-
Journal of Pediatric Surgery Mar 2021The goal of this systematic review by the American Pediatric Surgical Association Outcomes and Evidence-Based Practice Committee was to develop recommendations for the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The goal of this systematic review by the American Pediatric Surgical Association Outcomes and Evidence-Based Practice Committee was to develop recommendations for the management of ileocolic intussusception in children.
METHODS
The ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, PubMed, and Scopus databases were queried for literature from January 1988 through December 2018. Search terms were designed to address the following topics in intussusception: prophylactic antibiotic use, repeated enema reductions, outpatient management, and use of minimally invasive techniques for children with intussusception. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Consensus recommendations were derived based on the best available evidence.
RESULTS
A total of 83 articles were analyzed and included for review. Prophylactic antibiotic use does not decrease complications after radiologic reduction. Repeated enema reductions may be attempted when clinically appropriate. Patients can be safely observed in the emergency department following enema reduction of ileocolic intussusception, avoiding hospital admission. Laparoscopic reduction is often successful.
CONCLUSIONS
Regarding intussusception in hemodynamically stable children without critical illness, pre-reduction antibiotics are unnecessary, non-operative outpatient management should be maximized, and minimally invasive techniques may be used to avoid laparotomy.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level 3-5 (mainly level 3-4) TYPE OF STUDY: Systematic Review of level 1-4 studies.
Topics: Child; Emergency Service, Hospital; Enema; Hospitalization; Humans; Infant; Intussusception; Laparotomy; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 33158508
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2020.09.055 -
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official... Feb 2020To provide updated recommendations about prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer.
PURPOSE
To provide updated recommendations about prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer.
METHODS
PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs published from August 1, 2014, through December 4, 2018. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and revise previous recommendations as needed.
RESULTS
The systematic review included 35 publications on VTE prophylaxis and treatment and 18 publications on VTE risk assessment. Two RCTs of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of VTE in patients with cancer reported that edoxaban and rivaroxaban are effective but are linked with a higher risk of bleeding compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in patients with GI and potentially genitourinary cancers. Two additional RCTs reported on DOACs for thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer at increased risk of VTE.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Changes to previous recommendations: Clinicians may offer thromboprophylaxis with apixaban, rivaroxaban, or LMWH to selected high-risk outpatients with cancer; rivaroxaban and edoxaban have been added as options for VTE treatment; patients with brain metastases are now addressed in the VTE treatment section; and the recommendation regarding long-term postoperative LMWH has been expanded. Re-affirmed recommendations: Most hospitalized patients with cancer and an acute medical condition require thromboprophylaxis throughout hospitalization. Thromboprophylaxis is not routinely recommended for all outpatients with cancer. Patients undergoing major cancer surgery should receive prophylaxis starting before surgery and continuing for at least 7 to 10 days. Patients with cancer should be periodically assessed for VTE risk, and oncology professionals should provide patient education about the signs and symptoms of VTE.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Humans; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 31381464
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.19.01461 -
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection... 2020Antibiotics are the most common medicines prescribed to children in hospitals and the community, with a high proportion of potentially inappropriate use. Antibiotic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Antibiotics are the most common medicines prescribed to children in hospitals and the community, with a high proportion of potentially inappropriate use. Antibiotic misuse increases the risk of toxicity, raises healthcare costs, and selection of resistance. The primary aim of this systematic review is to summarize the current state of evidence of the implementation and outcomes of pediatric antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) globally.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify studies reporting on ASP in children aged 0-18 years and conducted in outpatient or in-hospital settings. Three investigators independently reviewed identified articles for inclusion and extracted relevant data.
RESULTS
Of the 41,916 studies screened, 113 were eligible for inclusion in this study. Most of the studies originated in the USA (52.2%), while a minority were conducted in Europe (24.7%) or Asia (17.7%). Seventy-four (65.5%) studies used a before-and-after design, and sixteen (14.1%) were randomized trials. The majority (81.4%) described in-hospital ASPs with half of interventions in mixed pediatric wards and ten (8.8%) in emergency departments. Only sixteen (14.1%) studies focused on the costs of ASPs. Almost all the studies (79.6%) showed a significant reduction in inappropriate prescriptions. Compliance after ASP implementation increased. Sixteen of the included studies quantified cost savings related to the intervention with most of the decreases due to lower rates of drug administration. Seven studies showed an increased susceptibility of the bacteria analysed with a decrease in extended spectrum beta-lactamase producers and a reduction in the rate of carbapenem resistance subsequent to an observed reduction in the rate of antimicrobial days of therapy; and, in two studies set in outpatient setting, an increase in erythromycin-sensitive following a reduction in the use of macrolides.
