a need for more randomised trials of immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory agents, routes of administration, and treatments for symptoms of CIDP.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Azathioprine; Dexamethasone; Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Immunosuppressive Agents; Interferon beta-1a; Methotrexate; Methylprednisolone; Plasma Exchange; Polyradiculoneuropathy, Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating; Prednisone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 28084646
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010369.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015Personalised care planning is a collaborative process used in chronic condition management in which patients and clinicians identify and discuss problems caused by or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Personalised care planning is a collaborative process used in chronic condition management in which patients and clinicians identify and discuss problems caused by or related to the patient's condition, and develop a plan for tackling these. In essence it is a conversation, or series of conversations, in which they jointly agree goals and actions for managing the patient's condition.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of personalised care planning for adults with long-term health conditions compared to usual care (i.e. forms of care in which active involvement of patients in treatment and management decisions is not explicitly attempted or achieved).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ProQuest, clinicaltrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to July 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials and cluster-randomised trials involving adults with long-term conditions where the intervention included collaborative (between individual patients and clinicians) goal setting and action planning. We excluded studies where there was little or no opportunity for the patient to have meaningful influence on goal selection, choice of treatment or support package, or both.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two of three review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were effects on physical health, psychological health, subjective health status, and capabilities for self management. Secondary outcomes included effects on health-related behaviours, resource use and costs, and type of intervention. A patient advisory group of people with experience of living with long-term conditions advised on various aspects of the review, including the protocol, selection of outcome measures and emerging findings.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 19 studies involving a total of 10,856 participants. Twelve of these studies focused on diabetes, three on mental health, one on heart failure, one on end-stage renal disease, one on asthma, and one on various chronic conditions. All 19 studies included components that were intended to support behaviour change among patients, involving either face-to-face or telephone support. All but three of the personalised care planning interventions took place in primary care or community settings; the remaining three were located in hospital clinics. There was some concern about risk of bias for each of the included studies in respect of one or more criteria, usually due to inadequate or unclear descriptions of research methods. Physical healthNine studies measured glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), giving a combined mean difference (MD) between intervention and control of -0.24% (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.35 to -0.14), a small positive effect in favour of personalised care planning compared to usual care (moderate quality evidence).Six studies measured systolic blood pressure, a combined mean difference of -2.64 mm/Hg (95% CI -4.47 to -0.82) favouring personalised care (moderate quality evidence). The pooled results from four studies showed no significant effect on diastolic blood pressure, MD -0.71 mm/Hg (95% CI -2.26 to 0.84).We found no evidence of an effect on cholesterol (LDL-C), standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.01 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.11) (five studies) or body mass index, MD -0.11 (95% CI -0.35 to 0.13) (four studies).A single study of people with asthma reported that personalised care planning led to improvements in lung function and asthma control. Psychological healthSix studies measured depression. We were able to pool results from five of these, giving an SMD of -0.36 (95% CI -0.52 to -0.20), a small effect in favour of personalised care (moderate quality evidence). The remaining study found greater improvement in the control group than the intervention group.Four other studies used a variety of psychological measures that were conceptually different so could not be pooled. Of these, three found greater improvement for the personalised care group than the usual care group and one was too small to detect differences in outcomes. Subjective health statusTen studies used various patient-reported measures of health status (or health-related quality of life), including both generic health status measures and condition-specific ones. We were able to pool data from three studies that used the SF-36 or SF-12, but found no effect on the physical component summary score SMD 0.16 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.38) or the mental component summary score SMD 0.07 (95% CI -0.15 to 0.28) (moderate quality evidence). Of the three other studies that measured generic health status, two found improvements related to personalised care and one did not.Four studies measured condition-specific health status. The combined results showed no difference between the intervention and control groups, SMD -0.01 (95% CI -0.11 to 0.10) (moderate quality evidence). Self-management capabilitiesNine studies looked at the effect of personalised care on self-management capabilities using a variety of outcome measures, but they focused primarily on self efficacy. We were able to pool results from five studies that measured self efficacy, giving a small positive result in favour of personalised care planning: SMD 0.25 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.43) (moderate quality evidence).A further five studies measured other attributes that contribute to self-management capabilities. The results from these were mixed: two studies found evidence of an effect on patient activation, one found an effect on empowerment, and one found improvements in perceived interpersonal support. Other outcomesPooled data from five studies on exercise levels showed no effect due to personalised care planning, but there was a positive effect on people's self-reported ability to carry out self-care activities: SMD 0.35 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.52).We found no evidence of adverse effects due to personalised care planning.The effects of personalised care planning were greater when more stages of the care planning cycle were completed, when contacts between patients and health professionals were more frequent, and when the patient's usual clinician was involved in the process.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Personalised care planning leads to improvements in certain indicators of physical and psychological health status, and people's capability to self-manage their condition when compared to usual care. The effects are not large, but they appear greater when the intervention is more comprehensive, more intensive, and better integrated into routine care.
