-
European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy :... Nov 2020The current systematic review (SR) was undertaken to summarise the published literature reporting the clinical and economic value of automation for chemotherapy...
OBJECTIVES
The current systematic review (SR) was undertaken to summarise the published literature reporting the clinical and economic value of automation for chemotherapy preparation management to include compounding workflow software and robotic compounding systems.
METHODS
Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library on 16 November 2017 to identify publications investigating chemotherapy compounding workflow software solutions used in a hospital pharmacy for the preparation of chemotherapy.
RESULTS
5175 publications were screened by title and abstract and 18 of 72 full publications screened were included. Grey literature searching identified an additional seven publications. The SR identified 25 publications relating to commercial technologies for compounding (Robotic compounding systems: APOTECAchemo (n=12), CytoCare (n=5) and RIVA (n=1); Workflow software: Cato (n=6) and Diana (n=1)). The studies demonstrate that compounding technologies improved accuracy in dose preparations and reduced dose errors compared with manual compounding. Comparable levels of contamination were reported for technologies compared with manual compounding. The compounding technologies were associated with reductions in annual costs compared with manual compounding, but the impact on compounding times was not consistent and was dependent on the type of compounding technology.
CONCLUSIONS
The published evidence suggests that the implementation of chemotherapy compounding automation solutions may reduce compounding errors and reduce costs; however, this is highly variable depending on the form of automation. In addition, the available evidence is heterogeneous, sparse and inconsistently reported. A key finding from the current SR is a 'call to action' to encourage pharmacists to publish data following implementation of chemotherapy compounding technologies in their hospital, which would allow for evidence-based recommendations on the benefits of chemotherapy compounding technologies.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Drug Compounding; Humans; Pharmacists; Pharmacy Service, Hospital; Technology, Pharmaceutical; Workflow
PubMed: 33097615
DOI: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2019-001948 -
Environmental Research Nov 2022Biochar is the solid material produced from the carbonization of organic feedstock biomass. This material has several unique characteristics such as greater carbon...
Biochar is the solid material produced from the carbonization of organic feedstock biomass. This material has several unique characteristics such as greater carbon content, good electrical conductivity, high stability and large surface area, which can be applied in several research areas such as generation of power and wastewater treatment. In connection with this, recently, the investigations on biochar significantly focus on the removal of toxic heavy metals since the biochar material is easily available and environmentally friendly. According to an environmental analytical device, biochar-derived carbonaceous material has been additionally applied to the synthesis of an effective, sensitive, and low-cost electrochemical sensor. Biochar with an assessment of electrochemical properties has engaged with different redox reactions in water. In this survey, electrochemical ways of behaving of biochar in light of the electrochemical structures were analytically compiled as well as the impact from biomass sources and manufacturing process including carbonization strategies, pre-treatment/changed techniques. This review emphasizes the various synthesis methods of biochar form organic feedstock, properties and different modulations of biochar for the bioremediation of heavy metals. This review study emphasizes the utilization of biochar as sensing platform and supercapacitor for electrode fabrication in electrochemical biosensor to enhance the remediation of toxic contaminants from water streams and by switching the less ecological traditional materials. Brief information on the techniques employed for packaging biochar as carbon electrode is summarized. Scope in the aspect of environmental concern of biochar, future challenges and prospects are proposed in detail.
