-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016This Cochrane review was first published in 2005 and updated in 2007, 2012 and now 2015. Acute bronchiolitis is the leading cause of medical emergencies during winter in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This Cochrane review was first published in 2005 and updated in 2007, 2012 and now 2015. Acute bronchiolitis is the leading cause of medical emergencies during winter in children younger than two years of age. Chest physiotherapy is sometimes used to assist infants in the clearance of secretions in order to decrease ventilatory effort.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy of chest physiotherapy in infants aged less than 24 months old with acute bronchiolitis. A secondary objective was to determine the efficacy of different techniques of chest physiotherapy (for example, vibration and percussion and passive forced exhalation).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2015, Issue 9) (accessed 8 July 2015), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2015), MEDLINE in-process and other non-indexed citations (July 2015), EMBASE (1990 to July 2015), CINAHL (1982 to July 2015), LILACS (1985 to July 2015), Web of Science (1985 to July 2015) and Pedro (1929 to July 2015).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which chest physiotherapy was compared against no intervention or against another type of physiotherapy in bronchiolitis patients younger than 24 months of age.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data. Primary outcomes were change in the severity status of bronchiolitis and time to recovery. Secondary outcomes were respiratory parameters, duration of oxygen supplementation, length of hospital stay, use of bronchodilators and steroids, adverse events and parents' impression of physiotherapy benefit. No pooling of data was possible.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 12 RCTs (1249 participants), three more than the previous Cochrane review, comparing physiotherapy with no intervention. Five trials (246 participants) evaluated conventional techniques (vibration and percussion plus postural drainage), and seven trials (1003 participants) evaluated passive flow-oriented expiratory techniques: slow passive expiratory techniques in four trials, and forced passive expiratory techniques in three trials.Conventional techniques failed to show a benefit in the primary outcome of change in severity status of bronchiolitis measured by means of clinical scores (five trials, 241 participants analysed). Safety of conventional techniques has been studied only anecdotally, with one case of atelectasis, the collapse or closure of the lung resulting in reduced or absent gas exchange, reported in the control arm of one trial.Slow passive expiratory techniques failed to show a benefit in the primary outcomes of severity status of bronchiolitis and in time to recovery (low quality of evidence). Three trials analysing 286 participants measured severity of bronchiolitis through clinical scores, with no significant differences between groups in any of these trials, conducted in patients with moderate and severe disease. Only one trial observed a transient significant small improvement in the Wang clinical score immediately after the intervention in patients with moderate severity of disease. There is very low quality evidence that slow passive expiratory techniques seem to be safe, as two studies (256 participants) reported that no adverse effects were observed.Forced passive expiratory techniques failed to show an effect on severity of bronchiolitis in terms of time to recovery (two trials, 509 participants) and time to clinical stability (one trial, 99 participants analysed). This evidence is of high quality and corresponds to patients with severe bronchiolitis. Furthermore, there is also high quality evidence that these techniques are related to an increased risk of transient respiratory destabilisation (risk ratio (RR) 10.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 78.8, one trial) and vomiting during the procedure (RR 5.4, 95% CI 1.6 to 18.4, one trial). Results are inconclusive for bradycardia with desaturation (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.2 to 5.0, one trial) and bradycardia without desaturation (RR 3.6, 95% CI 0.7 to 16.9, one trial), due to the limited precision of estimators. However, in mild to moderate bronchiolitis patients, forced expiration combined with conventional techniques produced an immediate relief of disease severity (one trial, 13 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
None of the chest physiotherapy techniques analysed in this review (conventional, slow passive expiratory techniques or forced expiratory techniques) have demonstrated a reduction in the severity of disease. For these reasons, these techniques cannot be used as standard clinical practice for hospitalised patients with severe bronchiolitis. There is high quality evidence that forced expiratory techniques in severe patients do not improve their health status and can lead to severe adverse events. Slow passive expiratory techniques provide an immediate and transient relief in moderate patients without impact on duration. Future studies should test the potential effect of slow passive expiratory techniques in mild to moderate non-hospitalised patients and patients who are respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) positive. Also, they could explore the combination of chest physiotherapy with salbutamol or hypertonic saline.
Topics: Acute Disease; Albuterol; Bronchiolitis; Bronchodilator Agents; Drainage, Postural; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Oxygen Inhalation Therapy; Percussion; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Therapy; Sodium Chloride; Vibration
PubMed: 26833493
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004873.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Beta-blockers are an essential part of standard therapy in adult congestive heart failure and therefore, are expected to be beneficial in children. However, congestive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Beta-blockers are an essential part of standard therapy in adult congestive heart failure and therefore, are expected to be beneficial in children. However, congestive heart failure in children differs from that in adults in terms of characteristics, aetiology, and drug clearance. Therefore, paediatric needs must be specifically investigated. This is an update of a Cochrane review previously published in 2009.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of beta-adrenoceptor-blockers (beta-blockers) in children with congestive heart failure.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS up to November 2015. Bibliographies of identified studies were checked. No language restrictions were applied.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, controlled, clinical trials investigating the effect of beta-blocker therapy on paediatric congestive heart failure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted and assessed data from the included trials.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified four new studies for the review update; the review now includes seven studies with 420 participants. Four small studies with 20 to 30 children each, and two larger studies of 80 children each, showed an improvement of congestive heart failure with beta-blocker therapy. A larger study with 161 participants showed no evidence of benefit over placebo in a composite measure of heart failure outcomes. The included studies showed no significant difference in mortality or heart transplantation rates between the beta-blocker and control groups. No significant adverse events were reported with beta-blockers, apart from one episode of complete heart block. A meta-analysis of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and fractional shortening (LVFS) data showed a very small improvement with beta-blockers. However, there were vast differences in the age, age range, and health of the participants (aetiology and severity of heart failure; heterogeneity of diagnoses and co-morbidities); there was a range of treatments across studies (choice of beta-blocker, dosing, duration of treatment); and a lack of standardised methods and outcome measures. Therefore, the primary outcomes could not be pooled in meta-analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is not enough evidence to support or discourage the use of beta-blockers in children with congestive heart failure, or to propose a paediatric dosing scheme. However, the sparse data available suggested that children with congestive heart failure might benefit from beta-blocker treatment. Further investigations in clearly defined populations with standardised methodology are required to establish guidelines for therapy. Pharmacokinetic investigations of beta-blockers in children are also required to provide effective dosing in future trials.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Carbazoles; Carvedilol; Child; Child, Preschool; Heart Failure; Heart Transplantation; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Metoprolol; Propanolamines; Propranolol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke Volume
PubMed: 32700759
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007037.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Many treatments for the common cold exist and are sold over-the-counter. Nevertheless, evidence on the effectiveness and safety of nasal decongestants is limited. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Many treatments for the common cold exist and are sold over-the-counter. Nevertheless, evidence on the effectiveness and safety of nasal decongestants is limited.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy, and short- and long-term safety, of nasal decongestants used in monotherapy to alleviate symptoms of the common cold in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 6, June 2016), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1946 to July 2016), Embase (2010 to 15 July 2016), CINAHL (1981 to 15 July 2016), LILACS (1982 to July 2016), Web of Science (1955 to July 2016) and clinical trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs investigating the effectiveness and adverse effects of nasal decongestants compared with placebo for treating the common cold in adults and children. We excluded quasi-RCTs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently extracted and summarised data on subjective measures of nasal congestion, overall patient well-being score, objective measures of nasal airway resistance, adverse effects and general recovery. One review author acted as arbiter in cases of disagreement. We categorised trials as single and multi-dose and analysed data both separately and together. We also analysed studies using an oral or topical nasal decongestant separately and together.