Topics: Adult; Asthma; Chronic Disease; Diabetes Mellitus; Glycated Hemoglobin; Health Status; Heart Failure; Humans; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Mental Disorders; Patient Care Planning; Patient Participation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Self Care
PubMed: 25733495
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010523.pub2 -
Health Technology Assessment... Nov 2018Diagnosis of lung cancer frequently occurs in its later stages. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) could detect lung cancer early. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Diagnosis of lung cancer frequently occurs in its later stages. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) could detect lung cancer early.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LDCT lung cancer screening in high-risk populations.
DATA SOURCES
Bibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library.
METHODS
Clinical effectiveness - a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDCT screening programmes with usual care (no screening) or other imaging screening programmes [such as chest X-ray (CXR)] was conducted. Bibliographic sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library. Meta-analyses, including network meta-analyses, were performed. Cost-effectiveness - an independent economic model employing discrete event simulation and using a natural history model calibrated to results from a large RCT was developed. There were 12 different population eligibility criteria and four intervention frequencies [(1) single screen, (2) triple screen, (3) annual screening and (4) biennial screening] and a no-screening control arm.
RESULTS
Clinical effectiveness - 12 RCTs were included, four of which currently contribute evidence on mortality. Meta-analysis of these demonstrated that LDCT, with ≤ 9.80 years of follow-up, was associated with a non-statistically significant decrease in lung cancer mortality (pooled relative risk 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.19). The findings also showed that LDCT screening demonstrated a non-statistically significant increase in all-cause mortality. Given the considerable heterogeneity detected between studies for both outcomes, the results should be treated with caution. Network meta-analysis, including six RCTs, was performed to assess the relative clinical effectiveness of LDCT, CXR and usual care. The results showed that LDCT was ranked as the best screening strategy in terms of lung cancer mortality reduction. CXR had a 99.7% probability of being the worst intervention and usual care was ranked second. Cost-effectiveness - screening programmes are predicted to be more effective than no screening, reduce lung cancer mortality and result in more lung cancer diagnoses. Screening programmes also increase costs. Screening for lung cancer is unlikely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), but may be cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000/QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a single screen in smokers aged 60-75 years with at least a 3% risk of lung cancer is £28,169 per QALY. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. Screening was only cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/QALY in only a minority of analyses.
LIMITATIONS
Clinical effectiveness - the largest of the included RCTs compared LDCT with CXR screening rather than no screening. Cost-effectiveness - a representative cost to the NHS of lung cancer has not been recently estimated according to key variables such as stage at diagnosis. Certain costs associated with running a screening programme have not been included.
CONCLUSIONS
LDCT screening may be clinically effective in reducing lung cancer mortality, but there is considerable uncertainty. There is evidence that a single round of screening could be considered cost-effective at conventional thresholds, but there is significant uncertainty about the effect on costs and the magnitude of benefits.
FUTURE WORK
Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness estimates should be updated with the anticipated results from several ongoing RCTs [particularly the NEderlands Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (NELSON) screening trial].
