-
Health Technology Assessment... Apr 2013Anaphylaxis is a severe, life-threatening generalised or systemic hypersensitivity reaction with high mortality. Specialist services (SSs) are believed to reduce... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Anaphylaxis is a severe, life-threatening generalised or systemic hypersensitivity reaction with high mortality. Specialist services (SSs) are believed to reduce anaphylaxis recurrence and improve use of adrenaline injectors (AIs), which can reduce mortality if used correctly and in time.
OBJECTIVES
To review the evidence on which persons are at high risk of anaphylactic episodes, the effects of history-taking (including signs, symptoms and physical examination) for anaphylaxis, and when (suspected) patients should be referred. To assess the cost-effectiveness of SS compared with standard care (SC) with or without prescription of AIs.
DATA SOURCES
In order to assess the clinical effectiveness, 10 databases [Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Science Citation Index (SCI), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, from inception up to March 2011] were searched without data restriction in order to identify relevant studies [randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, observational studies, prognostic studies using a multivariate model] written in English.
REVIEW METHODS
Standard review methods were applied for the assessment of clinical effectiveness. A Markov model, validated by clinical experts, was constructed, which modelled anaphylaxis according to trigger: either food, drug, insect or idiopathic. Anaphylaxis mortality was modelled as a function of time to die and time for emergency response. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis on key parameters was performed.
RESULTS
From the systematic review, 11,058 references were identified by the searches for studies assessing the clinical effectiveness. In total, 107 papers were obtained, and five prospective observational studies, including 1725 patients, were included. These studies estimated the risk of recurrence to be between 30% and 42.8%. In children (< 12 years), an overall recurrence of 27% was reported, with food being the most frequent allergen (71%). From the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), SC with injectors was dominated by SS with or without injectors. SS with no injectors would be cost-effective if the threshold for a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was greater than about £ 740 and with injectors would be cost-effective if the threshold was > £ 1800. These results were robust to all sensitivity analyses except at relatively extreme values of a small number of parameters.
LIMITATIONS
Limitations of the study include the low yield from the systematic review; in particular there were no good-quality studies of either SSs or AI effectiveness. This implied a great reliance on expert opinion in the CEA. However, this was appropriately addressed using sensitivity analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
Only five observational studies assessing clinical effectiveness were identified. Owing to the lack of good data to inform the effectiveness of anaphylaxis intervention, we recommend considerations of RCTs or at least well-designed observational studies of the components of care in SSs. The results of the CEA showed that SS with AIs was cost-effective at a threshold of £ 20,000 per QALY. More well-designed prospective studies on the effectiveness of SSs are needed to confirm these findings.
Topics: Anaphylaxis; Bronchodilator Agents; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Epinephrine; Equipment and Supplies; Health Services; Humans; Injections; Models, Economic; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Specialization; Technology Assessment, Biomedical
PubMed: 23618619
DOI: 10.3310/hta17170 -
International Urology and Nephrology Mar 2011Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is a common complication in patients with cirrhosis or fulminant liver failure. We systematically reviewed the benefits and harms of using... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is a common complication in patients with cirrhosis or fulminant liver failure. We systematically reviewed the benefits and harms of using terlipressin, a novel vasoconstricting agent in patients with HRS.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and conference proceedings for relevant trials of terlipressin. Results were summarized using the random-effects model.
RESULTS
Eight trials (320 participants) were included. When compared with placebo, terlipressin-treated patients had higher HRS reversal (odds ratio [OR] 7.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.17-17.59), mean arterial pressure (weighted mean difference [WMD] 11.26 mmHg, 95% CI 1.52-21), and urine output. There was a significant increase in ischemic adverse events with terlipressin when compared to placebo. There was mild-to-moderate heterogeneity in these analyses. There was no significant difference between terlipressin and noradrenaline in HRS reversal (OR 1.23, 95% CI, 0.43-3.54), mean arterial pressure, and urine output. Side-effect profile did not differ between terlipressin and noradrenaline.
CONCLUSION
Terlipressin improves HRS reversal and other surrogate outcome measures compared with placebo, but no significant differences for these outcomes were noted when comparing terlipressin and noradrenaline. Terlipressin is a potential therapeutic option for HRS, but larger trials comparing terlipressin to other widely used vasoconstrictors are warranted.
Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Diagnosis, Differential; Hepatorenal Syndrome; Humans; Liver Cirrhosis; Lypressin; Terlipressin; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 20306131
DOI: 10.1007/s11255-010-9725-8 -
Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine... May 2017Cocaine is associated with important cardiac complications such as sudden death, acute myocarditis, dilated cardiomyopathy, life-threatening arrhythmias, and myocardial... (Review)
Review
Cocaine is associated with important cardiac complications such as sudden death, acute myocarditis, dilated cardiomyopathy, life-threatening arrhythmias, and myocardial ischemia as well as infarction. It is well known that cocaine may induce vasospasm through adrenergic stimulation of the coronary arteries. Moreover, cocaine may promote intracoronary thrombosis, triggered by alterations in the plasma constituents, and platelet aggregation, leading to subsequent myocardial infarction. The long-term use of cocaine may stimulate atherosclerosis, probably through endothelial cell dysfunction. Significant and severe coronary atherosclerosis is common in young chronic cocaine users and there is probably a relationship between the duration and frequency of cocaine use and the extent of coronary disease.
Topics: Animals; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cocaine; Cocaine-Related Disorders; Coronary Artery Disease; Coronary Circulation; Coronary Vasospasm; Coronary Vessels; Hemodynamics; Humans; Prognosis; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Thrombosis
PubMed: 28306693
DOI: 10.2459/JCM.0000000000000511 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Jun 2021This systematic review and meta-analysis assess the change in inflammation biomarkers level among chronic psychoactive substance users. To meet the required inclusion... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis assess the change in inflammation biomarkers level among chronic psychoactive substance users. To meet the required inclusion criteria, all studies had to describe human participants with an age ≥18y., experiencing chronic psychostimulant (nicotine, amphetamine, cocaine), sedative (benzodiazepine, opioids) and/or cannabinoid use. The comparison group was defined as healthy participants. Studies where included if they reported at least one of the pro/inflammatory biomarkers. Study bias was examined by Funnel plots and heterogeneity by computing the I statistics. Only 21 eligible studies were selected based on 26,216 study participants. A small and significant effect size of 0.18 mg/l (95 % CI:0.10-0.27) was detected in favour of chronic smokers (z = 4.33;P < 0.0001). There was evidence of publication bias for studies measuring IL-6 and IL-10 association with cocaine and IL-6 in association with cannabis. In summary, except for chronic tobacco users, there was no evidence of association between other chronic substances abuse and inflammatory levels. More studies are needed to inform policy and decision makers about the utility of anti-inflammatory based targeted intervention programmes.
Topics: Amphetamines; Analgesics, Opioid; Cannabis; Cocaine; Humans; Inflammation
PubMed: 33639179
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.02.031 -
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy Mar 2007Oral phenylephrine is used as a decongestant, yet there has been no previously published systematic review supporting its efficacy and safety. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Oral phenylephrine is used as a decongestant, yet there has been no previously published systematic review supporting its efficacy and safety.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy and safety of oral phenylephrine as a nonprescription decongestant.
METHODS
MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and the Federal Register were searched for English and non-English-language studies published through January 2007 that measured the effects of oral phenylephrine on nasal airway resistance (NAR) in patients with nasal congestion. The retrieved studies were supplemented with information from our personal files and by hand searches of the references in any of the studies. Additionally, a Web of Science Search was conducted using the Cited Reference function for all published clinical trials identified. Studies included in the analysis were randomized, placebo-controlled trials; studies of combination products were excluded. Two investigators independently extracted data on NAR, self-reported decongestant effects, and cardiovascular effects (ie, heart rate, blood pressure) from each of the included studies. Meta-analyses were performed for NAR and cardiovascular effects using a random effects model. Subjective decongestant effects were summarized.
RESULTS
Based on 8 unpublished studies that included 138 patients, phenylephrine 10 mg did not affect NAR more than placebo; the mean maximal difference in relative change from baseline between phenylephrine and placebo was 10.1% (95% CI -3.8% to 23.9%). Eight unpublished studies on phenylephrine 25 mg showed a significant reduction of maximal NAR compared with placebo of 27.6% (95% CI 17.5% to 37.7%). There was significant heterogeneity among the studies included in this analysis, which was partially attributable to different laboratories and methods used. Patient-reported decongestion was not consistently better for any phenylephrine dose compared with placebo, and NAR was a more sensitive measurement of efficacy. Phenylephrine showed no consistent effect on heart rate or blood pressure for doses of 25 mg or less.
CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence that oral phenylephrine is effective for nonprescription use as a decongestant. The Food and Drug Administration should require additional studies to show the safety and efficacy of phenylephrine.
Topics: Airway Resistance; Humans; Nasal Decongestants; Nasal Obstruction; Phenylephrine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 17264159
DOI: 10.1345/aph.1H679 -
Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical... Jun 2013To review recent evidence on the effectiveness of glucocorticosteroids in the treatment and prevention of anaphylaxis. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
To review recent evidence on the effectiveness of glucocorticosteroids in the treatment and prevention of anaphylaxis.
RECENT FINDINGS
Glucocorticosteroids are often used in the management of anaphylaxis in an attempt to reduce the severity of the acute reaction and decrease the risk of biphasic/protracted reactions. A recent Cochrane systematic review failed to identify any randomized controlled or quasi-randomized trials investigating the effectiveness of glucocorticosteroids in the emergency management of anaphylaxis. In contrast, randomized controlled trials have been undertaken of glucocorticosteroids, given individually or in combination with other drugs, in preventing anaphylaxis. Systematic reviews of these prophylactic approaches undertaken in patients being investigated with iodinated contrast media and treated with snake anti-venom therapy have found routine prophylaxis to be of questionable value. Trials of a combination of glucocorticosteroids and H1/H2-antihistamine premedication for preventing allergen immunotherapy-triggered anaphylaxis have yielded mixed results.
