-
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Nov 2022The comparative safety and efficacy of the biologics currently approved for asthma are unclear. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The comparative safety and efficacy of the biologics currently approved for asthma are unclear.
OBJECTIVE
We compared the safety and efficacy of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in individuals with severe eosinophilic asthma.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published 2000 to 2021. We studied Bayesian network meta-analyses of exacerbation rates, prebronchodilator FEV, the Asthma Control Questionnaire, and serious adverse events in individuals with eosinophilic asthma.
RESULTS
Eight randomized clinical trials (n = 6461) were identified. We found in individuals with eosinophils ≥300 cells/μL the following: in reducing exacerbation rates compared to placebo: dupilumab (risk ratio [RR], 0.32; 95% credible interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.45), mepolizumab (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.45), and benralizumab (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.55); in improving FEV: dupilumab (mean difference in milliliters [MD] 230; 95% CI, 160 to 300), benralizumab (MD, 150; 95% CI, 100 to 200), and mepolizumab (MD, 150; 95% CI, 66 to 220); and in reducing Asthma Control Questionnaire scores: mepolizumab (MD, -0.63; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.45), dupilumab (MD, -0.48; 95% CI, -0.83 to -0.14), and benralizumab (MD, -0.32; 95% CI, -0.43 to -0.21). In individuals with eosinophils 150-299 cells/μL, benralizumab (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.73) and dupilumab (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.95) were associated with lower exacerbation rates; and only benralizumab (MD, 81; 95% CI, 8 to 150) significantly improved FEV. These differences were minimal compared to clinically important thresholds. For serious adverse events in the overall population, mepolizumab (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.92) and benralizumab (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.93) were associated with lower odds of a serious adverse event, while dupilumab was not different from placebo (odds ratio, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.4).
CONCLUSION
There are minimal differences in the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in eosinophilic asthma.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Asthma; Pulmonary Eosinophilia; Eosinophils; Anti-Asthmatic Agents
PubMed: 35772597
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2022.05.024 -
Antenatal corticosteroids for accelerating fetal lung maturation for women at risk of preterm birth.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2020Respiratory morbidity including respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) is a serious complication of preterm birth and the primary cause of early neonatal mortality and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Respiratory morbidity including respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) is a serious complication of preterm birth and the primary cause of early neonatal mortality and disability. Despite early evidence indicating a beneficial effect of antenatal corticosteroids on fetal lung maturation and widespread recommendations to use this treatment in women at risk of preterm delivery, some uncertainty remains about their effectiveness particularly with regard to their use in lower-resource settings, different gestational ages and high-risk obstetric groups such as women with hypertension or multiple pregnancies. This updated review (which supersedes an earlier review Crowley 1996) was first published in 2006 and subsequently updated in 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of administering a course of corticosteroids to women prior to anticipated preterm birth (before 37 weeks of pregnancy) on fetal and neonatal morbidity and mortality, maternal mortality and morbidity, and on the child in later life.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (3 September 2020), ClinicalTrials.gov, the databases that contribute to the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (3 September 2020), and reference lists of the retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered all randomised controlled comparisons of antenatal corticosteroid administration with placebo, or with no treatment, given to women with a singleton or multiple pregnancy, prior to anticipated preterm delivery (elective, or following rupture of membranes or spontaneous labour), regardless of other co-morbidity, for inclusion in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth methods for data collection and analysis. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, evaluated trustworthiness based on predefined criteria developed by Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth, extracted data and checked them for accuracy, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Primary outcomes included perinatal death, neonatal death, RDS, intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), birthweight, developmental delay in childhood and maternal death.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 27 studies (11,272 randomised women and 11,925 neonates) from 20 countries. Ten trials (4422 randomised women) took place in lower- or middle-resource settings. We removed six trials from the analysis that were included in the previous version of the review; this review only includes trials that meet our pre-defined trustworthiness criteria. In 19 trials the women received a single course of steroids. In the remaining eight trials repeated courses may have been prescribed. Fifteen trials were judged to be at low risk of bias, two had a high risk of bias in two or more domains and we ten trials had a high risk of bias due to lack of blinding (placebo was not used in the control arm. Overall, the certainty of evidence was moderate to high, but it was downgraded for IVH due to indirectness; for developmental delay due to risk of bias and for maternal adverse outcomes (death, chorioamnionitis and endometritis) due to