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016048530.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Early Detection of Cancer; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Mass Screening; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Technology Assessment, Biomedical; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30518460
DOI: 10.3310/hta22690 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021Venous thromboembolism (VTE), although rare, is a major cause of maternal mortality and morbidity. Some women are at increased risk of VTE during pregnancy and the early... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Venous thromboembolism (VTE), although rare, is a major cause of maternal mortality and morbidity. Some women are at increased risk of VTE during pregnancy and the early postnatal period (e.g. caesarean section, family history of VTE, or thrombophilia), and so prophylaxis may be considered. As some methods of prophylaxis carry risks of adverse effects, and risk of VTE is often low, benefits of thromboprophylaxis may be outweighed by harms.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy and the early postnatal period on the risk of venous thromboembolic disease and adverse effects in women at increased risk of VTE.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (18 October 2019). In addition, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for unpublished, planned and ongoing trial reports (18 October 2019).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials comparing one method of thromboprophylaxis with placebo or no treatment, or two (or more) methods of thromboprophylaxis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and judged certainty of evidence for selected critical outcomes (using GRADE). We conducted fixed-effect meta-analysis and reported data (all dichotomous) as summary risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-nine trials (involving 3839 women), overall at moderate to high risk of bias were included. Trials were conducted across the antenatal, peripartum and postnatal periods, with most in high-income countries. Interventions included types and regimens of heparin (low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH)), hydroxyethyl starch (HES), and compression stockings or devices. Data were limited due to a small number of trials in comparisons and/or few or no events reported. All critical outcomes (assessed for comparisons of heparin versus no treatment/placebo, and LMWH versus UFH) were considered to have very low-certainty evidence, downgraded mainly for study limitations and imprecise effect estimates. Maternal death was not reported in most studies. Antenatal (± postnatal) prophylaxis For the primary outcomes symptomatic thromboembolic events pulmonary embolism (PE) and/or deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and the critical outcome of adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment, the evidence was very uncertain. Symptomatic thromboembolic events: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.08 to 1.98; 4 trials, 476 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.09 to 2.49; 4 trials, 404 women; very low-certainty evidence); Symptomatic PE: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.02 to 7.14; 3 trials, 187 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (no events; 3 trials, 287 women); Symptomatic DVT: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.04 to 3.10; 4 trials, 227 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (no events; 3 trials, 287 women); Adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.05 to 5.31; 1 trial, 139 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (RR 0.07; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.54; 2 trials, 226 women; very low-certainty evidence). Peripartum/postnatal prophylaxis Vaginal or caesarean birth When UFH and no treatment were compared, the effects on symptomatic thromboembolic events (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.36; 1 trial, 210 women; very low-certainty evidence), symptomatic PE (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.01 to 3.34; 1 trial, 210 women; very low-certainty evidence), and symptomatic DVT (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.03 to 2.55; 1 trial, 210 women; very low-certainty evidence) were very uncertain. Maternal death and adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment were not reported. Caesarean birth Symptomatic thromboembolic events: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.39 to 4.27; 4 trials, 840 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99; 3 trials, 217 women; very low-certainty evidence); Symptomatic PE: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.25 to 4.87; 4 trials, 840 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (no events; 3 trials, 217 women); Symptomatic DVT: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.24 to 6.94; 5 trials, 1140 women; very low-certainty evidence); LMWH versus UFH (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99; 3 trials, 217 women; very low-certainty evidence); Maternal death: - heparin versus placebo (no events, 1 trial, 300 women); Adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment: - heparin versus placebo (no events; 1 trial, 140 women). Postnatal prophylaxis No events were reported for LMWH versus no treatment/placebo for: symptomatic thromboembolic events, symptomatic PE and symptomatic DVT (all 2 trials, 58 women), or maternal death (1 trial, 24 women). Adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment were not reported. We were unable to conduct subgroup analyses due to lack of data. Sensitivity analysis including the nine studies at low risk of bias did not impact overall findings.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence is very uncertain about benefits and harms of VTE thromboprophylaxis in women during pregnancy and the early postnatal period at increased risk of VTE. Further high-quality very large-scale randomised trials are needed to determine effects of currently used treatments in women with different VTE risk factors. As sufficiently large definitive trials are unlikely to be funded, secondary data analyses based on high-quality registry data are important.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Bias; Cesarean Section; Female; Heparin; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Hematologic; Puerperal Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Venous Thrombosis