CONCLUSIONS
Pediatric ASPs have a significant impact on the reduction of targeted and empiric antibiotic use, healthcare costs, and antimicrobial resistance in both inpatient and outpatient settings. Pediatric ASPs are now widely implemented in the USA, but considerable further adaptation is required to facilitate their uptake in Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antimicrobial Stewardship; Asia; Bacteria; Bacterial Infections; Child; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Europe; Global Health; Humans; Inappropriate Prescribing; Pediatrics; Prescription Drug Misuse; United States
PubMed: 31911831
DOI: 10.1186/s13756-019-0659-3 -
JAMA Internal Medicine Jan 2024Despite widespread use, summary evidence from prior meta-analyses has contradictory conclusions regarding whether oseltamivir decreases the risk of hospitalization when... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Despite widespread use, summary evidence from prior meta-analyses has contradictory conclusions regarding whether oseltamivir decreases the risk of hospitalization when given to outpatients. Several large investigator-initiated randomized clinical trials have not yet been meta-analyzed.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy and safety of oseltamivir in preventing hospitalization among influenza-infected adult and adolescent outpatients.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Europe PubMed Central, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry were searched from inception to January 4, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Included studies were randomized clinical trials comparing oseltamivir vs placebo or nonactive controls in outpatients with confirmed influenza infection.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines were followed. Two independent reviewers (R.H. and É.B.C.) extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. Each effect size was pooled using a restricted maximum likelihood random effects model. The quality of evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) framework.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Hospitalization was pooled as risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) estimates with 95% CIs.
RESULTS
Of 2352 studies identified, 15 were included. The intention-to-treat infected (ITTi) population was comprised of 6166 individuals with 54.7% prescribed oseltamivir. Across study populations, 53.9% (5610 of 10 471) were female and the mean age was 45.3 (14.5) years. Overall, oseltamivir was not associated with reduced risk of hospitalization within the ITTi population (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.29; RD, -0.17%; 95% CI, -0.23% to 0.48%). Oseltamivir was also not associated with reduced hospitalization in older populations (mean age ≥65 years: RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.21 to 4.90) or in patients considered at greater risk of hospitalization (RR, 0.65; 0.33 to 1.28). Within the safety population, oseltamivir was associated with increased nausea (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.82) and vomiting (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.28 to 2.63) but not serious adverse events (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.46 to1.08).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis among influenza-infected outpatients, oseltamivir was not associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization but was associated with increased gastrointestinal adverse events. To justify continued use for this purpose, an adequately powered trial in a suitably high-risk population is justified.
Topics: Adult; Adolescent; Humans; Female; Aged; Middle Aged; Male; Oseltamivir; Influenza, Human; Outpatients; Hospitalization; Europe
PubMed: 37306992
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.0699 -
JAMA Psychiatry Mar 2020Cognitive behavioral therapy is recommended for anxiety-related disorders, but evidence for its long-term outcome is limited. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Cognitive behavioral therapy is recommended for anxiety-related disorders, but evidence for its long-term outcome is limited.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the long-term outcomes after cognitive behavioral therapy (compared with care as usual, relaxation, psychoeducation, pill placebo, supportive therapy, or waiting list) for anxiety disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).
DATA SOURCES
English-language publications were identified from PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, Cochrane, OpenGrey (1980 to January 2019), and recent reviews. The search strategy included a combination of terms associated with anxiety disorders (eg, panic or phobi*) and study design (eg, clinical trial or randomized controlled trial).
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials on posttreatment and at least 1-month follow-up effects of cognitive behavioral therapy compared with control conditions among adults with generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder with or without agoraphobia, social anxiety disorder, specific phobia, PTSD, or OCD.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Researchers independently screened records, extracted statistics, and assessed study quality. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Hedges g was calculated for anxiety symptoms immediately after treatment and at 1 to 6 months, 6 to 12 months, and 12 months or more after treatment completion.