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 trials with 1838 participants. Fourteen studies included adult participants only (aged 18 years and over). In six studies the intervention was a single dose and in nine studies multiple doses were used. Nine studies used pseudoephedrine and three studies used oxymetazoline. Other decongestants included phenylpropanolamine, norephedrine and xylometazoline. Phenylpropanolamine (or norephedrine) is no longer available on the market therefore we did not include the results of these studies in the meta-analyses. Eleven studies used oral decongestants; four studies used topical decongestants.Participants were included after contracting the common cold. The duration of symptoms differed among studies; in 10 studies participants had symptoms for less than three days, in three studies symptoms were present for less than five days, one study counted the number of colds over one year, and one study experimentally induced the common cold. In the single-dose studies, the effectiveness of a nasal decongestant was measured on the same day, whereas the follow-up in multi-dose studies ranged between one and 10 days.Most studies were conducted in university settings (N = eight), six at a specific university common cold centre. Three studies were conducted at a university in collaboration with a hospital and two in a hospital only setting. In two studies the setting was unclear.There were large differences in the reporting of outcomes and the reporting of methods in most studies was limited. Therefore, we judged most studies to be at low or unclear risk of bias. Pooling was possible for a limited number of studies only; measures of effect are expressed as standardised mean differences (SMDs). A positive SMD represents an improvement in congestion. There is no defined minimal clinically important difference for measures of subjective improvement in nasal congestion, therefore we used the SMDs as a guide to assess whether an effect was small (0.2 to 0.49), moderate (0.5 to 0.79) or large (≥ 0.8).Single-dose decongestant versus placebo: 10 studies compared a single dose of nasal decongestant with placebo and their effectiveness was tested between 15 minutes and 10 hours after dosing. Seven of 10 studies reported subjective symptom scores for nasal congestion; none reported overall patient well-being. However, pooling was not possible due to the large diversity in the measurement and reporting of symptoms of congestion. Two studies recorded adverse events. Both studies used an oral decongestant and each of them showed that there was no statistical difference between the number of adverse events in the treatment group versus the placebo group.Multi-dose decongestant versus placebo: nine studies compared multiple doses of nasal decongestants with placebo, but only five reported on the primary outcome, subjective symptom scores for nasal congestion. Only one study used a topical decongestant; none reported overall patient well-being. Subjective measures of congestion were significantly better for the treatment group compared with placebo approximately three hours after the last dose (SMD 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.92; P = 0.02; GRADE: low-quality evidence). However, the SMD of 0.49 only indicates a small clinical effect. Pooling was based on two studies, one oral and one topical, therefore we were unable to assess the effects of oral and topical decongestants separately. Seven studies reported adverse events (six oral and one topical decongestant); meta-analysis showed that there was no statistical difference between the number of adverse events in the treatment group (125 per 1000) compared to the placebo group (126 per 1000). The odds ratio (OR) for adverse events in the treatment group was 0.98 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.40; P = 0.90; GRADE: low-quality evidence). The results remained the same when we only considered studies using an oral decongestant (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.39; P = 0.80; GRADE: low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We were unable to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of single-dose nasal decongestants due to the limited evidence available. For multiple doses of nasal decongestants, the current evidence suggests that these may have a small positive effect on subjective measures of nasal congestion in adults with the common cold. However, the clinical relevance of this small effect is unknown and there is insufficient good-quality evidence to draw any firm conclusions. Due to the small number of studies that used a topical nasal decongestant, we were also unable to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of oral versus topical decongestants. Nasal decongestants do not seem to increase the risk of adverse events in adults in the short term. The effectiveness and safety of nasal decongestants in children and the clinical relevance of their small effect in adults is yet to be determined.
Topics: Administration, Intranasal; Adult; Child; Common Cold; Humans; Imidazoles; Nasal Decongestants; Oxymetazoline; Phenylpropanolamine; Pseudoephedrine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 27748955
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009612.pub2 -
Nutrients Jun 2020The foundations of neurodevelopment across an individual's lifespan are established in the first 1000 days of life (2 years). During this period an adequate supply of...
The foundations of neurodevelopment across an individual's lifespan are established in the first 1000 days of life (2 years). During this period an adequate supply of nutrients are essential for proper neurodevelopment and lifelong brain function. Of these, evidence for choline has been building but has not been widely collated using systematic approaches. Therefore, a systematic review was performed to identify the animal and human studies looking at inter-relationships between choline, neurological development, and brain function during the first 1000 days of life. The database PubMed was used, and reference lists were searched. In total, 813 publications were subject to the title/abstract review, and 38 animal and 16 human studies were included after evaluation. Findings suggest that supplementing the maternal or child's diet with choline over the first 1000 days of life could subsequently: (1) support normal brain development (animal and human evidence), (2) protect against neural and metabolic insults, particularly when the fetus is exposed to alcohol (animal and human evidence), and (3) improve neural and cognitive functioning (animal evidence). Overall, most offspring would benefit from increased choline supply during the first 1000 days of life, particularly in relation to helping facilitate normal brain development. Health policies and guidelines should consider re-evaluation to help communicate and impart potential choline benefits through diet and/or supplementation approaches across this critical life stage.
Topics: Age Factors; Animals; Brain; Choline; Cognition; Dietary Supplements; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant Nutritional Physiological Phenomena; Infant, Newborn; Male; Maternal Nutritional Physiological Phenomena; Maternal-Fetal Exchange; Pregnancy
PubMed: 32531929
DOI: 10.3390/nu12061731 -
International Journal of Obstetric... Aug 2021Spinal anesthesia is the standard for elective cesarean section but spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension remains an important problem. Accurate prediction of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Spinal anesthesia is the standard for elective cesarean section but spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension remains an important problem. Accurate prediction of hypotension could enhance clinical decision-making, alter management, and facilitate early intervention. We performed a systematic review of predictors of spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension and their predictive value during cesarean section.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective observational studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of predictors of spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension in elective cesarean section. The quality of studies was assessed and predictors were grouped in domains based on the type of predictor.
RESULTS
Thirty-eight studies (n=3086 patients) were included. In most studies, patients received 500-1000 mL crystalloid preload or 500-2000 mL crystalloid coload. Vasopressors for post-spinal hypotension were boluses of ephedrine 5-15 mg and/or phenylephrine 25-100 µg in most studies. The hypotension rate varied from 29% to 80% based on the definition. For analysis, >30 predictors were classified into seven domains: demographic characteristics, baseline hemodynamic variables, baseline sympathovagal balance, postural stress testing, peripheral perfusion indices, blood volume and fluid responsiveness indices, and genetic polymorphism.
CONCLUSIONS
Environmental and individual factors increased outcome variability, which restricted the value of the autonomic nervous system and peripheral perfusion indices for prediction of spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension. Supine stress tests may reflect parturients' cardiovascular tolerance during hemodynamic fluctuations and may optimize the predictive value of static state predictors. Future research for predicting spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension should focus on composite and dynamic parameters during the supine stress tests.
Topics: Anesthesia, Obstetrical; Anesthesia, Spinal; Cesarean Section; Colloids; Female; Humans; Hypotension; Hypotension, Controlled; Observational Studies as Topic; Phenylephrine; Pregnancy; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 34034957
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2021.103175 -
Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) Mar 2022We aimed to address which antihypertensives are superior to placebo/no therapy or another antihypertensive for controlling nonsevere pregnancy hypertension and provide... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
We aimed to address which antihypertensives are superior to placebo/no therapy or another antihypertensive for controlling nonsevere pregnancy hypertension and provide future sample size estimates for definitive evidence.
METHODS
Randomized trials of antihypertensives for nonsevere pregnancy hypertension were identified from online electronic databases, to February 28, 2021 (registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; unique identifier: CRD42020188725). Our outcomes were severe hypertension, proteinuria/preeclampsia, fetal/newborn death, small-for-gestational age infants, preterm birth, and admission to neonatal care. A Bayesian random-effects model generated estimates of direct and indirect treatment comparisons. Trial sequential analysis informed future trials needed.
RESULTS
Of 1246 publications identified, 72 trials were included; 61 (6923 women) were informative. All commonly prescribed antihypertensives (labetalol, other β-blockers, methyldopa, calcium channel blockers, and mixed/multi-drug therapy) versus placebo/no therapy reduced the risk of severe hypertension by 30% to 70%. Labetalol decreased proteinuria/preeclampsia (odds ratio, 0.73 [95% credible interval, 0.54-0.99]) and fetal/newborn death (odds ratio, 0.54 [0.30-0.98]) compared with placebo/no therapy, and proteinuria/preeclampsia compared with methyldopa (odds ratio, 0.66 [0.44-0.99]) and calcium channel blockers (odds ratio, 0.63 [0.41-0.96]). No other differences were identified, but credible intervals were wide. Trial sequential analysis indicated that 2500 to 10 000 women/arm (severe hypertension or safety outcomes) to >15 000/arm (fetal/newborn death) would be required to provide definitive evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, all commonly prescribed antihypertensives in pregnancy reduce the risk of severe hypertension, but labetalol may also decrease proteinuria/preeclampsia and fetal/newborn death. Evidence is lacking for many other safety outcomes. Prohibitive sample sizes are required for definitive evidence. Real-world data are needed to individualize care.
Topics: Adult; Antihypertensive Agents; Female; Humans; Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced; Labetalol; Patient Acuity; Pregnancy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35138877
DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.121.18415 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2011Bronchiolitis is the most common lower respiratory tract infection in infants, occurring in a seasonal pattern, with highest incidence in the winter in temperate... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Bronchiolitis is the most common lower respiratory tract infection in infants, occurring in a seasonal pattern, with highest incidence in the winter in temperate climates and in the rainy season in warmer countries. Bronchiolitis is a common reason for attendance at and admission to hospital.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of prophylactic interventions for bronchiolitis in high-risk children? What are the effects of measures to prevent transmission of bronchiolitis in hospital? What are the effects of treatments for children with bronchiolitis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to July 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 59 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antibiotics, bronchodilators (oral, inhaled salbutamol, inhaled adrenaline [epinephrine], hypertonic saline), chest physiotherapy, continuous positive airway pressure, corticosteroids, fluid management, heliox, montelukast, nasal decongestants, nursing interventions (cohort segregation, hand washing, gowns, masks, gloves, and goggles), oxygen, respiratory syncytial virus immunoglobulins, pooled immunoglobulins, or palivizumab (monoclonal antibody), ribavirin, or surfactants.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Inhalation; Albuterol; Bronchiolitis; Bronchodilator Agents; Double-Blind Method; Epinephrine; Humans; Infant
PubMed: 21486501
DOI: No ID Found -
The American Journal of Emergency... Jan 2022Intravenous diltiazem and metoprolol are both commonly used to treat atrial fibrillation (AF) with rapid ventricular rate (RVR) in the emergency department (ED), but the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Intravenous diltiazem and metoprolol are both commonly used to treat atrial fibrillation (AF) with rapid ventricular rate (RVR) in the emergency department (ED), but the advantages and disadvantages of these drugs cannot be verified. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous diltiazem versus metoprolol for AF with RVR.
METHOD
We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane library, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, China Biology Medicine disc (CBM) and the WeiPu (VIP). Meta-analysis was performed using weighted mean difference (WMD), relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4.1.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies involving 1214 patients in nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eight cohort studies were included in meta-analysis, including 643 patients in the intravenous diltiazem group and 571 patients group in the intravenous metoprolol. The results of the meta-analysis showed that compared with intravenous metoprolol, intravenous diltiazem was found higher efficacy (RR =1.11; 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.16, p < 0.00001), shorter average onset time (RR = -1.13; 95% CI = -1.97 to -0.28, p = 0.009), lower ventricular rate (RR = -9.48; 95% CI = -12.13 to -6.82, p<0.00001), less impact on systolic blood pressure (WMD = 3.76; 95% CI: 0.20 to 7.33, P = 0.04), and no significant difference in adverse events (RR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.55 to 1.14, P = 0.22) and diastolic blood pressure (WMD = -1.20; 95% CI: -3.43 to 1.04, P = 0.29) was found between intravenous diltiazem and metoprolol.
CONCLUSION
Intravenous diltiazem has higher efficacy, shorter average onset time, lower ventricular rate, less impact on blood pressure, and with no increase in adverse events compared to intravenous metoprolol.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Atrial Fibrillation; Blood Pressure; Diltiazem; Heart Rate; Humans; Metoprolol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34781150
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.08.082 -
Critical Care Medicine Oct 2022Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Evidence examining commonly used drug treatments remains uncertain. We assessed the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Evidence examining commonly used drug treatments remains uncertain. We assessed the comparative effectiveness of inpatient treatments for HRS by performing a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
DATA SOURCES
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION
Pairs of reviewers independently identified eligible RCTs that enrolled patients with type 1 or 2 HRS. Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data.
DATA SYNTHESIS
We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool for RCTs and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach. Our main outcomes are all-cause mortality, HRS reversal, and serious adverse events. Of 3,079 citations, we included 26 RCTs examining 1,736 patients. Based on pooled analysis, terlipressin increases HRS reversal compared with placebo (142 reversals per 1,000 [95% CI, >87.7 to >210.9]; high certainty). Norepinephrine (112.7 reversals per 1,000 [95% CI, 52.6 to >192.3]) may increase HRS reversal compared with placebo (low certainty). The effect of midodrine+octreotide (67.8 reversals per 1,000 [95% CI, <2.8 to >177.4]; very low) on HRS reversal is uncertain. Terlipressin may reduce mortality compared with placebo (93.7 fewer deaths [95% CI, 168.7 to <12.5]; low certainty). Terlipressin probably increases the risk of serious adverse events compared with placebo (20.4 more events per 1,000 [95% CI, <5.1 to >51]; moderate certainty).
CONCLUSIONS
Terlipressin increases HRS reversal compared with placebo. Terlipressin may reduce mortality. Until access to terlipressin improves, initial norepinephrine administration may be more appropriate than initial trial with midodrine+octreotide. Our review has the potential to inform future guideline and practice in the treatment of HRS.
Topics: Hepatorenal Syndrome; Humans; Midodrine; Network Meta-Analysis; Norepinephrine; Octreotide; Terlipressin; Treatment Outcome; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 35777925
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000005595 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2018Non-selective beta-blockers are recommended for the prevention of bleeding in people with cirrhosis, portal hypertension and gastroesophageal varices. Carvedilol is a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Non-selective beta-blockers are recommended for the prevention of bleeding in people with cirrhosis, portal hypertension and gastroesophageal varices. Carvedilol is a non-selective beta-blocker with additional intrinsic alpha-blocking effects, which may be superior to traditional, non-selective beta-blockers in reducing portal pressure and, therefore, in reducing the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of carvedilol compared with traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices.
SEARCH METHODS
We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 08 May 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised clinical trials comparing carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, irrespective of publication status, blinding, or language. We included trials evaluating both primary and secondary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and verified gastroesophageal varices.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors (AZ, RJ and LH), independently extracted data. The primary outcome measures were mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains and the quality of the evidence with GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
Eleven trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One trial did not report clinical outcomes. We included the remaining 10 randomised clinical trials, involving 810 participants with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices, in our analyses. The intervention comparisons were carvedilol versus propranolol (nine trials), or nadolol (one trial). Six trials were of short duration (mean 6 (range 1 to 12) weeks), while four were of longer duration (13.5 (6 to 30) months). Three trials evaluated primary prevention; three evaluated secondary prevention; while four evaluated both primary and secondary prevention. We classified all trials as at 'high risk of bias'. We gathered mortality data from seven trials involving 507 participants; no events occurred in four of these. Sixteen of 254 participants receiving carvedilol and 19 of 253 participants receiving propranolol or nadolol died (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53; I = 0%, low-quality evidence). There appeared to be no differences between carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers and the risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.37; 810 participants; 10 trials; I = 45%, very low-quality evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42; 810 participants; 10 trials; I = 14%, low-quality evidence). Significantly more deaths, episodes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events occurred in the long-term trials but there was not enough information to determine whether there were differences between carvedilol and traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, by trial duration. There was also insufficient information to detect differences in the effects of these interventions in trials evaluating primary or secondary prevention. There appeared to be no differences in the risk of non-serious adverse events between carvedilol versus its comparators (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.29; 596 participants; 6 trials; I = 88%; very low-quality evidence). Use of carvedilol was associated with a greater reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient than traditional, non-selective beta-blockers both in absolute (MD -1.75 mmHg, 95% CI -2.60 to -0.89; 368 participants; 6 trials; I = 0%; low-quality evidence) and percentage terms (MD -8.02%, 95% CI -11.49% to -4.55%; 368 participants; 6 trials; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). However, we did not observe a concomitant reduction in the number of participants who failed to achieve a sufficient haemodynamic response (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; 368 participants; 6 trials; I = 42%; very low-quality evidence) or in clinical outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no clear beneficial or harmful effects of carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers on mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, serious or non-serious adverse events despite the fact that carvedilol was more effective at reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient. However, the evidence was of low or very low quality, and hence the findings are uncertain. Additional evidence is required from adequately powered, long-term, double-blind, randomised clinical trials, which evaluate both clinical and haemodynamic outcomes.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Adult; Carvedilol; Esophageal and Gastric Varices; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Liver Cirrhosis; Nadolol; Primary Prevention; Propranolol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 30372514
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011510.pub2