Topics: Biodegradation, Environmental; Charcoal; Metals, Heavy; Water
PubMed: 35835170
DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.113857 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Adhesions are fibrin bands that are a common consequence of gynaecological surgery. They are caused by conditions that include pelvic inflammatory disease and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Adhesions are fibrin bands that are a common consequence of gynaecological surgery. They are caused by conditions that include pelvic inflammatory disease and endometriosis. Adhesions are associated with comorbidities, including pelvic pain, subfertility, and small bowel obstruction. Adhesions also increase the likelihood of further surgery, causing distress and unnecessary expenses. Strategies to prevent adhesion formation include the use of fluid (also called hydroflotation) and gel agents, which aim to prevent healing tissues from touching one another, or drugs, aimed to change an aspect of the healing process, to make adhesions less likely to form.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of fluid and pharmacological agents on rates of pain, live births, and adhesion prevention in women undergoing gynaecological surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Epistemonikos to 22 August 2019. We also checked the reference lists of relevant papers and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials investigating the use of fluid (including gel) and pharmacological agents to prevent adhesions after gynaecological surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE methods. Outcomes of interest were pelvic pain; live birth rates; incidence of, mean, and changes in adhesion scores at second look-laparoscopy (SLL); clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and ectopic pregnancy rates; quality of life at SLL; and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 32 trials (3492 women), and excluded 11. We were unable to include data from nine studies in the statistical analyses, but the findings of these studies were broadly in keeping with the findings of the meta-analyses. Hydroflotation agents versus no hydroflotation agents (10 RCTs) We are uncertain whether hydroflotation agents affected pelvic pain (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 2.09; one study, 226 women; very low-quality evidence). It is unclear whether hydroflotation agents affected live birth rates (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.58; two studies, 208 women; low-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. Hydroflotation agents reduced the incidence of adhesions at SLL when compared with no treatment (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.55, four studies, 566 women; high-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that in women with an 84% chance of having adhesions at SLL with no treatment, using hydroflotation agents would result in 54% to 75% having adhesions. Hydroflotation agents probably made little or no difference to mean adhesion score at SLL (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.09; four studies, 722 women; moderate-quality evidence). It is unclear whether hydroflotation agents affected clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.14; three studies, 310 women; moderate-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. This suggests that in women with a 26% chance of clinical pregnancy with no treatment, using hydroflotation agents would result in a clinical pregnancy rate of 11% to 28%. No studies reported any adverse events attributable to the intervention. Gel agents versus no treatment (12 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain or live birth rate. Gel agents reduced the incidence of adhesions at SLL compared with no treatment (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.57; five studies, 147 women; high-quality evidence). This suggests that in women with an 84% chance of having adhesions at SLL with no treatment, the use of gel agents would result in 39% to 75% having adhesions. It is unclear whether gel agents affected mean adhesion scores at SLL (SMD -0.50, 95% CI -1.09 to 0.09; four studies, 159 women; moderate-quality evidence), or clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.02; one study, 30 women; low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention. Gel agents versus hydroflotation agents when used as an instillant (3 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain, live birth rate or clinical pregnancy rate. Gel agents probably reduce the incidence of adhesions at SLL when compared with hydroflotation agents (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.83; three studies, 538 women; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that in women with a 46% chance of having adhesions at SLL with a hydroflotation agent, the use of gel agents would result in 21% to 41% having adhesions. We are uncertain whether gel agents improved mean adhesion scores at SLL when compared with hydroflotation agents (MD -0.79, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.76; one study, 77 women; very low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention. Steroids (any route) versus no steroids (4 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain, incidence of adhesions at SLL or mean adhesion score at SLL. It is unclear whether steroids affected live birth rates compared with no steroids (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.62; two studies, 223 women; low-quality evidence), or clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.55; three studies, 410 women; low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Gels and hydroflotation agents appear to be effective adhesion prevention agents for use during gynaecological surgery, but we found no evidence indicating that they improve fertility outcomes or pelvic pain, and further research is required in this area. It is also worth noting that for some comparisons, wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect meant that clinical harm as a result of interventions could not be excluded. Future studies should measure outcomes in a uniform manner, using the modified American Fertility Society score. Statistical findings should be reported in full. No studies reported any adverse events attributable to intervention.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Birth Rate; Dialysis Solutions; Female; Gels; Glucocorticoids; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures; Humans; Icodextrin; Infertility, Female; Pelvic Pain; Plasma Substitutes; Postoperative Complications; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rehydration Solutions; Second-Look Surgery; Tissue Adhesions
PubMed: 32683695
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001298.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Progressive lung damage causes most deaths in cystic fibrosis. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (such as ibuprofen) may prevent progressive pulmonary deterioration...
BACKGROUND
Progressive lung damage causes most deaths in cystic fibrosis. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (such as ibuprofen) may prevent progressive pulmonary deterioration and morbidity in cystic fibrosis. This is an update of a previously published review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of treatment with oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in cystic fibrosis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, hand searches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We contacted manufacturers of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and searched online trials registries.Latest search of the Group's Trials Register: 21 November 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials comparing oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, at any dose for at least two months, to placebo in people with cystic fibrosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trials for inclusion the review and their potential risk of bias. Two authors independently rated the quality of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE guidelines.