RESULTS
Of 69 randomized clinical trials (4118 outpatients) that were mainly of low quality, cognitive behavioral therapy compared with control conditions was associated with improved outcomes after treatment completion and at 1 to 6 months and at 6 to 12 months of follow-up for a generalized anxiety disorder (Hedges g, 0.07-0.40), panic disorder with or without agoraphobia (Hedges g, 0.22-0.35), social anxiety disorder (Hedges g, 0.34-0.60), specific phobia (Hedges g, 0.49-0.72), PTSD (Hedges g, 0.59-0.72), and OCD (Hedges g, 0.70-0.85). At a follow-up of 12 months or more, these associations were still significant for generalized anxiety disorder (Hedges g, 0.22; number of studies [k] = 10), social anxiety disorder (Hedges g, 0.42; k = 3), and PTSD (Hedges g, 0.84; k = 5), but not for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia (k = 5) and could not be calculated for specific phobia (k = 1) and OCD (k = 0). Relapse rates after 3 to 12 months were 0% to 14% but were reported in only 6 randomized clinical trials (predominantly for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety-related disorders is associated with improved outcomes compared with control conditions until 12 months after treatment completion. At a follow-up of 12 months or more, effects were small to medium for generalized anxiety disorder and social anxiety disorder, large for PTSD, and not significant or not available for other disorders. High-quality randomized clinical trials with 12 months or more of follow-up and reported relapse rates are needed.
Topics: Anxiety Disorders; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Humans; Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31758858
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.3986 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2022Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and HTA database weekly to identify completed and ongoing trials without language restrictions to 16 December 2021. Additionally, we included trials with > 1000 participants up to April 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms. For this review update, we reappraised eligible trials for research integrity: only RCTs prospectively registered in a trial registry according to WHO guidelines for clinical trial registration were eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for outcomes in the following settings and populations: 1) to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, 2) to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19 (outcomes: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, (serious) adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance), and 3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection (outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital, mortality, adverse events and quality of life).
MAIN RESULTS
We excluded seven of the 14 trials included in the previous review version; six were not prospectively registered and one was non-randomized. This updated review includes 11 trials with 3409 participants investigating ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo. No trial investigated ivermectin for prevention of infection or compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. Five trials treated participants with moderate COVID-19 (inpatient settings); six treated mild COVID-19 (outpatient settings). Eight trials were double-blind and placebo-controlled, and three were open-label. We assessed around 50% of the trial results as low risk of bias. We identified 31 ongoing trials. In addition, there are 28 potentially eligible trials without publication of results, or with disparities in the reporting of the methods and results, held in 'awaiting classification' until the trial authors clarify questions upon request. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate-to-severe disease We are uncertain whether ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo reduces or increases all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 3 trials, 230 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or clinical worsening, assessed by participants with new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.04; 2 trials, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or serious adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.89; 2 trials, 197 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may have little or no effect on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants discharged alive at day 28 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 trial, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.79; 3 trials, 228 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at 7 days (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.58; 3 trials, 231 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trial investigated quality of life at any time point. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.25; 6 trials, 2860 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and little or no effect on quality of life, measured with the PROMIS Global-10 scale (physical component mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.98; and mental component MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.08 to 1.08; 1358 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect on clinical worsening, assessed by admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.20 to 6.02; 2 trials, 590 participants; low-certainty evidence); on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants with all initial symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.36; 2 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence); on serious adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.62 to 8.31; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.76; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at day 7 compared to placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48; 2 trials, 331 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for meta-analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For outpatients, there is currently low- to high-certainty evidence that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19. Based on the very low-certainty evidence for inpatients, we are still uncertain whether ivermectin prevents death or clinical worsening or increases serious adverse events, while there is low-certainty evidence that it has no beneficial effect regarding clinical improvement, viral clearance and adverse events. No evidence is available on ivermectin to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this update, certainty of evidence increased through higher quality trials including more participants. According to this review's living approach, we will continually update our search.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Ivermectin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; SARS-CoV-2; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 35726131
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub3 -
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Aug 2020To provide updated and more detailed pooled intrauterine device expulsion rates and expulsion risk estimates among women with postpartum intrauterine device placement by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To provide updated and more detailed pooled intrauterine device expulsion rates and expulsion risk estimates among women with postpartum intrauterine device placement by timing of insertion, delivery type, and intrauterine device type to inform current intrauterine device insertion practices in the United States.
DATA SOURCES
We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov through June 2019.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included all studies, of any study design, that examined postpartum placement of Copper T380A (copper) or levonorgestrel-containing intrauterine devices that reported counts of expulsion.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
We evaluated intrauterine device expulsion among women receiving postpartum intrauterine devices in the "immediate" (within 10 minutes), "early inpatient" (>10 minutes to <72 hours), "early outpatient" (72 hours to <4 weeks), and interval (≥4 weeks) time periods after delivery. We assessed study quality using the US Preventive Services Task Force evidence grading system. We calculated pooled absolute rates of partial and complete intrauterine device expulsion separately and estimated adjusted relative risks by the timing of postpartum placement, delivery type, and intrauterine device type using log-binomial multivariable regression.