imprecision. Neonatal/child outcomes Antenatal corticosteroids reduce the risk of: - perinatal death (risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.93; 9833 infants; 14 studies; high-certainty evidence; 2.3% fewer, 95% CI 1.1% to 3.6% fewer), - neonatal death (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.87; 10,609 infants; 22 studies; high-certainty evidence; 2.6% fewer, 95% CI 1.5% to 3.6% fewer), - respiratory distress syndrome (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.78; 11,183 infants; studies = 26; high-certainty evidence; 4.3% fewer, 95% CI 3.2% to 5.2% fewer). Antenatal corticosteroids probably reduce the risk of IVH (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.75; 8475 infants; 12 studies; moderate-certainty evidence; 1.4% fewer, 95% CI 0.8% to1.8% fewer), and probably have little to no effect on birthweight (mean difference (MD) -14.02 g, 95% CI -33.79 to 5.76; 9551 infants; 19 studies; high-certainty evidence). Antenatal corticosteroids probably lead to a reduction in developmental delay in childhood (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; 600 children; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence; 3.8% fewer, 95% CI 0.2% to 5.7% fewer). Maternal outcomes Antenatal corticosteroids probably result in little to no difference in maternal death (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.89; 6244 women; 6 studies; moderate-certainty evidence; 0.0% fewer, 95% CI 0.1% fewer to 0.5% more), chorioamnionitis (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.08; 8374 women; 15 studies; moderate-certainty evidence; 0.5% fewer, 95% CI 1.1% fewer to 0.3% more), and endometritis (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.58; 6764 women; 10 studies; moderate-certainty; 0.3% more, 95% CI 0.3% fewer to 1.1% more) The wide 95% CIs in all of these outcomes include possible benefit and possible harm.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence from this updated review supports the continued use of a single course of antenatal corticosteroids to accelerate fetal lung maturation in women at risk of preterm birth. Treatment with antenatal corticosteroids reduces the risk of perinatal death, neonatal death and RDS and probably reduces the risk of IVH. This evidence is robust, regardless of resource setting (high, middle or low). Further research should focus on variations in the treatment regimen, effectiveness of the intervention in specific understudied subgroups such as multiple pregnancies and other high-risk obstetric groups, and the risks and benefits in the very early or very late preterm periods. Additionally, outcomes from existing trials with follow-up into childhood and adulthood are needed in order to investigate any longer-term effects of antenatal corticosteroids. We encourage authors of previous studies to provide further information which may answer any remaining questions about the use of antenatal corticosteroids without the need for further randomised controlled trials. Individual patient data meta-analyses from published trials are likely to provide answers for most of the remaining clinical uncertainties.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Betamethasone; Bias; Cerebral Intraventricular Hemorrhage; Developmental Disabilities; Dexamethasone; Female; Fetal Organ Maturity; Humans; Hydrocortisone; Infant, Newborn; Lung; Maternal Death; Perinatal Death; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Prenatal Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn
PubMed: 33368142
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004454.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2022Despite the widespread use of antenatal corticosteroids to prevent respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm infants, there is currently no consensus as to the type... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Despite the widespread use of antenatal corticosteroids to prevent respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm infants, there is currently no consensus as to the type of corticosteroid to use, dose, frequency, timing of use or the route of administration. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects on fetal and neonatal morbidity and mortality, on maternal morbidity and mortality, and on the child and adult in later life, of administering different types of corticosteroids (dexamethasone or betamethasone), or different corticosteroid dose regimens, including timing, frequency and mode of administration.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (9 May 2022) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all identified published and unpublished randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing any two corticosteroids (dexamethasone or betamethasone or any other corticosteroid that can cross the placenta), comparing different dose regimens (including frequency and timing of administration) in women at risk of preterm birth. We planned to exclude cross-over trials and cluster-randomised trials. We planned to include studies published as abstracts only along with studies published as full-text manuscripts.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 trials (2494 women and 2762 infants) in this update, all of which recruited women who were at increased risk of preterm birth or had a medical indication for preterm birth. All trials were conducted in high-income countries. Dexamethasone versus betamethasone Nine trials (2096 women and 2319 infants) compared dexamethasone versus betamethasone. All trials administered both drugs intramuscularly, and the total dose in the course was consistent (22.8 mg or 24 mg), but the regimen varied. We assessed one new study to have no serious risk of bias concerns for most outcomes, but other studies were at moderate (six trials) or high (two trials) risk of bias due to selection, detection and attrition bias. Our GRADE assessments ranged between high- and low-certainty, with downgrades due to risk of bias and imprecision. Maternal outcomes The only maternal primary outcome reported was chorioamnionitis (death and puerperal sepsis were not reported). Although the rate of chorioamnionitis was lower with dexamethasone, we did not find conclusive evidence of a difference between the two drugs (risk ratio (RR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 1.06; 1 trial, 1346 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The proportion of women experiencing maternal adverse effects of therapy was lower with dexamethasone; however, there was not conclusive evidence of a difference between interventions (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.13; 2 trials, 1705 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Infant outcomes We are unsure whether the choice of drug makes a difference to the risk of any known death after randomisation, because the 95% CI was compatible with both appreciable benefit and harm with dexamethasone (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.63; 5 trials, 2105 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). The choice of drug may make little or no difference to the risk of RDS (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.22; 5 trials, 2105 infants; high-certainty evidence). While there may be little or no difference in the risk of intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), there was substantial unexplained statistical heterogeneity in this result (average (a) RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.81; 4 trials, 1902 infants; I² = 62%; low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference between the two drugs for chronic lung disease (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.34; 1 trial, 1509 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), and we are unsure of the effects on necrotising enterocolitis, because there were few events in the studies reporting this outcome (RR 5.08, 95% CI 0.25 to 105.15; 2 studies, 441 infants; low-certainty evidence). Longer-term child outcomes Only one trial consistently followed up children longer term, reporting at two years' adjusted age. There is probably little or no difference between dexamethasone and betamethasone in the risk of neurodevelopmental disability at follow-up (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.22; 2 trials, 1151 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether the choice of drug makes a difference to the risk of visual impairment (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.15; 1 trial, 1227 children; low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference between the drugs for hearing impairment (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.16; 1 trial, 1227 children; moderate-certainty evidence), motor developmental delay (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.20; 1 trial, 1166 children; moderate-certainty evidence) or intellectual impairment (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.20; 1 trial, 1161 children; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the effect estimate for cerebral palsy is compatible with both an important increase in risk with dexamethasone, and no difference between interventions (RR 2.50, 95% CI 0.97 to 6.39; 1 trial, 1223 children; low-certainty evidence). No trials followed the children beyond early childhood. Comparisons of different preparations and regimens of corticosteroids We found three studies that included a comparison of a different regimen or preparation of either dexamethasone or betamethasone (oral dexamethasone 32 mg versus intramuscular dexamethasone 24 mg; betamethasone acetate plus phosphate versus betamethasone phosphate; 12-hourly betamethasone versus 24-hourly betamethasone). The certainty of the evidence for the main outcomes from all three studies was very low, due to small sample size and risk of bias. Therefore, we were limited in our ability to draw conclusions from any of these studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, it remains unclear whether there are important differences between dexamethasone and betamethasone, or between one regimen and another. Most trials compared dexamethasone versus betamethasone. While for most infant and early childhood outcomes there may be no difference between these drugs, for several important outcomes for the mother, infant and child the evidence was inconclusive and did not rule out significant benefits or harms. The evidence on different antenatal corticosteroid regimens was sparse, and does not support the use of one particular corticosteroid regimen over another.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Betamethasone; Child; Child, Preschool; Chorioamnionitis; Dexamethasone; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Lung; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Newborn
PubMed: 35943347
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006764.pub4 -
Thrombosis and Haemostasis Jan 2022The consensus of the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS) on stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) has been published in 2017 which provided useful clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The consensus of the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS) on stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) has been published in 2017 which provided useful clinical guidance for cardiologists, neurologists, geriatricians, and general practitioners in the Asia-Pacific region. In these years, many important new data regarding stroke prevention in AF were reported. The practice guidelines subcommittee members comprehensively reviewed updated information on stroke prevention in AF, and summarized them in this 2021 focused update of the 2017 consensus guidelines of the APHRS on stroke prevention in AF. We highlighted and focused on several issues, including the importance of the AF Better Care pathway, the advantages of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for Asians, the considerations of use of NOACs for Asian AF patients with single one stroke risk factor beyond gender, the role of lifestyle factors on stroke risk, the use of oral anticoagulants during the "coronavirus disease 2019" pandemic, etc. We fully realize that there are gaps, unaddressed questions, and many areas of uncertainty and debate in the current knowledge of AF, and the physician's decision remains the most important factor in the management of AF.