MAIN RESULTS
The searches identified 17 trials; four are included (287 participants aged five to 39 years; maximum follow-up of four years) and one is currently awaiting classification pending publication of the full trial report and two are ongoing. Three trials compared ibuprofen to placebo (two from the same center with some of the same participants); one trial assessed piroxicam versus placebo.The three ibuprofen trials were deemed to have good or adequate methodological quality, but used various outcomes and summary measures. Reviewers considered measures of lung function, nutritional status, radiological assessment of pulmonary involvement, intravenous antibiotic usage, hospital admissions, survival and adverse effects. Combined data from the two largest ibuprofen trials showed a lower annual rate of decline for lung function, % predicted forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV), mean difference (MD) 1.32 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 2.42) (moderate-quality evidence); forced vital capacity (FVC), MD 1.27 (95% CI 0.26 to 2.28) (moderate-quality evidence); forced expiratory flow (FEF), MD 1.80 (95% CI 0.15 to 3.45). The post hoc analysis of data from two trials split by age showed a slower rate of annual decline of FEV % predicted and FVC in the ibuprofen group in younger children, MD 1.41% (95% CI 0.03 to 2.80) (moderate-quality evidence) and MD 1.32% (95% CI 0.04 to 2.60) (moderate-quality evidence) respectively. Data from four trials demonstrated the proportion of participants with at least one hospitalization may be slightly lower in the ibuprofen group compared to placebo, Peto odds ratio 0.61 (95% CI 0.37 to 1.01) (moderate-quality evidence). In one trial, long-term use of high-dose ibuprofen was associated with reduced intravenous antibiotic usage, improved nutritional and radiological pulmonary status. No major adverse effects were reported, but the power of the trials to identify clinically important differences in the incidence of adverse effects was low.We did not have any concerns with regards to risk of bias for the trial comparing piroxicam to placebo. However, the trial did not report many data in a form that we could analyze in this review. No data were available for the review's primary outcome of lung function; available data for hospital admissions showed no difference between the groups. No analyzable data were available for any other review outcome.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
High-dose ibuprofen can slow the progression of lung disease in people with cystic fibrosis, especially in children, which suggests that strategies to modulate lung inflammation can be beneficial for people with cystic fibrosis.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Child; Cystic Fibrosis; Female; Humans; Ibuprofen; Male; Piroxicam; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 31499593
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001505.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Pyrethroid long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) have been important in the large reductions in malaria cases in Africa, but insecticide resistance in Anopheles... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pyrethroid long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) have been important in the large reductions in malaria cases in Africa, but insecticide resistance in Anopheles mosquitoes threatens their impact. Insecticide synergists may help control insecticide-resistant populations. Piperonyl butoxide (PBO) is such a synergist; it has been incorporated into pyrethroid-LLINs to form pyrethroid-PBO nets, which are currently produced by five LLIN manufacturers and, following a recommendation from the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2017, are being included in distribution campaigns. This review examines epidemiological and entomological evidence on the addition of PBO to pyrethroid nets on their efficacy.