RESULTS
We identified 48 level I to II-3 studies of poor to good quality that reported a total of 7661 intrauterine device placements. Complete intrauterine device expulsion rates varied by timing of placement as follows: 10.2% (range, 0.0-26.7) for immediate; 13.2% (3.5-46.7) for early inpatient; 0% for early outpatient; and 1.8% (0.0-4.8) for interval placements. Complete intrauterine device expulsion rates also varied by delivery type: 14.8% (range, 4.8-43.1) for vaginal and 3.8% (0.0-21.1) for cesarean deliveries. Among immediate postpartum vaginal placements, the expulsion rate for levonorgetrel intrauterine devices was 27.4% (range, 18.8-45.2) and 12.4% (4.8-43.1) for copper intrauterine devices. Compared with interval placement, immediate and early postpartum placements (inpatient and outpatient combined) were associated with greater risk of complete expulsion (adjusted risk ratio, 8.33; 95% confidence interval, 4.32-16.08, and adjusted risk ratio, 5.27; 95% confidence interval, 2.56-10.85, respectively). Among immediate postpartum placements, risk of expulsion was greater for placement after vaginal compared with cesarean deliveries (adjusted risk ratio, 4.57; 95% confidence interval, 3.49-5.99). Among immediate placements at the time of vaginal delivery, levonorgestrel intrauterine devices were associated with a greater risk of expulsion compared with copper intrauterine devices (adjusted risk ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-2.65).
CONCLUSION
Although intrauterine device expulsion rates vary by timing of placement, type, and mode of delivery, intrauterine device insertion can take place at any time. Understanding the risk of intrauterine device expulsion at each time period will enable women to make an informed choice about when to initiate use of an intrauterine device in the postpartum period based on their own goals and preferences.
Topics: Delivery, Obstetric; Female; Humans; Intrauterine Device Expulsion; Intrauterine Devices; Postpartum Period; Pregnancy; Risk Factors; Time Factors
PubMed: 32142826
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.02.045 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Oct 2020Iridoschisis is a rare condition defined as a separation of the anterior iris stroma from the posterior stroma and muscle layers. In this paper, we review current data... (Review)
Review
Iridoschisis is a rare condition defined as a separation of the anterior iris stroma from the posterior stroma and muscle layers. In this paper, we review current data about the epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical characteristics and differential diagnoses of this condition and discuss the specificity of surgical treatment of concomitant ocular diseases in iridoschisis patients. Iridoschisis may pose a challenge for both an ophthalmologist in an outpatient setting and an ophthalmic surgeon. Glaucoma, primarily angle-closure glaucoma, is the most often described condition concomitant to iridoschisis. Other ocular abnormalities found relatively often in iridoschisis patients include cataract, lens subluxation and corneal abnormalities. Special attention has been paid to potential complications of cataract surgery and prevention thereof. Beside addressing the practical aspects, we point to discrepancies and suggest topics for further investigation.
PubMed: 33081187
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9103324 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Airway oedema (swelling) and mucus plugging are the principal pathological features in infants with acute viral bronchiolitis. Nebulised hypertonic saline solution (≥... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Airway oedema (swelling) and mucus plugging are the principal pathological features in infants with acute viral bronchiolitis. Nebulised hypertonic saline solution (≥ 3%) may reduce these pathological changes and decrease airway obstruction. This is an update of a review first published in 2008, and updated in 2010, 2013, and 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of nebulised hypertonic (≥ 3%) saline solution in infants with acute bronchiolitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, and Web of Science on 13 January 2022. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 13 January 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs using nebulised hypertonic saline alone or in conjunction with bronchodilators as an active intervention and nebulised 0.9% saline or standard treatment as a comparator in children under 24 months with acute bronchiolitis. The primary outcome for inpatient trials was length of hospital stay, and the primary outcome for outpatients or emergency department (ED) trials was rate of hospitalisation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias in included studies. We conducted random-effects model meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We used mean difference (MD), risk ratio (RR), and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) as effect size metrics.