-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is caused by a homozygous deletion of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene on chromosome 5, or a heterozygous deletion in combination... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is caused by a homozygous deletion of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene on chromosome 5, or a heterozygous deletion in combination with a (point) mutation in the second SMN1 allele. This results in degeneration of anterior horn cells, which leads to progressive muscle weakness. Children with SMA type II do not develop the ability to walk without support and have a shortened life expectancy, whereas children with SMA type III develop the ability to walk and have a normal life expectancy. This is an update of a review first published in 2009 and previously updated in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate if drug treatment is able to slow or arrest the disease progression of SMA types II and III, and to assess if such therapy can be given safely.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ISI Web of Science conference proceedings in October 2018. In October 2018, we also searched two trials registries to identify unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought all randomised or quasi-randomised trials that examined the efficacy of drug treatment for SMA types II and III. Participants had to fulfil the clinical criteria and have a homozygous deletion or hemizygous deletion in combination with a point mutation in the second allele of the SMN1 gene (5q11.2-13.2) confirmed by genetic analysis. The primary outcome measure was change in disability score within one year after the onset of treatment. Secondary outcome measures within one year after the onset of treatment were change in muscle strength, ability to stand or walk, change in quality of life, time from the start of treatment until death or full-time ventilation and adverse events attributable to treatment during the trial period. Treatment strategies involving SMN1-replacement with viral vectors are out of the scope of this review, but a summary is given in Appendix 1. Drug treatment for SMA type I is the topic of a separate Cochrane Review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
The review authors found 10 randomised, placebo-controlled trials of treatments for SMA types II and III for inclusion in this review, with 717 participants. We added four of the trials at this update. The trials investigated creatine (55 participants), gabapentin (84 participants), hydroxyurea (57 participants), nusinersen (126 participants), olesoxime (165 participants), phenylbutyrate (107 participants), somatotropin (20 participants), thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH) (nine participants), valproic acid (33 participants), and combination therapy with valproic acid and acetyl-L-carnitine (ALC) (61 participants). Treatment duration was from three to 24 months. None of the studies investigated the same treatment and none was completely free of bias. All studies had adequate blinding, sequence generation and reporting of primary outcomes. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, intrathecal nusinersen improved motor function (disability) in children with SMA type II, with a 3.7-point improvement in the nusinersen group on the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale Expanded (HFMSE; range of possible scores 0 to 66), compared to a 1.9-point decline on the HFMSE in the sham procedure group (P < 0.01; n = 126). On all motor function scales used, higher scores indicate better function. Based on moderate-certainty evidence from two studies, the following interventions had no clinically important effect on motor function scores in SMA types II or III (or both) in comparison to placebo: creatine (median change 1 higher, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1 to 2; on the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM), scale 0 to 264; n = 40); and combination therapy with valproic acid and carnitine (mean difference (MD) 0.64, 95% CI -1.1 to 2.38; on the Modified Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale (MHFMS), scale 0 to 40; n = 61). Based on low-certainty evidence from other single studies, the following interventions had no clinically important effect on motor function scores in SMA types II or III (or both) in comparison to placebo: gabapentin (median change 0 in the gabapentin group and -2 in the placebo group on the SMA Functional Rating Scale (SMAFRS), scale 0 to 50; n = 66); hydroxyurea (MD -1.88, 95% CI -3.89 to 0.13 on the GMFM, scale 0 to 264; n = 57), phenylbutyrate (MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.58 on the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale (HFMS) scale 0 to 40; n = 90) and monotherapy of valproic acid (MD 0.06, 95% CI -1.32 to 1.44 on SMAFRS, scale 0 to 50; n = 31). Very low-certainty evidence suggested that the following interventions had little or no effect on motor function: olesoxime (MD 2, 95% -0.25 to 4.25 on the Motor Function Measure (MFM) D1 + D2, scale 0 to 75; n = 160) and somatotropin (median change at 3 months 0.25 higher, 95% CI -1 to 2.5 on the HFMSE, scale 0 to 66; n = 19). One small TRH trial did not report effects on motor function and the certainty of evidence for other outcomes from this trial were low or very low. Results of nine completed trials investigating 4-aminopyridine, acetyl-L-carnitine, CK-2127107, hydroxyurea, pyridostigmine, riluzole, RO6885247/RG7800, salbutamol and valproic acid were awaited and not available for analysis at the time of writing. Various trials and studies investigating treatment strategies other than nusinersen (e.g. SMN2-augmentation by small molecules), are currently ongoing.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Nusinersen improves motor function in SMA type II, based on moderate-certainty evidence. Creatine, gabapentin, hydroxyurea, phenylbutyrate, valproic acid and the combination of valproic acid and ALC probably have no clinically important effect on motor function in SMA types II or III (or both) based on low-certainty evidence, and olesoxime and somatropin may also have little to no clinically important effect but evidence was of very low-certainty. One trial of TRH did not measure motor function.
Topics: Adolescent; Amines; Child; Child, Preschool; Creatine; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Humans; Hydroxyurea; Neuroprotective Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spinal Muscular Atrophies of Childhood; Thyrotropin-Releasing Hormone; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 32006461
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006282.pub5 -
Chinese Medical Journal Nov 2021Despite the recommendation of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) plus long-acting beta 2-agonist (LABA) and leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) or ICS/LTRA as stepwise... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of salmeterol/fluticasone compared with montelukast alone (or add-on therapy to fluticasone) in the treatment of bronchial asthma in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Despite the recommendation of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) plus long-acting beta 2-agonist (LABA) and leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) or ICS/LTRA as stepwise approaches in asthmatic children, there is a lack of published systematic review comparing the efficacy and safety of the two therapies in children and adolescents aged 4 to 18 years. This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC) vs. montelukast (MON), or combination of montelukast and fluticasone (MFC) in children and adolescents aged 4 to 18 years with bronchial asthma.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, China BioMedical Literature Database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodical, and Wanfang for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from inception to May 24, 2021. Interventions are as follows: SFC vs. MON, or combination of MFC, with no limitation of dosage or duration. Primary and secondary outcome measures were as follows: the primary outcome of interest was the risk of asthma exacerbation. Secondary outcomes included risk of hospitalization, pulmonary function, asthma control level, quality of life, and adverse events (AEs). A random-effects (I2 ≥ 50%) or fixed-effects model (I2 < 50%) was used to calculate pooled effect estimates, comparing the outcomes between the intervention and control groups where feasible.
RESULTS
Of the 1006 articles identified, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria with 2643 individuals; two were at low risk of bias. As no primary outcomes were similar after an identical treatment duration in the included studies, meta-analysis could not be performed. However, more studies favored SFC, instead of MON, owing to a lower risk of asthma exacerbation in the SFC group. As for secondary outcome, SFC showed a significant improvement of peak expiratory flow (PEF)%pred after 4 weeks compared with MFC (mean difference [MD]: 5.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.57-9.34; I2 = 95%; P = 0.006). As for asthma control level, SFC also showed a higher full-controlled level (risk ratio [RR]: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.24-1.85; I2 = 0; P < 0.001) and higher childhood asthma control test score after 4 weeks of treatment (MD: 2.30; 95% CI: 1.39-3.21; I2 = 72%; P < 0.001) compared with MFC.
CONCLUSIONS
SFC may be more effective than MFC for the treatment of asthma in children and adolescents, especially in improving asthma control level. However, there is insufficient evidence to make firm conclusive statements on the use of SFC or MON in children and adolescents aged 4 to 18 years with asthma. Further research is needed, particularly a combination of good-quality long-term prospective studies and well-designed RCTs.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42019133156.
Topics: Acetates; Administration, Inhalation; Adolescent; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Albuterol; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Child; Cyclopropanes; Drug Therapy, Combination; Fluticasone; Humans; Quinolines; Salmeterol Xinafoate; Sulfides
PubMed: 34784306
DOI: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000001853 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Apr 2021The associations of 2 nonsynonymous single nucleotide polymorphisms (Arg16Gly and Gln27Glu) in the adrenoceptor β2 (ADRB2) gene with response after albuterol use are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
The associations of 2 nonsynonymous single nucleotide polymorphisms (Arg16Gly and Gln27Glu) in the adrenoceptor β2 (ADRB2) gene with response after albuterol use are conflicting. We conducted a meta-analysis to examine the cumulative evidence of the effects of these 2 variants on percent forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1.0%) after albuterol use in asthma patients.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify studies examining the association between ADRB2 Arg16Gly and Gln27Glu and FEV1.0% shortly after albuterol administration. The individual study results were combined with weights based on the inverse variance method. This systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42019074554).
RESULTS
Among 273 initial studies identified, 7 studies met the inclusion criteria for quantitative evaluation. Results of the overall meta-analysis indicated no statistically significant mean difference of FEV1.0% between genotypes of Arg16Gly and Gln27Glu. In subgroup analyses, significant associations were found for Arg16Gly GG (vs AA) among studies where no methacholine bronchoconstriction was conducted (mean difference, -3.92; 95% confidence interval, -7.29 to -0.54; I = 0%), and for Arg16Gly GG (vs GA) among studies that included patients with no comorbidities (mean difference, -1.93; 95% confidence interval, -3.77 to -0.10; I = 0%).
CONCLUSION
Synthesis of the studies to date shows weak evidence for an association between ADRB2 Arg16Gly and Gln27Glu and FEV1.0% after albuterol use, results of which underscore significant heterogeneity across studies and the need for careful design and sample size considerations.
Topics: Albuterol; Asthma; Bronchodilator Agents; Humans; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide; Receptors, Adrenergic, beta-2
PubMed: 32986886
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.14570 -
Journal of the National Medical... Feb 2021Outcome differences driven by variation in Blacks' biologic response to treatment may contribute to persistent racial disparities in asthma morbidity and mortality. This... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Outcome differences driven by variation in Blacks' biologic response to treatment may contribute to persistent racial disparities in asthma morbidity and mortality. This review assessed systematic variation in β agonist treatment outcomes among Blacks compared to other groups.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting differential response to β agonists among Blacks, including studies identifying pharmacogenetic variants.
RESULTS
Of 3158 papers, 20 compared safety or efficacy of β agonists among Blacks as compared with other subgroups. Six papers evaluating efficacy of short-acting β agonists (SABA) found similar or improved results among Blacks compared with other groups, while one small study found reduced response to SABA therapy among Blacks. Reports of safety and efficacy of long-acting β agonists (LABA) indicated similar results among Blacks in four papers, while four reports found reduced safety among Blacks, as compared with other groups. Four papers assessed genomic variation and relative treatment response in Blacks, with two finding significant effects of the p.Arg16Gly variant in ADRB2 on β agonist response and one finding significant gene-gene IL6/IL6R interaction effects on albuterol response.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests the potential for differences in β agonist outcomes among Blacks compared with other groups. This literature, however, remains small and significantly underpowered for substantive conclusions. There are notable opportunities for adequately-powered investigations exploring safety and efficacy of β agonists among Blacks, including pharmacogenomic modifiers of response.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenergic Agonists; Black or African American; Asthma; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans
PubMed: 32732018
DOI: 10.1016/j.jnma.2020.07.001 -
American Journal of Perinatology May 2024This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of intratracheal administration of budesonide and surfactant with surfactant alone for bronchopulmonary dysplasia... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of intratracheal administration of budesonide and surfactant with surfactant alone for bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) prevention in premature infants with respiratory distress syndrome.
STUDY DESIGN
A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov, and gray literature. Assessment of quality was conducted using CASP tool, ROBIS tool, and GRADE framework.
RESULTS
A systematic review and meta-analysis and three observational studies were identified. Budesonide was associated with reduced incidence and severity of BPD, reduced mortality, patent ductus arteriosus, need for additional surfactant doses, hypotension, duration of invasive ventilation, hospital stays, salbutamol prescriptions, and hospitalizations in the first 2 years of life. The safety of budesonide on neurodevelopmental outcomes at 2 to 3 years of corrected age was reported.
CONCLUSION
Budesonide might be associated with a reduction in BPD incidence and severity, without evidence of impaired neurodevelopment at 2 to 3 years of age. According to the GRADE framework, the level of evidence is low due to significant heterogeneity of studies and other bias.
KEY POINTS
· BPD prevention is urgently needed.. · Intratracheal budesonide and surfactant for neonatal RDS could reduce BPD.. · The grade of evidence for this intervention is low due to study heterogeneity and other bias..
Topics: Humans; Budesonide; Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia; Pulmonary Surfactants; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn; Glucocorticoids
PubMed: 37279790
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1769795 -
Chronic Respiratory Disease 2020Inhaled bronchodilators are the cornerstone of treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Soft mist inhalers (SMIs) are devices that deliver... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Inhaled bronchodilators are the cornerstone of treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Soft mist inhalers (SMIs) are devices that deliver bronchodilators. Although correct device use is paramount to successful medication delivery, patient errors are common. This global systematic literature review and meta-analysis examined device use errors with SMIs among patients with obstructive lung diseases. PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched to identify studies published between 2010 and 2019 that met the following inclusion criteria: (a) English language; (b) a diagnosis of COPD, bronchitis, or emphysema; and (c) reported device use errors among adults receiving long-acting bronchodilator treatment with Respimat® SMI (i.e. Spiriva®, Stiolto®, Spiolto®, and Striverdi®). Descriptive statistics examined sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, and device use errors. Meta-analysis techniques were employed with random-effects models to generate pooled mean effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for overall and step-by-step errors. The statistic measured heterogeneity. Twelve studies ( = 1288 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. Eighty-eight percent of patients had COPD, and most had moderate/very severe airflow limitation (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease spirometric stages II to IV). Aggregate results revealed that 58.9% (95% CI: 42.4-75.5; = 92.8%) of patients made ≥1 device use errors. Among 11 studies with step-by-step data, the most common errors were failure to (1) exhale completely and away from the device (47.8% (95% CI: 33.6-62.0)); (2) hold breath for up to 10 seconds (30.6% (95% CI: 17.5-43.7)); (3) take a slow, deep breath while pressing the dose release button (27.9% (95% CI: 14.5-41.2)); (4) hold the inhaler upright (22.6% (95% CI: 6.2-39.0)); and (5) turn the base toward the arrows until it clicked (17.6% (95% CI: 3.0-32.2)). Device use errors occurred in about 6 of 10 patients who used SMIs. An individualized approach to inhalation device selection and ongoing training and monitoring of device use are important in optimizing bronchodilator treatment.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Albuterol, Ipratropium Drug Combination; Bronchodilator Agents; Humans; Metered Dose Inhalers; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Self Administration
PubMed: 31984767
DOI: 10.1177/1479973119901234 -
Integrative Medicine Research 2021This rapid review systematically evaluated the effects of honeybee products compared to controls for the prevention, duration, severity, and recovery of acute viral... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This rapid review systematically evaluated the effects of honeybee products compared to controls for the prevention, duration, severity, and recovery of acute viral respiratory tract infections (RTIs), including SARS-CoV-2, in adults and children.
METHODS
Cochrane rapid review methods were applied. Four English databases plus preprint servers and trial registries were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The evidence was appraised and synthesized using RoB 2.0 and GRADE.
RESULTS
27 results were derived from 9 RCTs that included 674 adults and 781 children. In hospitalized adults with SARS-CoV-2, propolis plus usual-care compared to usual-care alone reduced the risk of shock, respiratory failure and kidney injury and duration of hospital admission. Honey was less effective than Guaifenesin for reducing cough severity at 60-minutes in adults with non-specific acute viral RTIs. Compared to coffee, honey plus coffee, and honey alone reduced the severity of post-infectious cough in adults. Honey reduced the duration of cough in children compared to placebo and salbutamol; and the global impact of nocturnal cough after one night compared to usual-care alone and pharmaceutical cough medicines.
CONCLUSION
More studies are needed to robustly assess honeybee's role in SARS-CoV-2 and non-specific viral respiratory infections.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO: CRD42020193847.
PubMed: 34611512
DOI: 10.1016/j.imr.2021.100779 -
Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi = Zhongguo... Nov 2020To systematically review the efficacy and safety of Liujunzi Decoction combined with Western medicine in the treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
To systematically review the efficacy and safety of Liujunzi Decoction combined with Western medicine in the treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease(COPD). Three English databases and four Chinese databases were systematically searched from the database establishment to April 1, 2020. We screened randomized controlled trial(RCT) according to the pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria, then extracted data. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed with Cochrane bias risk evaluation tool. Data were analyzed by using RevMan 5.3. A total of 401 articles were retrieved and finally 17 RCTs were included in this study, involving 1 447 patients, and the overall quality of the included studies was not high. Meta-analysis showed that, in reducing traditional Chinese medicine symptom score, Liujunzi Decoction combined with conventional Western medicine or Salmeterol Xinafoate and Fluticasone Propionate Powder for Inhalation was superior to conventional Western medicine or Salmeterol Xinafoate and Fluticasone Propionate Powder for Inhalation alone. In reducing the grade of modified medical research council(mMRC), Liujunzi Decoction combined with Salmeterol Xinafoate and Fluticasone Propionate Powder for Inhalation was superior to Salmeterol Xinafoate and Fluticasone Propionate Powder for Inhalation alone. In reducing COPD assessment test(CAT) score, Liujunzi Decoction combined with conventional Western medicine was superior to conventional Western medicine alone. In delaying the decline of forced expiratory volume in one second(FEV_1) or % in the expected value, Liujunzi Decoction combined with conventional Western medicine or Salmeterol Xinafoate and Fluticasone Propionate Powder for Inhalation was superior to conventional Western medicine or Salmeterol Xinafoate and Fluticasone Propionate Powder for Inhalation alone. In delaying the decline of ratio of FEV_1 to forced vital capacity(FEV_1/FVC), Liujunzi Decoction combined with conventional Western medicine was superior to conventional Western medicine alone, but there was no statistical difference between Liujunzi Decoction combined with Salmeterol Xinafoate and Fluticasone Propionate Powder for Inhalation and Salmeterol Xinafoate and Fluticasone Propionate Powder for Inhalation alone. In reducing acute exacerbation rate, there was no statistical difference between Liujunzi Decoction combined with Salmeterol Xinafoate and Fluticasone Propionate Powder for Inhalation and Salmeterol Xinafoate and Fluticasone Propionate Powder for Inhalation alone. On the other outcome measures of Liujunzi Decoction combined with other Western medicine, Meta-analysis could not be conducted and conclusions due to the inclusion of only one study. In terms of the occurrence of adverse reactions, some studies did not mention, so the safety of Liujunzi Decoction combined with Wes-tern medicine could not be determined in this paper. Due to the limitations of the quality and quantity of inclu-ded studies, the efficacy of Liujunzi Decoction combined with Western medicine for COPD still needs more high-quality studies for confirmation, and its safety needs to be further verified.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Bronchodilator Agents; Drug Combinations; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Humans; Medicine; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Salmeterol Xinafoate
PubMed: 33350192
DOI: 10.19540/j.cnki.cjcmm.20200720.501 -
The Journal of Asthma : Official... Jun 2022An inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA) combination has become the standard of care in asthma. Various ICS-LABAs are commercially available...
OBJECTIVES
An inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA) combination has become the standard of care in asthma. Various ICS-LABAs are commercially available providing the clinician with many choices. A thorough understanding of the clinical efficacy and safety of various formulations will immensely benefit the prescribing doctor to decide the choice of agent. The present systematic review was undertaken to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of formoterol fluticasone (FF) to other ICS/LABA combinations in asthmatics.
METHODS
The review adhered to the general principles mentioned in the CRD guidance and the PRISMA statement. We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases on the efficacy of FF in treating asthma compared with other ICS-LABAs. A total of 138 trials identified initially. Only trials comparing the efficacy and safety of FF in comparision with Salmeterol/fluticasone (SF) or Budesonide/Formoterol (BF) were selected. The outcomes compared were onset of bronchodilator action, improvement in lung function, asthma control, asthma-related quality of life and risk of pneumonia.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies were included in the final analysis. FF therapy provided faster onset of bronchodilatation than SF. A better improvement in lung function was seen with FF inhaler use as compared with comparators in two studies. Patients using the FF inhaler had a non-inferior asthma control and asthma-related quality of life. Pneumonia risk was least with FF usage.
CONCLUSION
FF provides faster onset of action, numerically superior improvement in lung function and comparable asthma control than other ICS-LABA formulations. FF has better safety evidenced by lower occurrence of pneumonia.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Androstadienes; Asthma; Drug Combinations; Fluticasone; Fluticasone-Salmeterol Drug Combination; Formoterol Fumarate; Humans; Pneumonia; Quality of Life
PubMed: 33685323
DOI: 10.1080/02770903.2021.1900864 -
Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular... Oct 2019Reducing mortality is a key target in critical care and perioperative medicine. The authors aimed to identify all nonsurgical interventions (drugs, techniques,...
OBJECTIVE
Reducing mortality is a key target in critical care and perioperative medicine. The authors aimed to identify all nonsurgical interventions (drugs, techniques, strategies) shown by randomized trials to increase mortality in these clinical settings.
DESIGN
A systematic review of the literature followed by a consensus-based voting process.
SETTING
A web-based international consensus conference.
PARTICIPANTS
Two hundred fifty-one physicians from 46 countries.
INTERVENTIONS
The authors performed a systematic literature search and identified all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showing a significant increase in unadjusted landmark mortality among surgical or critically ill patients. The authors reviewed such studies during a meeting by a core group of experts. Studies selected after such review advanced to web-based voting by clinicians in relation to agreement, clinical practice, and willingness to include each intervention in international guidelines.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS
The authors selected 12 RCTs dealing with 12 interventions increasing mortality: diaspirin-crosslinked hemoglobin (92% of agreement among web voters), overfeeding, nitric oxide synthase inhibitor in septic shock, human growth hormone, thyroxin in acute kidney injury, intravenous salbutamol in acute respiratory distress syndrome, plasma-derived protein C concentrate, aprotinin in high-risk cardiac surgery, cysteine prodrug, hypothermia in meningitis, methylprednisolone in traumatic brain injury, and albumin in traumatic brain injury (72% of agreement). Overall, a high consistency (ranging from 80% to 90%) between agreement and clinical practice was observed.
CONCLUSION
The authors identified 12 clinical interventions showing increased mortality supported by randomized controlled trials with nonconflicting evidence, and wide agreement upon clinicians on a global scale.
Topics: Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Critical Care; Critical Illness; Humans; Internet; Mortality; Perioperative Care; Physicians; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 31064730
DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2019.03.022