OBJECTIVES
To compare effects of pyrethroid-PBO nets currently in commercial development or on the market with effects of their non-PBO equivalent in relation to: 1. malaria parasite infection (prevalence or incidence); and 2. entomological outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group (CIDG) Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CAB Abstracts, and two clinical trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) up to 25 September 2020. We contacted organizations for unpublished data. We checked the reference lists of trials identified by these methods.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included experimental hut trials, village trials, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with mosquitoes from the Anopheles gambiae complex or the Anopheles funestus group.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed each trial for eligibility, extracted data, and determined the risk of bias for included trials. We resolved disagreements through discussion with a third review author. We analysed data using Review Manager 5 and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Sixteen trials met the inclusion criteria: 10 experimental hut trials, four village trials, and two cluster-RCTs (cRCTs). Three trials are awaiting classification, and four trials are ongoing. Two cRCTs examined the effects of pyrethroid-PBO nets on parasite prevalence in people living in areas with highly pyrethroid-resistant mosquitoes (< 30% mosquito mortality in discriminating dose assays). At 21 to 25 months post intervention, parasite prevalence was lower in the intervention arm (odds ratio (OR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 0.95; 2 trials, 2 comparisons; moderate-certainty evidence). In highly pyrethroid-resistant areas, unwashed pyrethroid-PBO nets led to higher mosquito mortality compared to unwashed standard-LLINs (risk ratio (RR) 1.84, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.11; 14,620 mosquitoes, 5 trials, 9 comparisons; high-certainty evidence) and lower blood feeding success (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.71; 14,000 mosquitoes, 4 trials, 8 comparisons; high-certainty evidence). However, in comparisons of washed pyrethroid-PBO nets to washed LLINs, we do not know if PBO nets had a greater effect on mosquito mortality (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.63; 10,268 mosquitoes, 4 trials, 5 comparisons; very low-certainty evidence), although the washed pyrethroid-PBO nets did decrease blood-feeding success compared to standard-LLINs (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.92; 9674 mosquitoes, 3 trials, 4 comparisons; high-certainty evidence). In areas where pyrethroid resistance is moderate (31% to 60% mosquito mortality), mosquito mortality was higher with unwashed pyrethroid-PBO nets compared to unwashed standard-LLINs (RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.11; 751 mosquitoes, 2 trials, 3 comparisons; moderate-certainty evidence), but there was little to no difference in effects on blood-feeding success (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.11; 652 mosquitoes, 2 trials, 3 comparisons; moderate-certainty evidence). For washed pyrethroid-PBO nets compared to washed standard-LLINs, we found little to no evidence for higher mosquito mortality or reduced blood feeding (mortality: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.54; 329 mosquitoes, 1 trial, 1 comparison, low-certainty evidence; blood feeding success: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.13; 329 mosquitoes, 1 trial, 1 comparison; low-certainty evidence). In areas where pyrethroid resistance is low (61% to 90% mosquito mortality), studies reported little to no difference in the effects of unwashed pyrethroid-PBO nets compared to unwashed standard-LLINs on mosquito mortality (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.57; 948 mosquitoes, 2 trials, 3 comparisons; moderate-certainty evidence), and we do not know if there was any effect on blood-feeding success (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.11; 948 mosquitoes, 2 trials, 3 comparisons; very low-certainty evidence). For washed pyrethroid-PBO nets compared to washed standard-LLINs, we do not know if there was any difference in mosquito mortality (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.04; 1022 mosquitoes, 2 trials, 3 comparisons; very low-certainty evidence) or on blood feeding (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.33; 1022 mosquitoes, 2 trials, 3 comparisons; low-certainty evidence). In areas where mosquito populations are susceptible to insecticides (> 90% mosquito mortality), there may be little to no difference in the effects of unwashed pyrethroid-PBO nets compared to unwashed standard-LLINs on mosquito mortality (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.26; 2791 mosquitoes, 2 trials, 2 comparisons; low-certainty evidence). This is similar for washed nets (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.25; 2644 mosquitoes, 2 trials, 2 comparisons; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if unwashed pyrethroid-PBO nets had any effect on the blood-feeding success of susceptible mosquitoes (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.22; 2791 mosquitoes, 2 trials, 2 comparisons; very low-certainty evidence). The same applies to washed nets (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.91; 2644 mosquitoes, 2 trials, 2 comparisons; low-certainty evidence). In village trials comparing pyrethroid-PBO nets to LLINs, there was no difference in sporozoite rate (4 trials, 5 comparisons) nor in mosquito parity (3 trials, 4 comparisons).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In areas of high insecticide resistance, pyrethroid-PBO nets have greater entomological and epidemiological efficacy compared to standard LLINs, with sustained reduction in parasite prevalence, higher mosquito mortality and reduction in mosquito blood feeding rates 21 to 25 months post intervention. Questions remain about the durability of PBO on nets, as the impact of pyrethroid-PBO nets on mosquito mortality was not sustained over 20 washes in experimental hut trials, and epidemiological data on pyrethroid-PBO nets for the full intended three-year life span of the nets is not available. Little evidence is available to support greater entomological efficacy of pyrethroid-PBO nets in areas where mosquitoes show lower levels of resistance to pyrethroids.