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six new trials (N = 1010) in this update, bringing the total number of included trials to 34, involving 5205 infants with acute bronchiolitis, of whom 2727 infants received hypertonic saline. Eleven trials await classification due to insufficient data for eligibility assessment. All included trials were randomised, parallel-group, controlled trials, of which 30 were double-blinded. Twelve trials were conducted in Asia, five in North America, one in South America, seven in Europe, and nine in Mediterranean and Middle East regions. The concentration of hypertonic saline was defined as 3% in all but six trials, in which 5% to 7% saline was used. Nine trials had no funding, and five trials were funded by sources from government or academic agencies. The remaining 20 trials did not provide funding sources. Hospitalised infants treated with nebulised hypertonic saline may have a shorter mean length of hospital stay compared to those treated with nebulised normal (0.9%) saline or standard care (mean difference (MD) -0.40 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.69 to -0.11; 21 trials, 2479 infants; low-certainty evidence). Infants who received hypertonic saline may also have lower postinhalation clinical scores than infants who received normal saline in the first three days of treatment (day 1: MD -0.64, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.21; 10 trials (1 outpatient, 1 ED, 8 inpatient trials), 893 infants; day 2: MD -1.07, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.53; 10 trials (1 outpatient, 1 ED, 8 inpatient trials), 907 infants; day 3: MD -0.89, 95% CI -1.44 to -0.34; 10 trials (1 outpatient, 9 inpatient trials), 785 infants; low-certainty evidence). Nebulised hypertonic saline may reduce the risk of hospitalisation by 13% compared with nebulised normal saline amongst infants who were outpatients and those treated in the ED (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97; 8 trials, 1760 infants; low-certainty evidence). However, hypertonic saline may not reduce the risk of readmission to hospital up to 28 days after discharge (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25; 6 trials, 1084 infants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether infants who received hypertonic saline have a lower number of days to resolution of wheezing compared to those who received normal saline (MD -1.16 days, 95% CI -1.43 to -0.89; 2 trials, 205 infants; very low-certainty evidence), cough (MD -0.87 days, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.44; 3 trials, 363 infants; very low-certainty evidence), and pulmonary moist crackles (MD -1.30 days, 95% CI -2.28 to -0.32; 2 trials, 205 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Twenty-seven trials presented safety data: 14 trials (1624 infants; 767 treated with hypertonic saline, of which 735 (96%) co-administered with bronchodilators) did not report any adverse events, and 13 trials (2792 infants; 1479 treated with hypertonic saline, of which 416 (28%) co-administered with bronchodilators and 1063 (72%) hypertonic saline alone) reported at least one adverse event such as worsening cough, agitation, bronchospasm, bradycardia, desaturation, vomiting and diarrhoea, most of which were mild and resolved spontaneously (low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Nebulised hypertonic saline may modestly reduce length of stay amongst infants hospitalised with acute bronchiolitis and may slightly improve clinical severity score. Treatment with nebulised hypertonic saline may also reduce the risk of hospitalisation amongst outpatients and ED patients. Nebulised hypertonic saline seems to be a safe treatment in infants with bronchiolitis with only minor and spontaneously resolved adverse events, especially when administered in conjunction with a bronchodilator. The certainty of the evidence was low to very low for all outcomes, mainly due to inconsistency and risk of bias.
Topics: Child; Humans; Infant; Bronchiolitis; Bronchodilator Agents; Cough; Saline Solution; Saline Solution, Hypertonic
PubMed: 37014057
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006458.pub5 -
Open Forum Infectious Diseases Jul 2022Adult respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines are in the late stages of development. A comprehensive synthesis of adult RSV burden is needed to inform public health...
BACKGROUND
Adult respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines are in the late stages of development. A comprehensive synthesis of adult RSV burden is needed to inform public health decision-making.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies describing the incidence of medically attended RSV (MA-RSV) among US adults. We also identified studies reporting nasopharyngeal (NP) or nasal swab reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results with paired serology (4-fold-rise) or sputum (RT-PCR) to calculate RSV detection ratios quantifying improved diagnostic yield after adding a second specimen type (ie, serology or sputum).
RESULTS
We identified 14 studies with 15 unique MA-RSV incidence estimates, all based on NP or nasal swab RT-PCR testing alone. Pooled annual RSV-associated incidence per 100 000 adults ≥65 years of age was 178 (95% CI, 152‒204; n = 8 estimates) hospitalizations (4 prospective studies: 189; 4 model-based studies: 157), 133 (95% CI, 0‒319; n = 2) emergency department (ED) admissions, and 1519 (95% CI, 1109‒1929; n = 3) outpatient visits. Based on 6 studies, RSV detection was ∼1.5 times higher when adding paired serology or sputum. After adjustment for this increased yield, annual RSV-associated rates per 100 000 adults age ≥65 years were 267 hospitalizations (uncertainty interval [UI], 228‒306; prospective: 282; model-based: 236), 200 ED admissions (UI, 0‒478), and 2278 outpatient visits (UI, 1663‒2893). Persons <65 years with chronic medical conditions were 1.2-28 times more likely to be hospitalized for RSV depending on risk condition.
CONCLUSIONS
The true burden of RSV has been underestimated and is significant among older adults and individuals with chronic medical conditions. A highly effective adult RSV vaccine would have substantial public health impact.
PubMed: 35873302
DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofac300