-
Annals of Internal Medicine Apr 2024Management of elevated blood pressure (BP) during hospitalization varies widely, with many hospitalized adults experiencing BPs higher than those recommended for the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Management of elevated blood pressure (BP) during hospitalization varies widely, with many hospitalized adults experiencing BPs higher than those recommended for the outpatient setting.
PURPOSE
To systematically identify guidelines on elevated BP management in the hospital.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Guidelines International Network, and specialty society websites from 1 January 2010 to 29 January 2024.
STUDY SELECTION
Clinical practice guidelines pertaining to BP management for the adult and older adult populations in ambulatory, emergency department, and inpatient settings.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two authors independently screened articles, assessed quality, and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved via consensus. Recommendations on treatment targets, preferred antihypertensive classes, and follow-up were collected for ambulatory and inpatient settings.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Fourteen clinical practice guidelines met inclusion criteria (11 were assessed as high-quality per the AGREE II [Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II] instrument), 11 provided broad BP management recommendations, and 1 each was specific to the emergency department setting, older adults, and hypertensive crises. No guidelines provided goals for inpatient BP or recommendations for managing asymptomatic moderately elevated BP in the hospital. Six guidelines defined hypertensive urgency as BP above 180/120 mm Hg, with hypertensive emergencies requiring the addition of target organ damage. Hypertensive emergency recommendations consistently included use of intravenous antihypertensives in intensive care settings. Recommendations for managing hypertensive urgencies were inconsistent, from expert consensus, and focused on the emergency department. Outpatient treatment with oral medications and follow-up in days to weeks were most often advised. In contrast, outpatient BP goals were clearly defined, varying between 130/80 and 140/90 mm Hg.
LIMITATION
Exclusion of non-English-language guidelines and guidelines specific to subpopulations.
CONCLUSION
Despite general consensus on outpatient BP management, guidance on inpatient management of elevated BP without symptoms is lacking, which may contribute to variable practice patterns.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
National Institute on Aging. (PROSPERO: CRD42023449250).
Topics: Humans; Aged; Blood Pressure; Inpatients; Hypertension; Antihypertensive Agents; Ambulatory Care
PubMed: 38560900
DOI: 10.7326/M23-3251 -
Physiotherapy Theory and Practice Aug 2020To systematically determine the specific impact of therapeutic alliance (TA) on chronic musculoskeletal pain, identify factors influencing TA between physical therapists...
To systematically determine the specific impact of therapeutic alliance (TA) on chronic musculoskeletal pain, identify factors influencing TA between physical therapists and patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain, and determine the working definition of TA across studies. : Databases, including PubMed, CINHAL, and Embase, were searched from inception to January 2017. : The initial search resulted in 451 papers. After screening, seven studies were identified that examined the role of TA on chronic pain (> 12 weeks) management in physical therapy settings. : Authors extracted data into tables. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration methodology. : Three studies examined the influence of a strong TA coupled with physical therapy on pain outcomes. Four studies identified factors that positively and negatively influenced TA. The working definition of TA was identified in each study. : Emerging evidence suggests that for individuals participating in physical therapy for chronic musculoskeletal pain, a strong TA may improve pain outcomes. In order to facilitate a strong TA, physical therapists must understand factors that positively and negatively influence the relationship. Studies demonstrate that the definition of TA remains consistent as it transitions to the physical therapy setting.
Topics: Humans; Musculoskeletal Pain; Physical Therapy Modalities; Therapeutic Alliance
PubMed: 30265840
DOI: 10.1080/09593985.2018.1516015 -
JAMA Network Open Aug 2023The use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) is widespread yet continues to receive little attention in outpatient services. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) is widespread yet continues to receive little attention in outpatient services.
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the overall prevalence of PIM use in outpatient services.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched to identify relevant studies published from January 1, 1990, to November 21, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Observational studies that reported the prevalence of PIM use among older patients in outpatient services were screened.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently selected eligible articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to pool the prevalence estimates.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The global patterns in the prevalence of PIM use among older patients in outpatient services were estimated, and the temporal trends and regional differences in PIM use were investigated.
RESULTS
A total of 94 articles with 132 prevalence estimates were analyzed, including nearly 371.2 million older participants from 17 countries. Overall, the pooled prevalence of PIM use was 36.7% (95% CI, 33.4%-40.0%). Africa had the highest prevalence of PIM use (47.0%; 95% CI, 34.7%-59.4%), followed by South America (46.9%; 95% CI, 35.1%-58.9%), Asia (37.2%; 95% CI, 32.4%-42.2%), Europe (35.0%; 95% CI, 28.5%-41.8%), North America (29.0%; 95% CI, 22.1%-36.3%), and Oceania (23.6%; 95% CI, 18.8%-28.8%). In addition, the prevalence of PIM use is highest in low-income areas. Use of PIMs among older patients has become increasingly prevalent in the past 2 decades.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This study of patterns of PIM use by different groups, such as geographic regions and World Bank countries, suggests noticeable geographic environment and economic income differences in the burden of PIMs in outpatient services. Furthermore, the high prevalence trend in the past 2 decades indicates that the global burden of PIM use continues to be worthy of attention.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Potentially Inappropriate Medication List; Inappropriate Prescribing; Prevalence; Europe; North America
PubMed: 37531105
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.26910 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. Due to its novelty, there are currently few published study results. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) plus standard of care compared to standard of care with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 and for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses. To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in-between publication of review updates.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Scopus, and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 11 July 2022. This is a LSR. We conduct monthly update searches that are being made publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care with standard of care with or without placebo, or any other 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. We screened all studies for research integrity. Studies were ineligible if they had been retracted, or if they were not prospectively registered including appropriate ethics approval.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology and used the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: 1. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19; 2. to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, quality of life, (serious) adverse events, and viral clearance; 3. to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP); and 4. pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) scenarios: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, and (serious) adverse events. We explored inequity by subgroup analysis for elderly people, socially-disadvantaged people with comorbidities, populations from LICs and LMICs, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds.
MAIN RESULTS
As of 11 July 2022, we included one RCT with 2246 participants in outpatient settings with mild symptomatic COVID-19 comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care with standard of care plus placebo. Trial participants were unvaccinated, without previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, had a symptom onset of no more than five days before randomization, and were at high risk for progression to severe disease. Prohibited prior or concomitant therapies included medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 for clearance and CYP3A4 inducers. We identified eight ongoing studies. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease For the specific population of unvaccinated, high-risk patients nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.68; 1 study, 2224 participants; estimated absolute effect: 11 deaths per 1000 people receiving placebo compared to 0 deaths per 1000 people receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; low-certainty evidence, and admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27; 1 study, 2224 participants; estimated absolute effect: 61 admissions or deaths per 1000 people receiving placebo compared to eight admissions or deaths per 1000 people receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care probably has little or no effect on treatment-emergent adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably increases treatment-related adverse events such as dysgeusia and diarrhoea during the study period compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No study results were identified for improvement of clinical status, quality of life, and viral clearance. Subgroup analyses for equity Most study participants were younger than 65 years (87.1% of the : modified intention to treat (mITT1) population with 2085 participants), of white ethnicity (71.5%), and were from UMICs or HICs (92.1% of study centres). Data on comorbidities were insufficient. The outcome 'admission to hospital or death' was investigated for equity: age (< 65 years versus ≥ 65 years) and ethnicity (Asian versus Black versus White versus others). There was no difference between subgroups of age. The effects favoured treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for the White ethnic group. Estimated effects in the other ethnic groups included the line of no effect (RR = 1). No subgroups were reported for comorbidity status and World Bank country classification by income level. No subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate to severe disease No studies available. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is low-certainty evidence that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and hospital admission or death based on one trial investigating unvaccinated COVID-19 participants without previous infection that were at high risk and with symptom onset of no more than five days. There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is safe in people without prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4. Regarding equity aspects, except for ethnicity, no differences in effect size and direction were identified. No evidence is available on nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to treat hospitalized people with COVID-19 and to prevent a SARS-CoV-2 infection. We will continually update our search and make search results available on OSF.
Topics: Aged; Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A; Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A Inducers; Humans; Ritonavir; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 36126225
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015395.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020Antisocial personality disorder (AsPD) is associated with poor mental health, criminality, substance use and relationship difficulties. This review updates Gibbon 2010... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antisocial personality disorder (AsPD) is associated with poor mental health, criminality, substance use and relationship difficulties. This review updates Gibbon 2010 (previous version of the review).
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the potential benefits and adverse effects of psychological interventions for adults with AsPD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 13 other databases and two trials registers up to 5 September 2019. We also searched reference lists and contacted study authors to identify studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of adults, where participants with an AsPD or dissocial personality disorder diagnosis comprised at least 75% of the sample randomly allocated to receive a psychological intervention, treatment-as-usual (TAU), waiting list or no treatment. The primary outcomes were aggression, reconviction, global state/functioning, social functioning and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
This review includes 19 studies (eight new to this update), comparing a psychological intervention against TAU (also called 'standard Maintenance'(SM) in some studies). Eight of the 18 psychological interventions reported data on our primary outcomes. Four studies focussed exclusively on participants with AsPD, and 15 on subgroups of participants with AsPD. Data were available from only 10 studies involving 605 participants. Eight studies were conducted in the UK and North America, and one each in Iran, Denmark and the Netherlands. Study duration ranged from 4 to 156 weeks (median = 26 weeks). Most participants (75%) were male; the mean age was 35.5 years. Eleven studies (58%) were funded by research councils. Risk of bias was high for 13% of criteria, unclear for 54% and low for 33%. Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) + TAU versus TAU One study (52 participants) found no evidence of a difference between CBT + TAU and TAU for physical aggression (odds ratio (OR) 0.92, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.07; low-certainty evidence) for outpatients at 12 months post-intervention. One study (39 participants) found no evidence of a difference between CBT + TAU and TAU for social functioning (mean difference (MD) -1.60 points, 95% CI -5.21 to 2.01; very low-certainty evidence), measured by the Social Functioning Questionnaire (SFQ; range = 0-24), for outpatients at 12 months post-intervention. Impulsive lifestyle counselling (ILC) + TAU versus TAU One study (118 participants) found no evidence of a difference between ILC + TAU and TAU for trait aggression (assessed with Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire-Short Form) for outpatients at nine months (MD 0.07, CI -0.35 to 0.49; very low-certainty evidence). One study (142 participants) found no evidence of a difference between ILC + TAU and TAU alone for the adverse event of death (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.54; very low-certainty evidence) or incarceration (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.86; very low-certainty evidence) for outpatients between three and nine months follow-up. Contingency management (CM) + SM versus SM One study (83 participants) found evidence that, compared to SM alone, CM + SM may improve social functioning measured by family/social scores on the Addiction Severity Index (ASI; range = 0 (no problems) to 1 (severe problems); MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.02; low-certainty evidence) for outpatients at six months. 'Driving whilst intoxicated' programme (DWI) + incarceration versus incarceration One study (52 participants) found no evidence of a difference between DWI + incarceration and incarceration alone on reconviction rates (hazard ratio 0.56, CI -0.19 to 1.31; very low-certainty evidence) for prisoner participants at 24 months. Schema therapy (ST) versus TAU One study (30 participants in a secure psychiatric hospital, 87% had AsPD diagnosis) found no evidence of a difference between ST and TAU for the number of participants who were reconvicted (OR 2.81, 95% CI 0.11 to 74.56, P = 0.54) at three years. The same study found that ST may be more likely to improve social functioning (assessed by the mean number of days until patients gain unsupervised leave (MD -137.33, 95% CI -271.31 to -3.35) compared to TAU, and no evidence of a difference between the groups for overall adverse events, classified as the number of people experiencing a global negative outcome over a three-year period (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.19). The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was very low. Social problem-solving (SPS) + psychoeducation (PE) versus TAU One study (17 participants) found no evidence of a difference between SPS + PE and TAU for participants' level of social functioning (MD -1.60 points, 95% CI -5.43 to 2.23; very low-certainty evidence) assessed with the SFQ at six months post-intervention. Dialectical behaviour therapy versus TAU One study (skewed data, 14 participants) provided very low-certainty, narrative evidence that DBT may reduce the number of self-harm days for outpatients at two months post-intervention compared to TAU. Psychosocial risk management (PSRM; 'Resettle') versus TAU One study (skewed data, 35 participants) found no evidence of a difference between PSRM and TAU for a number of officially recorded offences at one year after release from prison. It also found no evidence of difference between the PSRM and TAU for the adverse event of death during the study period (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.05 to 14.83, P = 0.94, 72 participants (90% had AsPD), 1 study, very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is very limited evidence available on psychological interventions for adults with AsPD. Few interventions addressed the primary outcomes of this review and, of the eight that did, only three (CM + SM, ST and DBT) showed evidence that the intervention may be more effective than the control condition. No intervention reported compelling evidence of change in antisocial behaviour. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was low or very low, meaning that we have little confidence in the effect estimates reported. The conclusions of this update have not changed from those of the original review, despite the addition of eight new studies. This highlights the ongoing need for further methodologically rigorous studies to yield further data to guide the development and application of psychological interventions for AsPD and may suggest that a new approach is required.
Topics: Adult; Aggression; Antisocial Personality Disorder; Cocaine-Related Disorders; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Driving Under the Influence; Female; Humans; Male; Prisoners; Psychotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recidivism; Reward; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32880104
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007668.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020Serious illness is often characterised by physical/psychological problems, family support needs, and high healthcare resource use. Hospital-based specialist palliative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Serious illness is often characterised by physical/psychological problems, family support needs, and high healthcare resource use. Hospital-based specialist palliative care (HSPC) has developed to assist in better meeting the needs of patients and their families and potentially reducing hospital care expenditure. There is a need for clarity on the effectiveness and optimal models of HSPC, given that most people still die in hospital and also to allocate scarce resources judiciously.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care for adults with advanced illness (hereafter patients) and their unpaid caregivers/families.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, CDSR, DARE and HTA database via the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; PsycINFO; CareSearch; National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and two trial registers to August 2019, together with checking of reference lists and relevant systematic reviews, citation searching and contact with experts to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of HSPC on outcomes for patients or their unpaid caregivers/families, or both. HSPC was defined as specialist palliative care delivered by a palliative care team that is based in a hospital providing holistic care, co-ordination by a multidisciplinary team, and collaboration between HSPC providers and generalists. HSPC was provided to patients while they were admitted as inpatients to acute care hospitals, outpatients or patients receiving care from hospital outreach teams at home. The comparator was usual care, defined as inpatient or outpatient hospital care without specialist palliative care input at the point of entry into the study, community care or hospice care provided outside of the hospital setting.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias and extracted data. To account for use of different scales across studies, we calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data. We used an inverse variance random-effects model. For binary data, we calculated odds ratio (ORs) with 95% CIs. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. Our primary outcomes were patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom burden (a collection of two or more symptoms). Key secondary outcomes were pain, depression, satisfaction with care, achieving preferred place of death, mortality/survival, unpaid caregiver burden, and cost-effectiveness. Qualitative data was analysed where available.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 42 RCTs involving 7779 participants (6678 patients and 1101 caregivers/family members). Twenty-one studies were with cancer populations, 14 were with non-cancer populations (of which six were with heart failure patients), and seven with mixed cancer and non-cancer populations (mixed diagnoses). HSPC was offered in different ways and included the following models: ward-based, inpatient consult, outpatient, hospital-at-home or hospital outreach, and service provision across multiple settings which included hospital. For our main analyses, we pooled data from studies reporting adjusted endpoint values. Forty studies had a high risk of bias in at least one domain. Compared with usual care, HSPC improved patient HRQoL with a small effect size of 0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.15 to 0.37; I = 3%, 10 studies, 1344 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient HRQoL). HSPC also improved other person-centred outcomes. It reduced patient symptom burden with a small effect size of -0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI -0.41 to -0.12; I = 0%, 6 studies, 761 participants, very low-quality evidence, lower scores indicate lower symptom burden). HSPC improved patient satisfaction with care with a small effect size of 0.36 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.41 to 0.57; I = 0%, 2 studies, 337 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient satisfaction with care). Using home death as a proxy measure for achieving patient's preferred place of death, patients were more likely to die at home with HSPC compared to usual care (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.16; I = 0%, 7 studies, 861 participants, low-quality evidence). Data on pain (4 studies, 525 participants) showed no evidence of a difference between HSPC and usual care (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.01; I = 0%, very low-quality evidence). Eight studies (N = 1252 participants) reported on adverse events and very low-quality evidence did not demonstrate an effect of HSPC on serious harms. Two studies (170 participants) presented data on caregiver burden and both found no evidence of effect of HSPC (very low-quality evidence). We included 13 economic studies (2103 participants). Overall, the evidence on cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care was inconsistent among the four full economic studies. Other studies that used only partial economic analysis and those that presented more limited resource use and cost information also had inconsistent results (very low-quality evidence). Quality of the evidence The quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE was very low to low, downgraded due to a high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Very low- to low-quality evidence suggests that when compared to usual care, HSPC may offer small benefits for several person-centred outcomes including patient HRQoL, symptom burden and patient satisfaction with care, while also increasing the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by home death). While we found no evidence that HSPC causes serious harms, the evidence was insufficient to draw strong conclusions. Although these are only small effect sizes, they may be clinically relevant at an advanced stage of disease with limited prognosis, and are person-centred outcomes important to many patients and families. More well conducted studies are needed to study populations with non-malignant diseases and mixed diagnoses, ward-based models of HSPC, 24 hours access (out-of-hours care) as part of HSPC, pain, achieving patient preferred place of care, patient satisfaction with care, caregiver outcomes (satisfaction with care, burden, depression, anxiety, grief, quality of life), and cost-effectiveness of HSPC. In addition, research is needed to provide validated person-centred outcomes to be used across studies and populations.
Topics: Ambulatory Care; Bias; Caregivers; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Family; Heart Failure; Home Care Services, Hospital-Based; Hospitalization; Humans; Neoplasms; Pain Management; Palliative Care; Patient Satisfaction; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Symptom Assessment; Terminal Care
PubMed: 32996586
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012780.pub2 -
European Journal of Pediatrics Nov 2022Streptococcus pneumoniae is the most common typical bacterial cause of pneumonia among children. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends a 5-day Amoxicillin-based... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
UNLABELLED
Streptococcus pneumoniae is the most common typical bacterial cause of pneumonia among children. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends a 5-day Amoxicillin-based empiric treatment. However, longer treatments are frequently used. This study aimed to compare shorter and longer Amoxicillin regimens for children with uncomplicated community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). A search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 5-day and 10-day courses of Amoxicillin for the treatment of CAP in children older than 6 months in an outpatient setting. Studies involving overlapping populations, lower-than-standard antibiotic doses, and hospitalized patients were excluded. The outcome of interest was clinical cure. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q test and I statistics. Two independent authors conducted the critical appraisal of the included studies according to the RoB-2 tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. We used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) tool to evaluate the certainty of evidence of our results. Three RCTs and 789 children aged from 6 months to 10 years were included, of whom 385 (48.8%) underwent a 5-day regimen. Amoxicillin-based therapy was used in 774 (98%) patients. No differences were found between 5-day and 10-day therapy regarding clinical cure (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.98-1.05; p = 0.49; I = 0%). Subgroup analysis of children aged 6-71 months showed no difference in the rates of the same outcome (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.98-1.05; p = 0.38; I = 0%). The GRADE tool suggested moderate certainty of evidence.
CONCLUSION
These findings suggest that a short course of Amoxicillin (5 days) is just as effective as a longer course (10 days) for uncomplicated CAP in children under 10 years old. Nevertheless, generalizations should be made with caution considering the socioeconomic settings of the studies included.PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42022328519.
WHAT IS KNOWN
• In the outpatient setting, a few international guidelines recommend a 10-day Amoxicillin course as first-line treatment for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). • Recent trials have shown that shorter courses of Amoxicillin may be as effective as 10-day regimens in uncomplicated pneumonia.
WHAT IS NEW
• When comparing 5-day to 10-day Amoxicillin regimens, evidence suggests no significant difference in clinical cure rates for uncomplicated CAP in outpatient settings. • Generalizations should be made with caution considering the socioeconomic context of the population within the included studies.
Topics: Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Community-Acquired Infections; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Infant; Pneumonia
PubMed: 36066660
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-022-04603-8 -
Family Practice Jan 2022It is expected that GPs are increasingly confronted with a large group of patients with symptoms persisting three weeks after initial symptoms of a mild (managed in the...
BACKGROUND
It is expected that GPs are increasingly confronted with a large group of patients with symptoms persisting three weeks after initial symptoms of a mild (managed in the outpatient setting) COVID-19 infection. Currently, research on these persistent symptoms mainly focuses on patients with severe infections (managed in an inpatient setting) whereas patients with mild disease are rarely studied.
OBJECTIVE
The main objective of this systematic review was to create an overview of the nature and frequency of persistent symptoms experienced by patients after mild COVID-19 infection.
METHODS
Systematic literature searches were performed in Pubmed, Embase and PsychINFO on 2 February 2021. Quantitative studies, qualitative studies, clinical lessons and case reports were considered eligible designs.
RESULTS
In total, nine articles were included in this literature review. The frequency of persistent symptoms in patients after mild COVID-19 infection ranged between 10% and 35%. Symptoms persisting after a mild COVID-19 infection can be distinguished into physical, mental and social symptoms. Fatigue was the most frequently described persistent symptom. Other frequently occurring persistent symptoms were dyspnoea, cough, chest pain, headache, decreased mental and cognitive status and olfactory dysfunction. In addition, it was found that persisting symptoms after a mild COVID-19 infection can have major consequences for work and daily functioning.
CONCLUSION
There is already some evidence that symptoms of mild COVID-19 persist after 3 weeks in a third of patients. However, there is a lack of data about symptoms persisting after 3 months (long-COVID). More research is needed to help GPs in managing long-COVID.
Topics: COVID-19; Cough; Fatigue; Humans; SARS-CoV-2; Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome
PubMed: 34268556
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmab076 -
Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy :... Mar 2024Baloxavir marboxil (BXM), a newly developed cap-dependent endonuclease inhibitor, is widely used to treat influenza virus infections in inpatients and outpatients. A... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety of baloxavir marboxil versus oseltamivir as the treatment for influenza virus infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Baloxavir marboxil (BXM), a newly developed cap-dependent endonuclease inhibitor, is widely used to treat influenza virus infections in inpatients and outpatients. A previous meta-analysis included only outpatients and patients suspected of having an influenza virus infection based on clinical symptoms. However, whether BXM or oseltamivir is safer and more effective for inpatients remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis validating the effectiveness and safety of BXM versus oseltamivir in inpatients with influenza virus.
METHODS
The Scopus, EMBASE, PubMed, Ichushi, and CINAHL databases were systematically searched for articles published until January 2023. The outcomes were mortality, hospitalization period, incidence of BXM- or oseltamivir-related adverse events, illness duration, and changes of virus titers and viral RNA load in patients with influenza virus infections.
RESULTS
Two randomized controlled trials with 1624 outpatients and two retrospective studies with 874 inpatients were enrolled. No deaths occurred in outpatients treated with BXM or oseltamivir. Among inpatients, BXM reduced mortality (p = 0.06) and significantly shortened hospitalization period (p = 0.01) compared to oseltamivir. In outpatients, BXM had a significantly lower incidence of adverse events (p = 0.03), reductions in influenza virus titers (p < 0.001) and viral RNA loads (p < 0.001), and a tendency to be a shorter illness duration compared with that of oseltamivir (p = 0.27).
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis showed that BXM was safer and more effective in patients than oseltamivir; thus, supporting the use of BXM for the initial treatment of patients with proven influenza virus infection.
Topics: Humans; Oseltamivir; Influenza, Human; Retrospective Studies; Antiviral Agents; Oxazines; Pyridines; Thiepins; Orthomyxoviridae Infections; Treatment Outcome; RNA, Viral; Dibenzothiepins; Morpholines; Pyridones; Triazines
PubMed: 37866622
DOI: 10.1016/j.jiac.2023.10.017 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Feb 2023The optimal treatment duration of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in children has been controversial in high-income countries. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The optimal treatment duration of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in children has been controversial in high-income countries. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare short antibiotic treatment (3-5 days) with longer treatment (7-10 days) among children aged ≥6 months.
METHODS
On 31 January 2022, we searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for studies published in English from 2003 to 2022. We included randomized controlled trials focusing on antibiotic treatment duration in children with CAP treated as outpatients. We calculated risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals and used the fixed-effect model (low heterogeneity). Our main outcome was treatment failure, defined as need for retreatment or hospitalization within 1 month. Our secondary outcome was presence of antibiotic-related harms.
RESULTS
A total of 541 studies were screened, and 4 studies with 1541 children were included in the review. Three studies had low risk of bias, and one had some concerns. All 4 studies assessed treatment failures, and the RD was 0.1% (95% confidence interval, -3.0% to 2.0%) with high quality of evidence. Two studies (1194 children) assessed adverse events related to antibiotic treatment, and the RD was 0.0% (-5.0% to 5.0%) with moderate quality of evidence. The diagnostic criteria varied between the included studies.
CONCLUSIONS
A short antibiotic treatment duration of 3-5 days was equally effective and safe compared with the longer (current) recommendation of 7-10 days in children aged ≥6 months with CAP. We suggest that short antibiotic courses can be implemented in treatment of pediatric CAP.
Topics: Child; Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Outpatients; Duration of Therapy; Developed Countries; Pneumonia; Community-Acquired Infections
PubMed: 35579504
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciac374