-
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Feb 2011To determine the efficacy and safety of nifedipine as a tocolytic agent in women with preterm labor. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine the efficacy and safety of nifedipine as a tocolytic agent in women with preterm labor.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials.
RESULTS
Twenty-six trials (2179 women) were included. Nifedipine was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of delivery within 7 days of initiation of treatment and before 34 weeks' gestation, respiratory distress syndrome, necrotizing enterocolitis, intraventricular hemorrhage, neonatal jaundice, and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit when compared with β₂-adrenergic-receptor agonists. There was no difference between nifedipine and magnesium sulfate in tocolytic efficacy. Nifedipine was associated with significantly fewer maternal adverse events than β₂-adrenergic-receptor agonists and magnesium sulfate. Maintenance nifedipine tocolysis was ineffective in prolonging gestation or improving neonatal outcomes when compared with placebo or no treatment.
CONCLUSION
Nifedipine is superior to β₂-adrenergic-receptor agonists and magnesium sulfate for tocolysis in women with preterm labor.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Female; Humans; Magnesium Sulfate; Nifedipine; Obstetric Labor, Premature; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tocolytic Agents; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 21284967
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.11.038 -
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Apr 2021Propranolol, a nonselective β-adrenergic receptor antagonist, is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat problematic infantile hemangiomas, but a...
BACKGROUND
Propranolol, a nonselective β-adrenergic receptor antagonist, is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat problematic infantile hemangiomas, but a subset of patients experience treatment complications. Parents wary of long-term use and side effects consult plastic surgeons on surgical options or as a second opinion. Understanding the mechanism(s) of action of propranolol will allow plastic surgeons to better inform parents.
METHODS
A systemic literature search was performed to query published translational and basic science studies on propranolol effects on infantile hemangiomas and cells derived from these lesions.
RESULTS
In experimental studies, propranolol was antiproliferative and cytotoxic against hemangioma endothelial and stem cells and affected infantile hemangioma perivascular cell contractility. Propranolol inhibited migration, network formation, vascular endothelial growth factor A production, and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 activation and down-regulated PI3K/AKT and mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling in hemangioma endothelial cells, but it increased ERK1/2 activity in hemangioma stem cells. At effective clinical doses, measured propranolol plasma concentration is 100 times higher than necessary for complete β-adrenergic receptor blockade, yet was 10 to 100 times less than required to induce hemangioma stem cell death.
CONCLUSIONS
Propranolol targets multiple cell types in infantile hemangiomas by means of β-adrenergic receptor-dependent and -independent mechanisms. Plasma concentration played a significant role. At clinically relevant doses, incomplete infantile hemangioma suppression may explain the rebound phenomenon and worsening ulceration, and propranolol off target effects may lead to commonly reported adverse effects, such as sleep and gastrointestinal disturbances. Propranolol limitations and complications underscore the importance of surgical treatment options in cases of rebound and severe adverse effects. Surgical intervention remains an important treatment choice when parents are hesitant to use propranolol.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Hemangioma, Capillary; Humans; Infant; Propranolol
PubMed: 33776033
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000007699 -
Cytokine Feb 2020β-adrenoceptor antagonist (β-blocker) may have potential in the treatment of septic shock and sepsis. However, the relevant research findings are still controversial. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
β-adrenoceptor antagonist (β-blocker) may have potential in the treatment of septic shock and sepsis. However, the relevant research findings are still controversial.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the efficacy of β-blocker in patients with septic shock and sepsis. The primary sources of the reviewed studies through August 2018, with restriction on the language of English, were Pubmed and Embase. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) were included to evaluate the efficacy of β-blocker in the treatment of septic shock and sepsis. Meta analysis was performed using a random effect model. Two researchers independently searched articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the included studies.
RESULTS
A total of 6 studies related to 5 original RCTs were qualified for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis with a total of 363 patients with sepsis and/or septic shock. β-blocker was associated with a significantly decreased 28-day mortality compared to usual treatment group as the control (RR = 0.59, 95%CI: 0.48, 0.74; P < 0.00001). Heart rate in β-blocker was significantly lower than that in the standard care group (SMD = -2.01, 95%CI: -3.03, -0.98; P = 0001).