Topics: Acute Coronary Syndrome; Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Asia; Atrial Fibrillation; COVID-19; Catheter Ablation; Female; Heart Disease Risk Factors; Hemorrhage; Holistic Health; Humans; Male; Pandemics; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Risk Assessment; SARS-CoV-2; Societies, Medical; Stroke
PubMed: 34773920
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1739411 -
European Journal of Physical and... Oct 2020Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often suffer from expectoration. To address this problem, active cycle of breathing techniques (ACBT) can be...
INTRODUCTION
Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often suffer from expectoration. To address this problem, active cycle of breathing techniques (ACBT) can be applied. However, the effects of ACBT on COPD patients have shown mixed results. Therefore, we investigated the effectiveness of ACBT in patients with COPD by conducting a systematic review of the literature.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Seven electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, China National Knowledge Infrastructure [CNKI], Chinese Biomedical Literature [CBM], and Wanfang Database) were carefully searched from August 17 to 19, 2019.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
The search yielded 2224 records, and ultimately only eight articles were selected for analysis. A total of 390 patients were included in the eight studies. The intervention program is a comparison of ACBT with non-ACBT. For COPD patients, ACBT was more effective in sputum production and cough efficiency. Compared with usual care, ACBT may improve lung function, blood gas analysis, and other parameters.
CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review found that ACBT can effectively improve the sputum production and cough efficiency in patients with COPD. However, there was no definite conclusion on the effectiveness of ACBT on lung function, blood gas analysis and other aspects. More research and quantitative analyses are needed to confirm the effectiveness of ACBT on other aspects of COPD patient.
Topics: Humans; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Respiratory Function Tests; Respiratory Therapy
PubMed: 32397703
DOI: 10.23736/S1973-9087.20.06144-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2022Acute pulmonary embolism (APE) is a major cause of acute morbidity and mortality. APE results in long-term morbidity in up to 50% of survivors, known as post-pulmonary... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute pulmonary embolism (APE) is a major cause of acute morbidity and mortality. APE results in long-term morbidity in up to 50% of survivors, known as post-pulmonary embolism (post-PE) syndrome. APE can be classified according to the short-term (30-day) risk of mortality, based on a variety of clinical, imaging and laboratory findings. Most mortality and morbidity is concentrated in high-risk (massive) and intermediate-risk (submassive) APE. The first-line treatment for APE is systemic anticoagulation. High-risk (massive) APE accounts for less than 10% of APE cases and is a life-threatening medical emergency, requiring immediate reperfusion treatment to prevent death. Systemic thrombolysis is the recommended treatment for high-risk (massive) APE. However, only a minority of the people affected receive systemic thrombolysis, due to comorbidities or the 10% risk of major haemorrhagic side effects. Of those who do receive systemic thrombolysis, 8% do not respond in a timely manner. Surgical pulmonary embolectomy is an alternative reperfusion treatment, but is not widely available. Intermediate-risk (submassive) APE represents 45% to 65% of APE cases, with a short-term mortality rate of around 3%. Systemic thrombolysis is not recommended for this group, as major haemorrhagic complications outweigh the benefit. However, the people at higher risk within this group have a short-term mortality of around 12%, suggesting that anticoagulation alone is not an adequate treatment. Identification and more aggressive treatment of people at intermediate to high risk, who have a more favourable risk profile for reperfusion treatments, could reduce short-term mortality and potentially reduce post-PE syndrome. Catheter-directed treatments (catheter-directed thrombolysis and catheter embolectomy) are minimally invasive reperfusion treatments for high- and intermediate-risk APE. Catheter-directed treatments can be used either as the primary treatment or as salvage treatment after failure of systemic thrombolysis. Catheter-directed thrombolysis administers 10% to 20% of the systemic thrombolysis dose directly into the thrombus in the lungs, potentially reducing the risks of haemorrhagic side effects. Catheter embolectomy mechanically removes the thrombus without the need for thrombolysis, and may be useful for people with contraindications for thrombolysis. Currently, the benefits of catheter-based APE treatments compared with existing medical and surgical treatment are unclear despite increasing adoption of catheter treatments by PE response teams. This review examines the evidence for the use of catheter-directed treatments in high- and intermediate-risk APE. This evidence could help guide the optimal treatment strategy for people affected by this common and life-threatening condition.