Topics: Africa; Animals; Culicidae; Drug Combinations; Feeding Behavior; Humans; Insecticide Resistance; Insecticide-Treated Bednets; Malaria; Mortality; Mosquito Control; Pesticide Synergists; Piperonyl Butoxide; Pyrethrins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34027998
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012776.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020The risk of venous thromboembolism is increased in adults and enhanced by asparaginase-based chemotherapy, and venous thromboembolism introduces a secondary risk of...
BACKGROUND
The risk of venous thromboembolism is increased in adults and enhanced by asparaginase-based chemotherapy, and venous thromboembolism introduces a secondary risk of treatment delay and premature discontinuation of key anti-leukaemic agents, potentially compromising survival. Yet, the trade-off between benefits and harms of primary thromboprophylaxis in adults with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) treated according to asparaginase-based regimens is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives were to assess the benefits and harms of primary thromboprophylaxis for first-time symptomatic venous thromboembolism in adults with ALL receiving asparaginase-based therapy compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis. The secondary objectives were to compare the benefits and harms of different groups of primary systemic thromboprophylaxis by stratifying the main results per type of drug (heparins, vitamin K antagonists, synthetic pentasaccharides, parenteral direct thrombin inhibitors, direct oral anticoagulants, and blood-derived products for antithrombin substitution).
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive literature search on 02 June 2020, with no language restrictions, including (1) electronic searches of Pubmed/MEDLINE; Embase/Ovid; Scopus/Elsevier; Web of Science Core Collection/Clarivate Analytics; and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and (2) handsearches of (i) reference lists of identified studies and related reviews; (ii) clinical trials registries (ClinicalTrials.gov registry; the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry; the World Health Organisation's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP); and pharmaceutical manufacturers of asparaginase including Servier, Takeda, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Ohara Pharmaceuticals, and Kyowa Pharmaceuticals), and (iii) conference proceedings (from the annual meetings of the American Society of Hematology (ASH); the European Haematology Association (EHA); the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO); and the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH)). We conducted all searches from 1970 (the time of introduction of asparaginase in ALL treatment). We contacted the authors of relevant studies to identify any unpublished material, missing data, or information regarding ongoing studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs); including quasi-randomised, controlled clinical, cross-over, and cluster-randomised trial designs) comparing any parenteral/oral preemptive anticoagulant or mechanical intervention with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis, or comparing two different pre-emptive anticoagulant interventions in adults aged at least 18 years with ALL treated according to asparaginase-based chemotherapy regimens. For the description of harms, non-randomised observational studies with a control group were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using a standardised data collection form, two review authors independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias for each outcome using standardised tools (RoB 2.0 tool for RCTs and ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised studies) and the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. Primary outcomes included first-time symptomatic venous thromboembolism, all-cause mortality, and major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included asymptomatic venous thromboembolism, venous thromboembolism-related mortality, adverse events (i.e. clinically relevant non-major bleeding and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia for trials using heparins), and quality of life. Analyses were performed according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. For non-randomised studies, we evaluated all studies (including studies judged to be at critical risk of bias in at least one of the ROBINS-I domains) in a sensitivity analysis exploring confounding. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 23 non-randomised studies that met the inclusion criteria of this review, of which 10 studies provided no outcome data for adults with ALL. We included the remaining 13 studies in the 'Risk of bias' assessment, in which we identified invalid control group definition in two studies and judged outcomes of nine studies to be at critical risk of bias in at least one of the ROBINS-I domains and outcomes of two studies at serious risk of bias. We did not assess the benefits of thromboprophylaxis, as no RCTs were included. In the main descriptive analysis of harms, we included two retrospective non-randomised studies with outcomes judged to be at serious risk of bias. One study evaluated antithrombin concentrates compared to no antithrombin concentrates. We are uncertain whether antithrombin concentrates have an effect on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.19 (intention-to-treat analysis); one study, 40 participants; very low certainty of evidence). We are uncertain whether antithrombin concentrates have an effect on venous thromboembolism-related mortality (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.94 (intention-to-treat analysis); one study, 40 participants; very low certainty of evidence). We do not know whether antithrombin concentrates have an effect on major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, and quality of life in adults with ALL treated with asparaginase-based chemotherapy, as data were insufficient. The remaining study (224 participants) evaluated prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin versus no prophylaxis. However, this study reported insufficient data regarding harms including all-cause mortality, major bleeding, venous thromboembolism-related mortality, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, and quality of life. In the sensitivity analysis of harms, exploring the effect of confounding, we also included nine non-randomised studies with outcomes judged to be at critical risk of bias primarily due to uncontrolled confounding. Three studies (179 participants) evaluated the effect of antithrombin concentrates and six studies (1224 participants) evaluated the effect of prophylaxis with different types of heparins. When analysing all-cause mortality; venous thromboembolism-related mortality; and major bleeding (studies of heparin only) including all studies with extractable outcomes for each comparison (antithrombin and low-molecular-weight heparin), we observed small study sizes; few events; wide CIs crossing the line of no effect; and substantial heterogeneity by visual inspection of the forest plots. Although the observed heterogeneity could arise through the inclusion of a small number of studies with differences in participants; interventions; and outcome assessments, the likelihood that bias due to uncontrolled confounding was the cause of heterogeneity is inevitable. Subgroup analyses were not possible due to insufficient data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We do not know from the currently available evidence, if thromboprophylaxis used for adults with ALL treated according to asparaginase-based regimens is associated with clinically appreciable benefits and acceptable harms. The existing research on this question is solely of non-randomised design, seriously to critically confounded, and underpowered with substantial imprecision. Any estimates of effect based on the existing insufficient evidence is very uncertain and is likely to change with future research.
Topics: Adult; Anticoagulants; Antineoplastic Agents; Antithrombins; Asparaginase; Bias; Cause of Death; Humans; Placebos; Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 33038027
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013399.pub2 -
Trials Aug 2020Primary objective: To estimate the effect of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo on mortality up to 28 days after randomization. Secondary objectives: To... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective: To estimate the effect of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo on mortality up to 28 days after randomization. Secondary objectives: To examine whether the effect of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo on mortality up to 28 days after randomization varies between subgroups related to treatment characteristics, disease severity at the time of randomization, patient characteristics, or risk of bias. To examine the effect of corticosteroids compared with usual care or placebo on serious adverse events.
STUDY DESIGN
Prospective meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Both placebo-controlled and open-label trials are eligible.
PARTICIPANTS
Hospitalised, critically ill patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.
INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR
Intervention groups will have received therapeutic doses of a steroid (dexamethasone, hydrocortisone or methylprednisolone) with IV or oral administration immediately after randomization. The comparator groups will have received standard of care or usual care or placebo.
MAIN OUTCOME
All-cause mortality up to 28 days after randomization.
SEARCH METHODS
Systematic searching of clinicaltrials.gov , EudraCT, the WHO ISRCTN registry, and the Chinese clinical trials registry. Additionally, research and WHO networks will be asked for relevant trials.
RISK OF BIAS ASSESSMENTS
These will be based on the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and will use structured information provided by the trial investigators on a form designed for this prospective meta-analysis. We will use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.
STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Trial investigators will provide data on the numbers of participants who did and did not experience each outcome according to intervention group, overall and in specified subgroups. We will conduct fixed-effect (primary analysis) and random-effects (Paule-Mandel estimate of heterogeneity and Hartung-Knapp adjustment) meta-analyses. We will quantify inconsistency in effects between trials using I statistics. Evidence for subgroup effects will be quantified by ratios of odds ratios comparing effects in the subgroups, and corresponding interaction p-values. Comparisons between subgroups defined by trial characteristics will be made using random-effects meta-regression. Comparisons between subgroups defined by patient characteristics will be made by estimating trial-specific ratios of odds ratios comparing intervention effects between subgroups then combining these using random-effects meta-analysis. Steroid interventions will be classified as high or low dose according to whether the dose is greater or less than or equal to 400 mg hydrocortisone per day or equivalent. We will use network meta-analysis methods to make comparisons between the effects of high and low dose steroid interventions (because one trial randomized participants to both low and high dose steroid arms).
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42020197242 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol for this prospective meta-analysis is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). To expedite dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol for the systematic review.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Coronavirus Infections; Critical Illness; Dexamethasone; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Hydrocortisone; Methylprednisolone; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 32831155
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-020-04641-3 -
Journal of Thoracic Disease Jan 2022Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has become a worldwide public health problem. Abuse of antibiotic in acute respiratory tract infections (ARI) contributes to the...
BACKGROUND
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has become a worldwide public health problem. Abuse of antibiotic in acute respiratory tract infections (ARI) contributes to the increasing AMR. C-reactive protein (CRP) testing may help reduce antibiotic overprescribing, but the available evidence quality varies widely. There is no meta-analysis of CRP testing to guide the antibiotic prescribing for adult ARI. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of CRP testing to guide antibiotic prescribing in adult ARI.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving our meta-analysis from the establishment of these databases until January 16, 2021. Two reviewers extracted the data separately and pooled the data using RevMan5.3. The evidence quality was appraised strictly with GRADE system.
RESULTS
Seven studies included with 3,614 patients. Compared with routine care, CRP testing reduced antibiotic prescribing rate at the index consultation significantly [risk ratio (RR) =0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68-0.85; P<0.00001], and during 28 days follow-up (RR =0.77; 95% CI: 0.73-0.81; P<0.00001). There were no significant differences between CRP testing and routine care in clinical recovery of patients within 7 days (RR =0.95; 95% CI: 0.90-1.01; P=0.08). Moreover, adverse events were not significantly different between CRP testing and routine care.
DISCUSSION
CRP testing can reduce the antibiotic prescribing rate at index consultation and during 28 days follow-up. These findings support the conclusion that CRP testing is valuable to guide the antibiotic prescribing for adult ARI.
PubMed: 35242374
DOI: 10.21037/jtd-21-705 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2024Persistent visceral pain is an unpleasant sensation coming from one or more organs within the body. Visceral pain is a common symptom in those with advanced cancer.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Persistent visceral pain is an unpleasant sensation coming from one or more organs within the body. Visceral pain is a common symptom in those with advanced cancer. Interventional procedures, such as neurolytic sympathetic nerve blocks, have been suggested as additional treatments that may play a part in optimising pain management for individuals with this condition.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of neurolytic sympathetic nerve blocks for persistent visceral pain in adults with inoperable abdominopelvic cancer compared to standard care or placebo and comparing single blocks to combination blocks.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases without language restrictions on 19 October 2022 and ran a top-up search on 31 October 2023: CENTRAL; MEDLINE via Ovid; Embase via Ovid; LILACS. We searched trial registers without language restrictions on 2 November 2022: ClinicalTrials.gov; WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We searched grey literature, checked reference lists of reviews and retrieved articles for additional studies, and performed citation searches on key articles. We also contacted experts in the field for unpublished and ongoing trials. Our trial protocol was preregistered in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on 21 October 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any sympathetic nerve block targeting sites commonly used to treat abdominal pelvic pain from inoperable malignancies in adults to standard care or placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently selected trials based on predefined inclusion criteria, resolving any differences via adjudication with a third review author. We used a random-effects model as some heterogeneity was expected between the studies due to differences in the interventions being assessed and malignancy types included in the study population. We chose three primary outcomes and four secondary outcomes of interest. We sought consumer input to refine our review outcomes and assessed extracted data using Cochrane's risk of bias 2 tool (RoB 2). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE system.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 studies with 1025 participants in this review. Fifteen studies with a total of 951 participants contributed to the quantitative analysis. Single block versus standard care Primary outcomes No included studies reported our primary outcome, 'Proportion of participants reporting no worse than mild pain after treatment at 14 days'. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sympathetic nerve blocks on reducing pain to no worse than mild pain at 14 days when compared to standard care due to insufficient data (very low-certainty evidence). Sympathetic nerve blocks may provide small to 'little to no' improvement in quality of life (QOL) scores at 14 days after treatment when compared to standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.70 to 0.25; I² = 87%; 4 studies, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the risk of serious adverse events as defined in our review as only one study contributed data to this outcome. Sympathetic nerve blocks may have an 'increased risk' to 'no additional risk' of harm compared with standard care (very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes Sympathetic nerve blocks showed a small to 'little to no' effect on participant-reported pain scores at 14 days using a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain compared with standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) -0.44, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.11; I² = 56%; 5 studies, 214 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be a 'moderate to large' to 'little to no' reduction in daily consumption of opioids postprocedure at 14 days with sympathetic nerve blocks compared with standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (change in daily consumption of opioids at 14 days as oral milligrams morphine equivalent (MME): MD -41.63 mg, 95% CI -78.54 mg to -4.72 mg; I² = 90%; 4 studies, 130 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sympathetic nerve blocks on participant satisfaction with procedure at 0 to 7 days and time to need for retreatment or treatment effect failure (or both) due to insufficient data. Combination block versus single block Primary outcomes There is no evidence about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks on the proportion of participants reporting no worse than mild pain after treatment at 14 days because no studies reported this outcome. There may be a small to 'little to no' effect on QOL score at 14 days after treatment, but the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the risk of serious adverse events with combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks due to limited reporting in the included studies (very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks on participant-reported pain score and change in daily consumption of opioids postprocedure, at 14 days. There may be a small to 'little to no' effect, but the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). There is no evidence about the effect on participant satisfaction with procedure at 0 to 7 days and time to need for retreatment or treatment effect failure (or both) due to these outcomes not being measured by the studies. Risk of bias The risk of bias was predominately high for most outcomes in most studies due to significant concerns regarding adequate blinding. Very few studies were deemed as low risk across all domains for any outcome.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited evidence to support or refute the use of sympathetic nerve blocks for persistent abdominopelvic pain due to inoperable malignancy. We are very uncertain about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks. The certainty of the evidence is very low and these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Topics: Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Autonomic Nerve Block; Adult; Bias; Pelvic Neoplasms; Abdominal Neoplasms; Cancer Pain; Abdominal Pain; Pain Management; Nerve Block; Quality of Life
PubMed: 38842054
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015229.pub2 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... May 2020The safety profile of antimicrobials used during pregnancy is one important consideration in the decision on how to treat and provide postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) for...
BACKGROUND
The safety profile of antimicrobials used during pregnancy is one important consideration in the decision on how to treat and provide postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) for plague during pregnancy.
METHODS
We searched 5 scientific literature databases for primary sources on the safety of 9 antimicrobials considered for plague during pregnancy (amikacin, gentamicin, plazomicin, streptomycin, tobramycin, chloramphenicol, doxycycline, sulfadiazine, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole [TMP-SMX]) and abstracted data on maternal, pregnancy, and fetal/neonatal outcomes.
RESULTS
Of 13 052 articles identified, 66 studies (case-control, case series, cohort, and randomized studies) and 96 case reports were included, totaling 27 751 prenatal exposures to amikacin (n = 9), gentamicin (n = 345), plazomicin (n = 0), streptomycin (n = 285), tobramycin (n = 43), chloramphenicol (n = 246), doxycycline (n = 2351), sulfadiazine (n = 870), and TMP-SMX (n = 23 602). Hearing or vestibular deficits were reported in 18/121 (15%) children and 17/109 (16%) pregnant women following prenatal streptomycin exposure. First trimester chloramphenicol exposure was associated with an elevated risk of an undescended testis (odds ratio [OR] 5.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-28.7). Doxycycline was associated with cardiovascular malformations (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.2-4.7) in 1 study and spontaneous abortion (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.9-4.1) in a separate study. First trimester exposure to TMP-SMX was associated with increased risk of neural tube defects (pooled OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.4-4.3), spontaneous abortion (OR 3.5, 95% CI 2.3-5.6), preterm birth (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.1), and small for gestational age (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.2). No other statistically significant associations were reported.
CONCLUSIONS
For most antimicrobials reviewed, adverse maternal/fetal/neonatal outcomes were not observed consistently. Prenatal exposure to streptomycin and TMP-SMX was associated with select birth defects in some studies. Based on limited data, chloramphenicol and doxycycline may be associated with adverse pregnancy or neonatal outcomes; however, more data are needed to confirm these associations. Antimicrobials should be used for treatment and PEP of plague during pregnancy; the choice of antimicrobials may be influenced by these data as well as information about the risks of plague during pregnancy.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Anti-Infective Agents; Child; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Male; Plague; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination
PubMed: 32435799
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciz1231