CONCLUSION
β-blocker of esmolol is safe and effective in improving 28-day mortality and controlling ventricular rate in patients with sepsis after fluid resuscitation, and has no significant adverse effect on tissue perfusion.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-1 Receptor Antagonists; Catecholamines; Heart Failure; Hemodynamics; Humans; Prognosis; Propanolamines; Sepsis; Shock, Septic
PubMed: 31756644
DOI: 10.1016/j.cyto.2019.154916 -
Investigative and Clinical Urology May 2024To evaluate efficacy and safety of beta-3 adrenergic agonists in adults with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate efficacy and safety of beta-3 adrenergic agonists in adults with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
According to a protocol (CRD42022350079), we searched multiple data sources for published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to 2nd August 2022. Two review authors independently screened studies and abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses by using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE guidance to rate the certainty of evidence (CoE).
RESULTS
We found data to inform two comparisons: beta-3 adrenergic agonists versus placebo (4 RCTs) and anticholinergics (2 RCTs). Only mirabegron was used for intervention in all included studies. Compared to placebo, beta-3 adrenergic agonists may have a clinically unimportant effect on urinary symptoms score (mean difference [MD] -2.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.78 to -0.22; ²=92%; 2 RCTs; 192 participants; low CoE) based on minimal clinically important difference of 3. We are very uncertain of the effects of beta-3 adrenergic agonists on quality of life (MD 10.86, 95% CI 1.21 to 20.50; ²=41%; 2 RCTs; 98 participants; very low CoE). Beta-3 adrenergic agonists may result in little to no difference in major adverse events (cardiovascular adverse events) (risk ratio 0.57, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.37; ²=0%; 4 RCTs; 310 participants; low CoE). Compared to anticholinergics, no study reported urinary symptom scores and quality of life. There were no major adverse events (cardiovascular adverse events) in either study group (1 study; 60 participants; very low CoE).
CONCLUSIONS
Compared to placebo, beta-3 adrenergic agonists may have similar effects on urinary symptom scores and major adverse events. There were uncertainties about their effects on quality of life. Compared to anticholinergics, we are either very uncertain or have no evidence about urinary symptom scores, quality of life, and major adverse events.
Topics: Humans; Adrenergic beta-3 Receptor Agonists; Urinary Bladder, Neurogenic; Treatment Outcome; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38714512
DOI: 10.4111/icu.20230271 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2022Current guidelines recommend a higher-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or adding a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) when asthma is not controlled with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effectiveness and tolerability of dual and triple combination inhaler therapies compared with each other and varying doses of inhaled corticosteroids in adolescents and adults with asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Current guidelines recommend a higher-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or adding a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) when asthma is not controlled with medium-dose (MD) ICS/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) combination therapy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of dual (ICS/LABA) and triple therapies (ICS/LABA/LAMA) compared with each other and with varying doses of ICS in adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched multiple databases for pre-registered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks of study duration from 2008 to 18 February 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched studies, including adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma who had been treated with, or were eligible for, MD-ICS/LABA, comparing dual and triple therapies. We excluded cluster- and cross-over RCTs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis according to the previously published protocol. We used Cochrane's Screen4ME workflow to assess search results and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome was steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations and asthma-related hospitalisations (moderate to severe and severe exacerbations).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17,161 patients with uncontrolled asthma from 17 studies (median duration 26 weeks; mean age 49.1 years; male 40%; white 81%; mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second (MEF 1)1.9 litres and 61% predicted). The quality of included studies was generally good except for some outcomes in a few studies due to high attrition rates. Medium-dose (MD) and high-dose (HD) triple therapies reduce steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.71 to 0.99] and 0.69 [0.58 to 0.82], respectively) (high-certainty evidence), but not asthma-related hospitalisations, compared to MD-ICS/LABA. High-dose triple therapy likely reduces steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations compared to MD triple therapy (HR 0.83 [95% CrI 0.69 to 0.996], [moderate certainty]). Subgroup analyses suggest the reduction in steroid-requiring exacerbations associated with triple therapies may be only for those with a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year but not for those without. High-dose triple therapy, but not MD triple, results in a reduction in all-cause adverse events (AEs) and likely reduces dropouts due to AEs compared to MD-ICS/LABA (odds ratio (OR) 0.79 [95% CrI 0.69 to 0.90], [high certainty] and 0.50 [95% CrI 0.30 to 0.84], [moderate certainty], respectively). Triple therapy results in little to no difference in all-cause or asthma-related serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to dual therapy (high certainty). The evidence suggests triple therapy results in little or no clinically important difference in symptoms or quality of life compared to dual therapy considering the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) and HD-ICS/LABA is unlikely to result in any significant benefit or harm compared to MD-ICS/LABA.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Medium-dose and HD triple therapies reduce steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations, but not asthma-related hospitalisations, compared to MD-ICS/LABA especially in those with a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year. High-dose triple therapy is likely superior to MD triple therapy in reducing steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations. Triple therapy is unlikely to result in clinically meaningful improvement in symptoms or quality of life compared to dual therapy considering the MCIDs. High-dose triple therapy, but not MD triple, results in a reduction in all-cause AEs and likely reduces dropouts due to AEs compared to MD-ICS/LABA. Triple therapy results in little to no difference in all-cause or asthma-related SAEs compared to dual therapy. HD-ICS/LABA is unlikely to result in any significant benefit or harm compared to MD-ICS/LABA, although long-term safety of higher rather than MD- ICS remains to be demonstrated given the median duration of included studies was six months. The above findings may assist deciding on a treatment option when asthma is not controlled with MD-ICS/LABA.