PubMed: 33779986
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001689.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015Most ischaemic strokes are caused by a blood clot blocking an artery in the brain. Clot prevention with anticoagulants might improve outcomes if bleeding risks are low.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Most ischaemic strokes are caused by a blood clot blocking an artery in the brain. Clot prevention with anticoagulants might improve outcomes if bleeding risks are low. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1995, with recent updates in 2004 and 2008.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of early anticoagulation (within the first 14 days of onset) in people with acute presumed or confirmed ischaemic stroke.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (June 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Database of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA) (The Cochrane Library 2014 Issue 6), MEDLINE (2008 to June 2014) and EMBASE (2008 to June 2014). In addition, we searched ongoing trials registries and reference lists of relevant papers. For previous versions of this review, we searched the register of the Antithrombotic Trialists' (ATT) Collaboration, consulted MedStrategy (1995), and contacted relevant drug companies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials comparing early anticoagulant therapy (started within two weeks of stroke onset) with control in people with acute presumed or confirmed ischaemic stroke.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality, and extracted the data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 24 trials involving 23,748 participants. The quality of the trials varied considerably. The anticoagulants tested were standard unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparins, heparinoids, oral anticoagulants, and thrombin inhibitors. Over 90% of the evidence relates to the effects of anticoagulant therapy initiated within the first 48 hours of onset. Based on 11 trials (22,776 participants) there was no evidence that anticoagulant therapy started within the first 14 days of stroke onset reduced the odds of death from all causes (odds ratio (OR) 1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.12) at the end of follow-up. Similarly, based on eight trials (22,125 participants), there was no evidence that early anticoagulation reduced the odds of being dead or dependent at the end of follow-up (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.04). Although early anticoagulant therapy was associated with fewer recurrent ischaemic strokes (OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.65 to 0.88), it was also associated with an increase in symptomatic intracranial haemorrhages (OR 2.55; 95% CI 1.95 to 3.33). Similarly, early anticoagulation reduced the frequency of symptomatic pulmonary emboli (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.81), but this benefit was offset by an increase in extracranial haemorrhages (OR 2.99; 95% CI 2.24 to 3.99).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Since the last version of the review, no new relevant studies have been published and so there is no additional information to change the conclusions. Early anticoagulant therapy is not associated with net short- or long-term benefit in people with acute ischaemic stroke. Treatment with anticoagulants reduced recurrent stroke, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, but increased bleeding risk. The data do not support the routine use of any of the currently available anticoagulants in acute ischaemic stroke.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Brain Ischemia; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk; Stroke
PubMed: 25764172
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000024.pub4 -
Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery Mar 2018Secondary tracheal tumors arise from mural invasion by primary tumors in adjacent organs, metastatic lymph nodes or blood-born metastasis from distant sites. This... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Secondary tracheal tumors arise from mural invasion by primary tumors in adjacent organs, metastatic lymph nodes or blood-born metastasis from distant sites. This systematic review aims to assess the presentation, management options, and clinical outcomes of these uncommon non-tracheal malignancies.
METHODS
Electronic searches of the MEDLINE database were performed to identify case series and individual case reports of tracheal invasion by primary non-tracheal tumors or metastatic disease. All English-language studies with available abstracts or articles containing primary data were included.
RESULTS
From 1978 to 2017, a total of 160 case reports or case series identified 2,242 patients with invasion of the trachea by tumors of adjacent organs (n=1,853) or by metastatic lymph nodes or hematogenous spread (n=389). Common primary sites of origin were thyroid, esophagus, and lung, and the most common presentation was metachronous (range of interval: 0 to 564 months) with dyspnea, neck mass, voice change and/or hemoptysis. A majority of patients in case reports (77.9%) and case series (66.0%) underwent resection and the most common reported operation was segmental tracheal resection. Fewer patients underwent bronchoscopic intervention (21.7%) and radiation was used in 32.2% of patients. Complications after bronchoscopic treatment included bleeding, granulation tissue, and retained secretions, while anastomotic leak, unplanned tracheostomy, and new recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis were observed after surgical resection. The rate of 30-day mortality was low (0.01-1.80%). Median survival was higher in patients with thyroid malignancy and in patients who underwent surgical management. Follow-up time ranged from 0.03 to 183 months.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients with tracheal invasion by metastatic or primary non-tracheal malignancies should be assessed for symptoms, tumor grade, tumor recurrence and concurrent metastases to decide on optimal surgical, bronchoscopic or noninterventional therapy. Clinical experience suggests that palliative endoscopic intervention for tracheal obstruction by metastasis-bearing lymph nodes is underreported.
