-
Psychiatry Research May 2024We aim to systematically review and meta-analyze the effectiveness and safety of psychedelics [psilocybin, ayahuasca (active component DMT), LSD and MDMA] in treating... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We aim to systematically review and meta-analyze the effectiveness and safety of psychedelics [psilocybin, ayahuasca (active component DMT), LSD and MDMA] in treating symptoms of various mental disorders. Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, and PubMed were searched up to February 2024 and 126 articles were finally included. Results showed that psilocybin has the largest number of articles on treating mood disorders (N = 28), followed by ayahuasca (N = 7) and LSD (N = 6). Overall, psychedelics have therapeutic effects on mental disorders such as depression and anxiety. Specifically, psilocybin (Hedges' g = -1.49, 95% CI [-1.67, -1.30]) showed the strongest therapeutic effect among four psychedelics, followed by ayahuasca (Hedges' g = -1.34, 95% CI [-1.86, -0.82]), MDMA (Hedges' g = -0.83, 95% CI [-1.33, -0.32]), and LSD (Hedges' g = -0.65, 95% CI [-1.03, -0.27]). A small amount of evidence also supports psychedelics improving tobacco addiction, eating disorders, sleep disorders, borderline personality disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and body dysmorphic disorder. The most common adverse event with psychedelics was headache. Nearly a third of the articles reported that no participants reported lasting adverse effects. Our analyses suggest that psychedelics reduce negative mood, and have potential efficacy in other mental disorders, such as substance-use disorders and PTSD.
Topics: Humans; Hallucinogens; Psilocybin; N-Methyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine; Lysergic Acid Diethylamide; Mental Disorders; Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
PubMed: 38574699
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2024.115886 -
Advances in Therapy Nov 2022Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual maintenance therapies for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual maintenance therapies for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus other dual and mono-bronchodilator therapies in symptomatic patients with COPD.
METHODS
A systematic literature review (October 2015-November 2020) was performed to identify RCTs ≥ 8 weeks long in adult patients with COPD that compared LAMA/LABA combinations against any long-acting bronchodilator-containing dual therapy or monotherapy. Data extracted on changes from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score, rescue medication use and moderate/severe exacerbation rate were analysed using an NMA in a frequentist framework. The primary comparison was at 24 weeks. Fixed effects model results are presented.
RESULTS
The NMA included 69 full-length publications (including 10 GSK clinical study reports) reporting 49 studies. At 24 weeks, UMEC/VI provided statistically significant greater improvements in FEV versus all dual therapy and monotherapy comparators. UMEC/VI provided similar improvements in SGRQ total score compared with all other LAMA/LABAs, and significantly greater improvements versus UMEC 125 μg, glycopyrronium 50 μg, glycopyrronium 18 μg, tiotropium 18 μg and salmeterol 50 μg. UMEC/VI also provided significantly better outcomes versus some comparators for TDI focal score, rescue medication use, annualised moderate/severe exacerbation rate, and time to first moderate/severe exacerbation.
CONCLUSION
UMEC/VI provided generally better outcomes compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapies, and consistent improvements in lung function (measured by change from baseline in trough FEV at 24 weeks) versus dual therapies. Treatment with UMEC/VI may improve outcomes for symptomatic patients with COPD compared with alternative maintenance treatments.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Adult; Benzyl Alcohols; Bronchodilator Agents; Chlorobenzenes; Drug Combinations; Dyspnea; Forced Expiratory Volume; Glycopyrrolate; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quinuclidines; Salmeterol Xinafoate; Tiotropium Bromide; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35857184
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-022-02234-x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a childhood-onset disorder characterised by inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. ADHD can persist into... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a childhood-onset disorder characterised by inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. ADHD can persist into adulthood and can affects individuals' social and occupational functioning, as well as their quality of life and health. ADHD is frequently associated with other mental disorders such as substance use disorders and anxiety and affective disorders. Amphetamines are used to treat adults with ADHD, but uncertainties about their efficacy and safety remain.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the efficacy and safety of amphetamines for adults with ADHD.
SEARCH METHODS
In August 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 10 other databases, and two trials registers, and we ran citation searches for included studies. We also contacted the corresponding authors of all included studies, other experts in the field, and the pharmaceutical company, Shire, and we searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews for other published, unpublished, or ongoing studies. For each included study, we performed a citation search in Web of Science to identify any later studies that may have cited it.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of amphetamines (at any dose) for ADHD in adults aged 18 years and over against placebo or an active intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors extracted data from each included study. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) and the risk ratio (RR) to assess continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. We conducted a stratified analysis to determine the influence of moderating variables. We assessed trials for risk of bias and drew a funnel plot to investigate the possibility of publication bias. We rated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach, which yielded high, moderate, low, or very low quality ratings based on evaluation of within-trial risk of bias, directness of evidence, heterogeneity of data; precision of effect estimates, and risk of publication bias.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 19 studies that investigated three types of amphetamines: dexamphetamine (10.2 mg/d to 21.8 mg/d), lisdexamfetamine (30 mg/d to 70 mg/d), and mixed amphetamine salts (MAS; 12.5 mg/d to 80 mg/d). These studies enrolled 2521 participants; most were middle-aged (35.3 years), Caucasian males (57.2%), with a combined type of ADHD (78.8%). Eighteen studies were conducted in the USA, and one study was conducted in both Canada and the USA. Ten were multi-site studies. All studies were placebo-controlled, and three also included an active comparator: guanfacine, modafinil, or paroxetine. Most studies had short-term follow-up and a mean study length of 5.3 weeks.We found no studies that had low risk of bias in all domains of the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, mainly because amphetamines have powerful subjective effects that may reveal the assigned treatment, but also because we noted attrition bias, and because we could not rule out the possibility of a carry-over effect in studies that used a cross-over design.Sixteen studies were funded by the pharmaceutical industry, one study was publicly funded, and two studies did not report their funding sources.Amphetamines versus placeboSeverity of ADHD symptoms: we found low- to very low-quality evidence suggesting that amphetamines reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by clinicians (SMD -0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.04 to -0.75; 13 studies, 2028 participants) and patients (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.28; six studies, 120 participants).Retention: overall, we found low-quality evidence suggesting that amphetamines did not improve retention in treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.13; 17 studies, 2323 participants).Adverse events: we found that amphetamines were associated with an increased proportion of patients who withdrew because of adverse events (RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.63 to 4.45; 17 studies, 2409 participants).Type of amphetamine: we found differences between amphetamines for the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by clinicians. Both lisdexamfetamine (SMD -1.06, 95% CI -1.26 to -0.85; seven studies, 896 participants; low-quality evidence) and MAS (SMD -0.80, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.66; five studies, 1083 participants; low-quality evidence) reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms. In contrast, we found no evidence to suggest that dexamphetamine reduced the severity of ADHD symptoms (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.32; one study, 49 participants; very low-quality evidence). In addition, all amphetamines were efficacious in reducing the severity of ADHD symptoms as rated by patients (dexamphetamine: SMD -0.77, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.40; two studies, 35 participants; low-quality evidence; lisdexamfetamine: SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.01; three studies, 67 participants; low-quality evidence; MAS: SMD -0.45, 95% CI -1.02 to 0.12; one study, 18 participants; very low-quality evidence).Dose at study completion: different doses of amphetamines did not appear to be associated with differences in efficacy.Type of drug-release formulation: we investigated immediate- and sustained-release formulations but found no differences between them for any outcome.Amphetamines versus other drugsWe found no evidence that amphetamines improved ADHD symptom severity compared to other drug interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Amphetamines improved the severity of ADHD symptoms, as assessed by clinicians or patients, in the short term but did not improve retention to treatment. Amphetamines were associated with higher attrition due to adverse events. The short duration of studies coupled with their restrictive inclusion criteria limits the external validity of these findings. Furthermore, none of the included studies had an overall low risk of bias. Overall, the evidence generated by this review is of low or very low quality.
Topics: Adult; Amphetamines; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Dextroamphetamine; Humans; Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30091808
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007813.pub3 -
Addiction Biology Nov 2022Classic psychedelics refer to substances such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), psilocybin, ayahuasca, and mescaline, which induce altered states of consciousness by...
Classic psychedelics refer to substances such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), psilocybin, ayahuasca, and mescaline, which induce altered states of consciousness by acting mainly on 5-HT receptors. Recently, the interest of psychedelics as pharmacological treatment for psychiatric disorders has increased significantly, including their use on problematic use of alcohol. This systematic review is aimed to analyse the last two decades of studies examining the relationship between classic psychedelics and alcohol consumption. We searched PubMed and PsycInfo for human and preclinical studies published between January 2000 to December 2021. The search identified 639 publications. After selection, 27 studies were included. Human studies (n = 20) generally show promising data and seem to indicate that classic psychedelics could help reduce alcohol consumption. Nevertheless, some of these studies present methodological concerns such as low number of participants, lack of control group or difficulty in determining the effect of classic psychedelics in isolation. On the other hand, preclinical studies (n = 7) investigating the effect of these compounds on voluntary alcohol consumption are scarce and show some conflicting data. Among these compounds, psilocybin seems to show the most consistent data indicating that this compound could be a potential candidate to treat alcohol use disorders. In the absence of understanding the biological and/or psychological mechanisms, more studies including methodological quality parameters are needed to finally determine the effects of classic psychedelics on alcohol consumption.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Hallucinogens; Psilocybin; Alcoholism; Lysergic Acid Diethylamide; Mescaline
PubMed: 36301215
DOI: 10.1111/adb.13229 -
Journal of Attention Disorders Dec 2022Dysregulated emotional behavior occurs often in adults with ADHD. Analysis of clinical trials may guide clinical intervention and future research.
OBJECTIVE
Dysregulated emotional behavior occurs often in adults with ADHD. Analysis of clinical trials may guide clinical intervention and future research.
METHOD
Controlled trials of adult ADHD measuring emotional behavior were included if another study offered a comparable analysis of the same treatment method. Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) of effects were calculated, and the size of effects for emotional and non-emotional ADHD behavior were compared.
RESULTS
13 out of 14 studies of methylphenidate, atomoxetine, and lisdexamfetamine demonstrated significant improvement in emotional behavior measures, with small to high SMDs. The proportional effect on emotional versus non-emotional behavior ranged from 46% to 110% for methylphenidate, 56% to 129% for atomoxetine, and 36% to 96% for lisdexamfetamine.
CONCLUSION
Psychopharmacological treatments for ADHD are likely to improve emotional behavior, and available scales are sensitive to these effects. Studies dedicated to treatment of this domain of function can further refine clinical approaches.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Atomoxetine Hydrochloride; Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Methylphenidate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35822610
DOI: 10.1177/10870547221110926 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Maternal hypotension is the most frequent complication of spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. It can be associated with nausea or vomiting and may pose serious... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Maternal hypotension is the most frequent complication of spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. It can be associated with nausea or vomiting and may pose serious risks to the mother (unconsciousness, pulmonary aspiration) and baby (hypoxia, acidosis, neurological injury).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of prophylactic interventions for hypotension following spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 August 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials, including full texts and abstracts, comparing interventions to prevent hypotension with placebo or alternative treatment in women having spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. We excluded studies if hypotension was not an outcome measure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data from eligible studies. We report 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 125 studies involving 9469 women. Interventions were to prevent maternal hypotension following spinal anaesthesia only, and we excluded any interventions considered active treatment. All the included studies reported the review's primary outcome. Across 49 comparisons, we identified three intervention groups: intravenous fluids, pharmacological interventions, and physical interventions. Authors reported no serious adverse effects with any of the interventions investigated. Most trials reported hypotension requiring intervention and Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes as the only outcomes. None of the trials included in the comparisons we describe reported admission to neonatal intensive care unit. Crystalloid versus control (no fluids) Fewer women experienced hypotension in the crystalloid group compared with no fluids (average risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.98; 370 women; 5 studies; low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between groups in numbers of women with nausea and vomiting (average RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.91; 1 study; 69 women; very low-quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (60 babies, low-quality evidence). Colloid versus crystalloid Fewer women experienced hypotension in the colloid group compared with the crystalloid group (average RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.81; 2009 women; 27 studies; very low-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for maternal hypertension requiring intervention (average RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.09 to 4.46, 3 studies, 327 women; very low-quality evidence), maternal bradycardia requiring intervention (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.78, 5 studies, 413 women; very low-quality evidence), nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.19, 14 studies, 1058 women, I² = 29%; very low-quality evidence), neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.15 to 4.52, 6 studies, 678 babies; very low-quality evidence), or Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes (average RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.05, 10 studies, 730 babies; very low-quality evidence). Ephedrine versus phenylephrine There were no clear differences between ephedrine and phenylephrine groups for preventing maternal hypotension (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.18; 401 women; 8 studies; very low-quality evidence) or hypertension (average RR 1.72, 95% CI 0.71 to 4.16, 2 studies, 118 women, low-quality evidence). Rates of bradycardia were lower in the ephedrine group (average RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.64, 5 studies, 304 women, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the number of women with nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.49, 4 studies, 204 women, I² = 37%, very low-quality evidence), or babies with neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.07 to 12.00, 3 studies, 175 babies, low-quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (321 babies; low-quality evidence). Ondansetron versus control Ondansetron administration was more effective than control (placebo saline) for preventing hypotension requiring treatment (average RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; 740 women, 8 studies, low-quality evidence), bradycardia requiring treatment (average RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.87; 740 women, 8 studies, low-quality evidence), and nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.51; 653 women, 7 studies, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between the groups in rates of neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.09; 134 babies; 2 studies, low-quality evidence) or Apgar scores of less than 8 at five minutes (284 babies, low-quality evidence). Lower limb compression versus control Lower limb compression was more effective than control for preventing hypotension (average RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.78, 11 studies, 705 women, I² = 65%, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between the groups in rates of bradycardia (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.56, 1 study, 74 women, very low-quality evidence) or nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.27, 4 studies, 276 women, I² = 32%, very-low quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (130 babies, very low-quality evidence). Walking versus lying There was no clear difference between the groups for women with hypotension requiring treatment (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.21, 1 study, 37 women, very low-quality evidence). Many included studies reported little to no information that would allow an assessment of their risk of bias, limiting our ability to draw meaningful conclusions. GRADE assessments of the quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. We downgraded evidence for limitations in study design, imprecision, and indirectness; most studies assessed only women scheduled for elective caesarean sections. External validity also needs consideration. Readers should question the use of colloids in this context given the serious potential side effects such as allergy and renal failure associated with their administration.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
While interventions such as crystalloids, colloids, ephedrine, phenylephrine, ondansetron, or lower leg compression can reduce the incidence of hypotension, none have been shown to eliminate the need to treat maternal hypotension in some women. We cannot draw any conclusions regarding rare adverse effects associated with use of the interventions (for example colloids) due to the relatively small numbers of women studied.
Topics: Anesthesia, Obstetrical; Anesthesia, Spinal; Antiemetics; Cesarean Section; Colloids; Crystalloid Solutions; Ephedrine; Female; Humans; Hypotension; Intraoperative Complications; Isotonic Solutions; Ondansetron; Phenylephrine; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Walking
PubMed: 32619039
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002251.pub4 -
European Neuropsychopharmacology : the... Dec 2021Binge-Eating Disorder (BED) is the most common eating disorder in the United States. Lisdexamfetamine (LDX) was approved in 2015 by the FDA for treatment of BED and is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Lisdexamfetamine and binge-eating disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the preclinical and clinical data with a focus on mechanism of drug action in treating the disorder.
Binge-Eating Disorder (BED) is the most common eating disorder in the United States. Lisdexamfetamine (LDX) was approved in 2015 by the FDA for treatment of BED and is the only drug approved for treating the disorder. There has been no systematic evaluation of the published clinical and preclinical evidence for efficacy of LDX in treating BED and the mechanisms responsible for the therapeutic action of the drug. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using PRISMA guidelines. Fourteen clinical and seven preclinical articles were included. There is consistent evidence from clinical studies that LDX is an effective treatment for BED and that the drug reduces the BED symptoms and body weight of patients with the disorder. There is also consistent evidence from preclinical studies that LDX reduces food intake but no consistent evidence for a preferential reduction of palatable food consumption by the drug in rodents. The evidence on mechanism of action is more limited and suggests LDX may reduce binge eating by a combination of effects on appetite/satiety, reward, and cognitive processes, including attention and impulsivity/inhibition, that are mediated by catecholamine and serotonin mechanisms in the brain. There is an urgent need for adequately powered, placebo-controlled, behavioural and neuroimaging studies with LDX (recruiting patients and/or individuals with subclinical BED symptoms) to further investigate the mechanism of action of the drug in treating BED. An improved understanding of the behavioural and neurochemical mechanisms of action of LDX could lead to the development of improved drug therapies to treat BED.
Topics: Binge-Eating Disorder; Body Weight; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Humans; Impulsive Behavior; Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34461386
DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2021.08.001 -
Epileptic Disorders : International... Dec 2022We carried out a systematic review of published information on transfer of antiseizure medications (ASMs) into breastmilk, ASM serum concentrations in breastfed infants,...
We carried out a systematic review of published information on transfer of antiseizure medications (ASMs) into breastmilk, ASM serum concentrations in breastfed infants, and the wellbeing of infants breastfed by mothers on ASM treatment. Information was extracted from 85 relevant articles. No data on ASM levels in breastmilk or in breastfed infants was identified for cannabidiol, cenobamate, clobazam, eslicarbazepine-acetate, everolimus, felbamate, fenfluramine, retigabine, rufinamide, stiripentol, tiagabine, and vigabatrin. For ASMs, with available information on levels in breastfed infants, very low concentrations (in the order of 10% or less of maternal serum concentrations) were reported for carbamazepine, gabapentin, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, phenytoin, valproate, and clonazepam. Slightly higher levels (up to approximately 30% of maternal serum concentrations) have been observed with lamotrigine and topiramate, and in single case reports for brivaracetam, lacosamide, and perampanel. High infant levels (30% up to 100% of maternal serum concentrations) have been reported with ethosuximide, phenobarbital and zonisamide. Adverse infant effects during breastfeeding by mothers on ASMs appear to be rare regardless of the type of ASM, but systematic study is limited. Prospective long-term follow-up studies of developmental outcomes among children who have been breastfed by mothers taking ASMs are sparse and have mainly involved children whose mothers were taking carbamazepine, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, phenytoin or valproate as monotherapy while breastfeeding. Although these studies have not indicated poorer outcome among breastfed children compared with those who were not breastfed, further data on long-term outcomes are needed to draw firm conclusions. It is concluded that breastfeeding should in general be encouraged in women taking ASMs, given the well-established benefits of breastfeeding with regard to both short- and long-term infant health in the general population. Counselling needs to be individualized including information on the current knowledge regarding the woman's specific ASM treatment.
Topics: Breast Feeding; Cannabidiol; Carbamazepine; Child; Clobazam; Clonazepam; Epilepsy; Ethosuximide; Everolimus; Felbamate; Female; Fenfluramine; Gabapentin; Humans; Infant; Lacosamide; Lamotrigine; Levetiracetam; Oxcarbazepine; Phenobarbital; Phenytoin; Prospective Studies; Tiagabine; Topiramate; Valproic Acid; Vigabatrin; Zonisamide
PubMed: 36193017
DOI: 10.1684/epd.2022.1492 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Oct 2007Bronchiolitis 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 OBJECTIVES
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 October 2006 (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 40 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: bronchodilators (oral, inhaled salbutamol, inhaled adrenaline [epinephrine]), chest physiotherapy, corticosteroids, montelukast, nursing interventions (cohort segregation, hand washing, gowns, masks, gloves, and goggles), respiratory syncytial virus immunoglobulins, pooled immunoglobulins, or palivizumab (monoclonal antibody), ribavirin, or surfactants.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Albuterol; Bronchiolitis; Bronchodilator Agents; Epinephrine; Hospitalization; Humans; Infant; Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections
PubMed: 19450362
DOI: No ID Found -
The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine Jan 2024There may be many predictors of anticoagulation-related gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), but until now, systematic reviews and assessments of the certainty of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND/AIMS
There may be many predictors of anticoagulation-related gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), but until now, systematic reviews and assessments of the certainty of the evidence have not been published. We conducted a systematic review to identify all risk factors for anticoagulant-associated GIB to inform risk prediction in the management of anticoagulation- related GIB.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to search PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases (from inception through January 21, 2022) using the following search terms: anticoagulants, heparin, warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, DOACs, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, risk factors. According to inclusion and exclusion criteria, studies of risk factors for anticoagulation-related GIB were identified. Risk factors for anticoagulant-associated GIB were used as the outcome index of this review.
RESULTS
We included 34 studies in our analysis. For anticoagulant-associated GIB, moderate-certainty evidence showed a probable association with older age, kidney disease, concomitant use of aspirin, concomitant use of the antiplatelet agent, heart failure, myocardial infarction, hematochezia, renal failure, coronary artery disease, helicobacter pylori infection, social risk factors, alcohol use, smoking, anemia, history of sleep apnea, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, international normalized ratio (INR), obesity et al. Some of these factors are not included in current GIB risk prediction models. such as anemia, co-administration of gemfibrozil, co-administration of verapamil or diltiazem, INR, heart failure, myocardial infarction, etc.
CONCLUSION
The study found that anemia, co-administration of gemfibrozil, co-administration of verapamil or diltiazem, INR, heart failure, myocardial infarction et al. were associated with anticoagulation-related GIB, and these factors were not in the existing prediction models. This study informs risk prediction for anticoagulant-associated GIB, it also informs guidelines for GIB prevention and future research.
Topics: Humans; Anemia; Anticoagulants; Diltiazem; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Gemfibrozil; Heart Failure; Helicobacter Infections; Helicobacter pylori; Myocardial Infarction; Risk Factors; Verapamil
PubMed: 38062723
DOI: 10.3904/kjim.2023.098