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of catheter-directed therapies versus alternative treatments for high-risk (massive) and intermediate-risk (submassive) APE.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was 15 March 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of catheter-directed therapies for the treatment of high-risk (massive) and intermediate-risk (submassive) APE. We excluded catheter-directed treatments for non-PE. We applied no restrictions on participant age or on the date, language or publication status of RCTs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. The main outcomes were all-cause mortality, treatment-associated major and minor haemorrhage rates based on two established clinical definitions, recurrent APE requiring retreatment or change to a different APE treatment, length of hospital stay, and quality of life. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified one RCT (59 participants) of (ultrasound-augmented) catheter-directed thrombolysis for intermediate-risk (submassive) APE. We found no trials of any catheter-directed treatments (thrombectomy or thrombolysis) in people with high-risk (massive) APE or of catheter-based embolectomy in people with intermediate-risk (submassive) APE. The included trial compared ultrasound-augmented catheter-directed thrombolysis with alteplase and systemic heparinisation versus systemic heparinisation alone. In the treatment group, each participant received an infusion of alteplase 10 mg or 20 mg over 15 hours. We identified a high risk of selection and performance bias, low risk of detection and reporting bias, and unclear risk of attrition and other bias. Certainty of evidence was very low because of risk of bias and imprecision. By 90 days, there was no clear difference in all-cause mortality between the treatment group and control group. A single death occurred in the control group at 20 days after randomisation, but it was unrelated to the treatment or to APE (odds ratio (OR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 7.96; 59 participants). By 90 days, there were no episodes of treatment-associated major haemorrhage in either the treatment or control group. There was no clear difference in treatment-associated minor haemorrhage between the treatment and control group by 90 days (OR 3.11, 95% CI 0.30 to 31.79; 59 participants). By 90 days, there were no episodes of recurrent APE requiring retreatment or change to a different APE treatment in the treatment or control group. There was no clear difference in the length of mean total hospital stay between the treatment and control groups. Mean stay was 8.9 (standard deviation (SD) 3.4) days in the treatment group versus 8.6 (SD 3.9) days in the control group (mean difference 0.30, 95% CI -1.57 to 2.17; 59 participants). The included trial did not investigate quality of life measures. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of evidence to support widespread adoption of catheter-based interventional therapies for APE. We identified one small trial showing no clear differences between ultrasound-augmented catheter-directed thrombolysis with alteplase plus systemic heparinisation versus systemic heparinisation alone in all-cause mortality, major and minor haemorrhage rates, recurrent APE and length of hospital stay. Quality of life was not assessed. Multiple small retrospective case series, prospective patient registries and single-arm studies suggest potential benefits of catheter-based treatments, but they provide insufficient evidence to recommend this approach over other evidence-based treatments. Researchers should consider clinically relevant primary outcomes (e.g. mortality and exercise tolerance), rather than surrogate markers (e.g. right ventricular to left ventricular (RV:LV) ratio or thrombus burden), which have limited clinical utility. Trials must include a control group to determine if the effects are specific to the treatment.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anticoagulants; Hemorrhage; Humans; Pulmonary Embolism; Thrombolytic Therapy; Tissue Plasminogen Activator
PubMed: 35938605
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013083.pub2 -
Anticancer Research Jul 2023Pulmonary metastases are the second most common site of metastasis in colorectal cancer after the liver, and microwave ablation (MWA) for its treatment has grown in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND/AIM
Pulmonary metastases are the second most common site of metastasis in colorectal cancer after the liver, and microwave ablation (MWA) for its treatment has grown in popularity in patients who are not suitable for pulmonary metastatectomy. However, its long-term efficacy remains unknown.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review was conducted in July 2022 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, using PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. Studies adopting MWA for colorectal cancer pulmonary metastases were included.