PubMed: 29707496
DOI: 10.21037/acs.2018.02.01 -
International Journal of Environmental... Feb 2022Lung cancer (LC) represents the main cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, especially because the majority of patients present with an advanced stage of the disease... (Review)
Review
Lung cancer (LC) represents the main cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, especially because the majority of patients present with an advanced stage of the disease at the time of diagnosis. This systematic review describes the evidence behind screening results and the current guidelines available to manage lung nodules. This review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The following electronic databases were searched: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Web of Science. Five studies were included in the systematic review. The study cohort included 46,364 patients, and, in this case series, LC was detected in 9028 patients. Among the patients with detected LC, 1261 died of lung cancer, 3153 died of other types of cancers and 4614 died of other causes. This systematic review validates the use of CT in LC screening follow-ups, and bids for future integration and implementation of nodule management protocols to improve LC screening, avoid missed cancers and to reduce the number of unnecessary investigations.
Topics: Early Detection of Cancer; Humans; Lung; Lung Neoplasms; Mass Screening; Research
PubMed: 35206646
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19042460 -
Journal of Orthopaedics and... Jan 2024Several clinical investigations have compared different pharmacologic agents for the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, no consensus has been reached.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Several clinical investigations have compared different pharmacologic agents for the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, no consensus has been reached. The present investigation compared enoxaparin, fondaparinux, aspirin and non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) commonly used as prophylaxis following total hip arthroplasty (THA). A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed, setting as outcomes of interest the rate of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE) and major and minor haemorrhages.
METHODS
This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension statement for reporting systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of healthcare interventions. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing two or more drugs used for the prophylaxis of VTE following THA were accessed. PubMed, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases were accessed in March 2023 with no time constraint.
RESULTS
Data from 31,705 patients were extracted. Of these, 62% (19,824) were women, with age, sex ratio, and body mass index (BMI) being comparable at baseline. Apixaban 5 mg, fondaparinux, and rivaroxaban 60 mg were the most effective in reducing the rate of DVT. Dabigatran 220 mg, apixaban 5 mg, and aspirin 100 mg were the most effective in reducing the rate of PE. Apixaban 5 mg, ximelagatran 2 mg and aspirin 100 mg were associated with the lowest rate of major haemorrhages, while rivaroxaban 2.5 mg, apixaban 5 mg and enoxaparin 40 mg were associated with the lowest rate of minor haemorrhages.
CONCLUSION
Administration of apixaban 5 mg demonstrated the best balance between VTE prevention and haemorrhage control following THA. Level of evidence Level I, network meta-analysis of RCTs.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Aspirin; Enoxaparin; Fibrinolytic Agents; Fondaparinux; Hemorrhage; Network Meta-Analysis; Rivaroxaban; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 38194191
DOI: 10.1186/s10195-023-00742-2 -
Journal of Internal Medicine Mar 2017Obesity is a risk factor for a plethora of severe morbidities and premature death. Most supporting evidence comes from observational studies that are prone to chance,... (Review)
Review
Obesity is a risk factor for a plethora of severe morbidities and premature death. Most supporting evidence comes from observational studies that are prone to chance, bias and confounding. Even data on the protective effects of weight loss from randomized controlled trials will be susceptible to confounding and bias if treatment assignment cannot be masked, which is usually the case with lifestyle and surgical interventions. Thus, whilst obesity is widely considered the major modifiable risk factor for many chronic diseases, its causes and consequences are often difficult to determine. Addressing this is important, as the prevention and treatment of any disease requires that interventions focus on causal risk factors. Disease prediction, although not dependent on knowing the causes, is nevertheless enhanced by such knowledge. Here, we provide an overview of some of the barriers to causal inference in obesity research and discuss analytical approaches, such as Mendelian randomization, that can help to overcome these obstacles. In a systematic review of the literature in this field, we found: (i) probable causal relationships between adiposity and bone health/disease, cancers (colorectal, lung and kidney cancers), cardiometabolic traits (blood pressure, fasting insulin, inflammatory markers and lipids), uric acid concentrations, coronary heart disease and venous thrombosis (in the presence of pulmonary embolism), (ii) possible causal relationships between adiposity and gray matter volume, depression and common mental disorders, oesophageal cancer, macroalbuminuria, end-stage renal disease, diabetic kidney disease, nuclear cataract and gall stone disease, and (iii) no evidence for causal relationships between adiposity and Alzheimer's disease, pancreatic cancer, venous thrombosis (in the absence of pulmonary embolism), liver function and periodontitis.
Topics: Biomedical Research; Comorbidity; Humans; Mendelian Randomization Analysis; Obesity; Risk Factors
PubMed: 27933671
DOI: 10.1111/joim.12577