Topics: Adult; Male; Adolescent; Humans; Middle Aged; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Drug Therapy, Combination; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Asthma; Muscarinic Antagonists; Nebulizers and Vaporizers; Administration, Inhalation
PubMed: 36472162
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013799.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2013It is well known that physical exercise can trigger asthma symptoms and can induce bronchial obstruction in people without clinical asthma. International guidelines on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
It is well known that physical exercise can trigger asthma symptoms and can induce bronchial obstruction in people without clinical asthma. International guidelines on asthma management recommend the use of beta2-agonists at any stage of the disease. At present, however, no consensus has been reached about the efficacy and safety of beta2-agonists in the pretreatment of exercise-induced asthma and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. For the purpose of the present review, both of these conditions are referred to by the acronymous EIA, independently from the presence of an underlying chronic clinical disease.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of inhaled short- and long-acting beta2-agonists, compared with placebo, in the pretreatment of children and adults with exercise-induced asthma (or exercise-induced bronchoconstriction).
SEARCH METHODS
Trials were identified by electronic searching of the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials and by handsearching of respiratory journals and meetings. Searches are current as of August 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of any study design, published in full text, that assessed the effects of inhaled beta2-agonists on EIA in adults and children. We excluded studies that did not clearly state diagnostic criteria for EIA.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 53 trials consisting of 1139 participants. Forty-eight studies used a cross-over design, and five were performed in accordance with a parallel-group design. Forty-five studies addressed the effect of a single beta2-agonist administration, and eight focused on long-term treatment. We addressed these two different intervention regimens as different comparisons.Among primary outcomes for short-term administration, data on maximum fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) showed a significant protective effect for both short-acting beta-agonists (SABA) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) compared with placebo, with a mean difference of -17.67% (95% confidence interval (CI) -19.51% to -15.84%, P = 0.00001, 799 participants from 72 studies). The subgroup analysis of studies performed in adults compared with those performed in children showed high heterogeneity confined to children, despite the comparable mean bronchoprotective effect.Secondary outcomes on other pulmonary function parameters confirmed a more positive and protective effect of beta2-agonists on EIA compared with placebo. Occurrence of side effects was not significantly different between beta2-agonists and placebo.Overall evaluation of the included long-term studies suggests a beta2-agonist bronchoprotective effect for the first dose of treatment. However, long-term use of both SABA and LABA induced the onset of tolerance and decreased the duration of drug effect, even after a short treatment period.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence of low to moderate quality shows that beta2-agonists, both SABA and LABA, when administered in a single dose, are effective and safe in preventing EIA.Long-term regular administration of inhaled beta2-agonists induces tolerance and lacks sufficient safety data. This finding appears to be of particular clinical relevance in view of the potential for prolonged regular use of beta2-agonists as monotherapy in the pretreatment of EIA, despite the warnings of drug agencies (FDA, EMA) regarding LABA.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Antagonists; Adult; Asthma, Exercise-Induced; Bronchoconstriction; Bronchodilator Agents; Child; Forced Expiratory Volume; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 24089311
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003564.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2012This review is an update of the Cochrane Review published in 2007, which assessed the role of beta-blockade as first-line therapy for hypertension. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This review is an update of the Cochrane Review published in 2007, which assessed the role of beta-blockade as first-line therapy for hypertension.
OBJECTIVES
To quantify the effectiveness and safety of beta-blockers on morbidity and mortality endpoints in adults with hypertension.
SEARCH METHODS
In December 2011 we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, and reference lists of previous reviews; for eligible studies published since the previous search we conducted in May 2006.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least one year duration, which assessed the effects of beta-blockers compared to placebo or other drugs, as first-line therapy for hypertension, on mortality and morbidity in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We selected studies and extracted data in duplicate. We expressed study results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and combined them using the fixed-effects or random-effects method, as appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 RCTs which compared beta-blockers to placebo (4 trials, N=23,613), diuretics (5 trials, N=18,241), calcium-channel blockers (CCBs: 4 trials, N=44,825), and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (3 trials, N=10,828). Three-quarters of the 40,245 participants on beta-blockers used atenolol. Most studies had a high risk of bias; resulting from various limitations in study design, conduct, and data analysis.Total mortality was not significantly different between beta-blockers and placebo (RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.88 to 1.11; I(2)=0%), diuretics or RAS inhibitors, but was higher for beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.07, 95%CI 1.00 to 1.14; I(2)=2%). Total cardiovascular disease (CVD) was lower for beta-blockers compared to placebo (RR 0.88, 95%CI 0.79 to 0.97; I(2)=21%). This is primarily a reflection of the significant decrease in stroke (RR 0.80, 95%CI 0.66 to 0.96; I(2)=0%), since there was no significant difference in coronary heart disease (CHD) between beta-blockers and placebo. There was no significant difference in withdrawals from assigned treatment due to adverse events between beta-blockers and placebo (RR 1.12, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.54; I(2)=66%).The effect of beta-blockers on CVD was significantly worse than that of CCBs (RR 1.18, 95%CI 1.08-1.29; I(2)=0%), but was not different from that of diuretics or RAS inhibitors. In addition, there was an increase in stroke in beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.24, 95%CI 1.11-1.40; I(2)=0%) and RAS inhibitors (RR 1.30, 95%CI 1.11 to 1.53; I(2)=29%). However, CHD was not significantly different between beta-blockers and diuretics, CCBs or RAS inhibitors. Participants on beta-blockers were more likely to discontinue treatment due to adverse events than those on RAS inhibitors (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.54; I(2)=12%), but there was no significant difference with diuretics or CCBs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Initiating treatment of hypertension with beta-blockers leads to modest reductions in cardiovascular disease and no significant effects on mortality. These effects of beta-blockers are inferior to those of other antihypertensive drugs. The GRADE quality of this evidence is low, implying that the true effect of beta-blockers may be substantially different from the estimate of effects found in this review. Further research should be of high quality and should explore whether there are differences between different sub-types of beta-blockers or whether beta-blockers have differential effects on younger and elderly patients.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Adult; Aged; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Antihypertensive Agents; Calcium Channel Blockers; Diuretics; Humans; Hypertension; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke
PubMed: 22895924
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002003.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2012This review is an update of the Cochrane Review published in 2007, which assessed the role of beta-blockade as first-line therapy for hypertension. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This review is an update of the Cochrane Review published in 2007, which assessed the role of beta-blockade as first-line therapy for hypertension.
OBJECTIVES
To quantify the effectiveness and safety of beta-blockers on morbidity and mortality endpoints in adults with hypertension.
SEARCH METHODS
In December 2011 we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, and reference lists of previous reviews; for eligible studies published since the previous search we conducted in May 2006.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least one year duration, which assessed the effects of beta-blockers compared to placebo or other drugs, as first-line therapy for hypertension, on mortality and morbidity in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We selected studies and extracted data in duplicate. We expressed study results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and combined them using the fixed-effects or random-effects method, as appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 RCTs which compared beta-blockers to placebo (4 trials, N=23,613), diuretics (5 trials, N=18,241), calcium-channel blockers (CCBs: 4 trials, N=44,825), and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (3 trials, N=10,828). Three-quarters of the 40,245 participants on beta-blockers used atenolol. Most studies had a high risk of bias; resulting from various limitations in study design, conduct, and data analysis.Total mortality was not significantly different between beta-blockers and placebo (RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.88 to 1.11; I(2)=0%), diuretics or RAS inhibitors, but was higher for beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.07, 95%CI 1.00 to 1.14; I(2)=2%). Total cardiovascular disease (CVD) was lower for beta-blockers compared to placebo (RR 0.88, 95%CI 0.79 to 0.97; I(2)=21%). This is primarily a reflection of the significant decrease in stroke (RR 0.80, 95%CI 0.66 to 0.96; I(2)=0%), since there was no significant difference in coronary heart disease (CHD) between beta-blockers and placebo. There was no significant difference in withdrawals from assigned treatment due to adverse events between beta-blockers and placebo (RR 1.12, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.54; I(2)=66%).The effect of beta-blockers on CVD was significantly worse than that of CCBs (RR 1.18, 95%CI 1.08-1.29; I(2)=0%), but was not different from that of diuretics or RAS inhibitors. In addition, there was an increase in stroke in beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.24, 95%CI 1.11-1.40; I(2)=0%) and RAS inhibitors (RR 1.30, 95%CI 1.11 to 1.53; I(2)=29%). However, CHD was not significantly different between beta-blockers and diuretics, CCBs or RAS inhibitors. Participants on beta-blockers were more likely to discontinue treatment due to adverse events than those on RAS inhibitors (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.54; I(2)=12%), but there was no significant difference with diuretics or CCBs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Initiating treatment of hypertension with beta-blockers leads to modest reductions in cardiovascular disease and no significant effects on mortality. These effects of beta-blockers are inferior to those of other antihypertensive drugs. The GRADE quality of this evidence is low, implying that the true effect of beta-blockers may be substantially different from the estimate of effects found in this review. Further research should be of high quality and should explore whether there are differences between different sub-types of beta-blockers or whether beta-blockers have differential effects on younger and elderly patients.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Adult; Aged; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Antihypertensive Agents; Atenolol; Calcium Channel Blockers; Coronary Disease; Diuretics; Heart Arrest; Humans; Hypertension; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke
PubMed: 23152211
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002003.pub4 -
International Braz J Urol : Official... 2015Urinary lithiasis is the main urologic cause of emergency treatment in adult patient. In the past years, the incidence in children population has increased. However,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Urinary lithiasis is the main urologic cause of emergency treatment in adult patient. In the past years, the incidence in children population has increased. However, literature about the use of alpha-1 adrenergic blockers in pediatric population with distal ureterolithiasis is still scarce. The drug acts by decreasing ureter contractions, especially in the distal portion, facilitating calculus expulsion.
OBJECTIVE
This review has the objective to evaluate the use of alpha-1 adrenergic blockers as medical expulsive treatment in children with distal ureterolithiasis.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
An electronic literature search was performed using the MEDLINE, COCHRANE, and LILACS databases. We further searched manually the references of the primary studies. Searches were concluded on October 4th, 2014. Articles were selected, independently and in pairs, by the respective titles and summaries. Any divergence was resolved by consensus.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Alpha-1 adrenergic antagonists increased the probability of calculus expulsion by 27% (NNT=4). Calculi smaller than 5mm, increased by 33% (NNT=3). Larger than 5mm, increased by 34% (NNT=3).
CONCLUSION
Alpha-1 adrenergic blocker use is related with a greater incidence of expulsion of ureteral calculi, smaller or greater than 5mm, and fewer episodes of pain when compared to ibuprofen. However it is necessary larger samples to enhance the power analysis of the expulsion of ureteral calculi larger than 5mm and the episodes of pain.
PATIENT SUMMARY
This review analyzed the outcome of alpha adrenergic antagonist in children with ureteral calculi. We conclude that it is the best medicine for use, since it helps the expulsion of the stone.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-1 Receptor Antagonists; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Child; Female; Humans; Ibuprofen; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Ureterolithiasis
PubMed: 26717117
DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2015.0048 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2016About 10% of adults have suffered an attack of asthma, and up to 5% of these have severe disease that responds poorly to treatment. Patients with severe disease have an... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
About 10% of adults have suffered an attack of asthma, and up to 5% of these have severe disease that responds poorly to treatment. Patients with severe disease have an increased risk of death, but patients with mild to moderate disease are also at risk of exacerbations. Most guidelines about the management of asthma follow stepwise protocols. This overview does not endorse or follow any particular protocol, but presents the evidence about a specific intervention, magnesium sulfate.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic overview, aiming to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of magnesium sulfate for acute asthma? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to November 2014 (Clinical Evidence overviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this overview).
RESULTS
At this update, searching of electronic databases retrieved 50 studies. After deduplication and removal of conference abstracts, 24 records were screened for inclusion in the overview. Appraisal of titles and abstracts led to the exclusion of 10 studies and the further review of 14 full publications. Of the 14 full articles evaluated, one systematic review was updated and one systematic review was added at this update. We performed a GRADE evaluation for five PICO combinations.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic overview, we categorised the efficacy for two comparisons based on information about the effectiveness and safety of magnesium sulfate (iv) versus placebo and magnesium sulfate (nebulised) plus short-acting beta2 agonists (inhaled) versus short-acting beta2 agonists (inhaled) alone.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Inhalation; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Antagonists; Adult; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Humans; Magnesium Sulfate
PubMed: 26761432
DOI: No ID Found