RESULTS
A total of 488 lesions were ablated in 230 patients across eight studies. The median duration of ablation was 10 minutes. The mean length of stay in hospital was 2.3 days. Complications included pneumothorax in 128 (52%) patients; pneumonia, which occurred in 4 (1.7%) patients, and pulmonary haemorrhage in 23 (10.0%) patients. Complete remission was achieved in 85 (37.0%) patients, local control was achieved in 103 (44.8%) patients, and residual or progressive disease remained in 85 (37.0%). Survival post ablation at 1 year was 89.2% and at 3 years was 40.3%. Post-ablation disease-free survival was 43.2% at 3 years.
CONCLUSION
MWA is an alternative treatment for pulmonary metastases of colorectal cancer. It has competitive theoretical properties and local recurrence rate compared to radiofrequency ablation.
Topics: Humans; Treatment Outcome; Microwaves; Catheter Ablation; Radiofrequency Ablation; Lung Neoplasms; Colorectal Neoplasms; Liver Neoplasms
PubMed: 37351979
DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.16461 -
Thrombotic and Thromboembolic Complications After Vaccination Against COVID-19: A Systematic Review.Cureus Apr 2023Thromboembolic complications after the COVID-19 vaccination have been reported from all over the world. We aimed to identify the thrombotic and thromboembolic... (Review)
Review
Thromboembolic complications after the COVID-19 vaccination have been reported from all over the world. We aimed to identify the thrombotic and thromboembolic complications that can arise after receiving various types of COVID-19 vaccines, their frequency, and distinguishing characteristics. Articles published in Medline/PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Google Scholar, EBSCO, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the CDC database, the WHO database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and servers like medRxiv.org and bioRxiv.org, as well as the websites of several reporting authorities between December 1, 2019, and July 29, 2021, were searched. Studies were included if they reported any thromboembolic complications post-COVID-19 vaccination and excluded editorials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, narrative reviews, and commentaries. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and conducted the quality assessment. Thromboembolic events and associated hemorrhagic complications after various types of COVID-19 vaccines, their frequency, and distinguishing characteristics were assessed. The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (ID-CRD42021257862). There were 59 articles, enrolling 202 patients. We also studied data from two nationwide registries and surveillance. The mean age of presentation was 47 ± 15.5 (mean ± SD) years, and 71.1% of the reported cases were females. The majority of events were with the AstraZeneca vaccine and with the first dose. Of these, 74.8% were venous thromboembolic events, 12.7% were arterial thromboembolic events, and the rest were hemorrhagic complications. The most common reported event was cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (65.8%), followed by pulmonary embolism, splanchnic vein thrombosis, deep vein thrombosis, and ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. The majority had thrombocytopenia, high D-dimer, and anti-PF4 antibodies. The case fatality rate was 26.5%. In our study, 26/59 of the papers were of fair quality. The data from two nationwide registries and surveillance revealed 6347 venous and arterial thromboembolic events post-COVID-19 vaccinations. COVID-19 vaccinations have been linked to thrombotic and thromboembolic complications. However, the benefits far outweigh the risks. Clinicians should be aware of these complications because they may be fatal and because prompt identification and treatment can prevent fatalities.
PubMed: 37182082
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.37275 -
Thrombosis Research Nov 2023Life-long anticoagulation is the recommended management for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). Evidence regarding the use of direct oral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Life-long anticoagulation is the recommended management for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). Evidence regarding the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) for CTEPH is yet to be established. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the outcomes of CTEPH in patients who used DOAC or vitamin K antagonists (VKA).
METHODS
We reviewed literature in PubMed and EMBASE through March 2023. We included studies involving patients with CTEPH where DOAC and VKA were compared. We collected data including intervention history for CTEPH, bleeding events, recurrence of VTE (venous thromboembolism), and mortality. We performed a meta-analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method with a fixed-effects model.
RESULTS
We included one randomized clinical trial and six observational studies, with a total of 2969 patients. Six studies investigated major bleeding outcomes, and seven investigated all bleeding outcomes. There were no differences in major bleeding (RR 0.59, 95 % CI [0.34-1.02], I = 0 %) and all-bleeding (RR 0.87, 95 % CI [0.67-1.13], I = 0 %). Based on the five studies we included, DOAC was associated with a lower risk of mortality (RR 0.54, 95 % CI: 0.37-0.79, I = 5 %). However, a higher risk of recurrent pulmonary embolism (PE) was seen in three studies (RR 3.80, 95 % CI: [1.93-7.50], I = 11 %). No significant differences were noted in terms of VTE.
CONCLUSION
DOAC compared to VKA was associated with a significantly lower mortality and higher risk of recurrent PE. Since most of the included studies are observational, we must consider the existence of multiple biases and confounding factors.
Topics: Humans; Venous Thromboembolism; Hypertension, Pulmonary; Anticoagulants; Blood Coagulation; Hemorrhage; Pulmonary Embolism; Fibrinolytic Agents; Administration, Oral; Vitamin K; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37839150
DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2023.10.003 -
Annals of the American Thoracic Society Dec 2023Conventional electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy and other guided bronchoscopic modalities have a very desirable safety profile, but their diagnostic yield is only... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Conventional electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy and other guided bronchoscopic modalities have a very desirable safety profile, but their diagnostic yield is only 60-70% for pulmonary lesions. Recently, robotic-assisted bronchoscopy (RAB) platforms have been introduced to improve the diagnostic performance of bronchoscopic modalities. To determine the diagnostic performance and safety profile of RAB (using shape-sensing and electromagnetic navigation-based platforms) by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis. The PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar databases were searched to find studies that reported on the diagnostic performance and/or the safety profile of one of the RAB systems. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Meta-analysis was performed using MedCalc version 20.118. Pooled diagnostic yield was calculated using a Freeman-Tukey transformation. We planned to use a random-effects model if the index was >40%. Twenty-five studies were included: 20 including diagnostic and safety analyses and 5 including only safety analyses. The pooled diagnostic yield of RAB (20 studies, 1,779 lesions) was 84.3% (95% confidence interval, 81.1-87.2%). The index was 65.6%. On the basis of our subgroup analyses, the heterogeneity was likely driven by differences in study designs (prospective vs. retrospective) and procedural protocols (such as different RAB systems). Lesion size > 2 cm, the presence of a computed tomography bronchus sign, and concentric radial endobronchial ultrasound view were associated with a statistically significant increase in the odds of diagnosis with RAB. The overall rates of pneumothorax, need for tube thoracostomy, and significant hemorrhage were 2.3%, 1.2%, and 0.5%, respectively. RAB systems have significantly increased the diagnostic yield of navigational bronchoscopy compared with conventional systems such as electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy, but well-designed prospective studies are needed to better understand the impact of various factors, such as the use of three-dimensional imaging modalities, cryobiopsy, and specific ventilatory protocols, on the diagnostic yield of RAB.
Topics: Humans; Bronchoscopy; Lung Neoplasms; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37769170
DOI: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202301-075OC