SUMMARY
Glucocorticosteroids should be regarded, at best, as a second-line agent in the emergency management of anaphylaxis, and administration of epinephrine should therefore not be delayed whilst glucocorticosteroids are drawn up and administered. Routine premedication with glucocorticosteroids in patients receiving iodinated contrast media, snake anti-venom therapy or allergen immunotherapy is unlikely to confer clinical benefit.
Topics: Allergens; Anaphylaxis; Animals; Desensitization, Immunologic; Disease Progression; Drug Therapy, Combination; Epinephrine; Glucocorticoids; Histamine Antagonists; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 23507835
DOI: 10.1097/ACI.0b013e32836097f4 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Oct 2012To determine the most effective tocolytic agent at delaying delivery. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine the most effective tocolytic agent at delaying delivery.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, and CINAHL up to 17 February 2012.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomised controlled trials of tocolytic therapy in women at risk of preterm delivery.
DATA EXTRACTION
At least two reviewers extracted data on study design, characteristics, number of participants, and outcomes reported (neonatal and maternal). A network meta-analysis was done using a random effects model with drug class effect. Two sensitivity analyses were carried out for the primary outcome; restricted to studies at low risk of bias and restricted to studies excluding women at high risk of preterm delivery (those with multiple gestation and ruptured membranes).
RESULTS
Of the 3263 titles initially identified, 95 randomized controlled trials of tocolytic therapy were reviewed. Compared with placebo, the probability of delivery being delayed by 48 hours was highest with prostaglandin inhibitors (odds ratio 5.39, 95% credible interval 2.14 to 12.34) followed by magnesium sulfate (2.76, 1.58 to 4.94), calcium channel blockers (2.71, 1.17 to 5.91), beta mimetics (2.41, 1.27 to 4.55), and the oxytocin receptor blocker atosiban (2.02, 1.10 to 3.80). No class of tocolytic was significantly superior to placebo in reducing neonatal respiratory distress syndrome. Compared with placebo, side effects requiring a change of medication were significantly higher for beta mimetics (22.68, 7.51 to 73.67), magnesium sulfate (8.15, 2.47 to 27.70), and calcium channel blockers (3.80, 1.02 to 16.92). Prostaglandin inhibitors and calcium channel blockers were the tocolytics with the best probability of being ranked in the top three medication classes for the outcomes of 48 hour delay in delivery, respiratory distress syndrome, neonatal mortality, and maternal side effects (all cause).
CONCLUSIONS
Prostaglandin inhibitors and calcium channel blockers had the highest probability of delaying delivery and improving neonatal and maternal outcomes.
Topics: Calcium Channel Blockers; Female; Humans; Magnesium Sulfate; Obstetric Labor, Premature; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Outcome; Prostaglandin Antagonists; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Tocolysis; Tocolytic Agents; Treatment Outcome; Vasotocin
PubMed: 23048010
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.e6226 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2004Besides reversing the underlying cause, the first line treatment for the symptoms of shock is usually the administration of intravenous fluids. If this method is not... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Besides reversing the underlying cause, the first line treatment for the symptoms of shock is usually the administration of intravenous fluids. If this method is not successful, vasopressors such as dopamine, dobutamine, adrenaline, noradrenaline and vasopressin are recommended. It is unclear if there is a vasopressor of choice, either for the treatment of particular forms of shock or for the treatment of shock in general.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of vasopressors for circulatory shock in critically ill patients. Our main aim was to assess whether particular vasopressors reduce overall mortality. We also intended to identify whether the choice of vasopressor influences outcomes such as length-of-stay in the intensive care unit and health-related quality of life.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, PASCAL BioMed, CINAHL, BIOSIS, and PsychINFO:all from inception to November 2003; for randomized controlled trials. We also asked experts in the field and searched meta-registries for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials comparing various vasopressors, vasopressors with placebo or vasopressors with intravenous fluids for the treatment of any kind of circulatory failure (shock). Mortality was the main outcome.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers abstracted data independently. Disagreement between two reviewers was discussed and resolved with a third reviewer. We used random effects models for combining quantitative data.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified eight randomized controlled trials. Reporting of methodological details was for many items not satisfactory: only two studies reported allocation concealment, and two that the outcome assessor was blind to the intervention. Two studies compared norepinephrine plus dobutamine with epinephrine alone in patients with septic shock (52 patients, relative risk of death 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 1.67). Three studies compared norepinephrine with dopamine in patients with septic shock (62 patients, relative risk 0.88, 0.57 to 1.36). Two studies compared vasopressin with placebo in patients with septic shock (58 patients, relative risk 1.04, 0.06 to 19.33). One study compared terlipressin with norepinephrine in patients with refractory hypotension after general anaesthesia but there were no deaths (20 patients).
REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS
The current available evidence is not suited to inform clinical practice. We were unable to determine whether a particular vasopressor is superior to other agents in the treatment of states of shock.
Topics: Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Shock; Shock, Septic; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 15266497
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003709.pub2 -
Journal of Human Hypertension Feb 2024Blood pressure (BP) management reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) plays an important role in regulating... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Blood pressure (BP) management reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) plays an important role in regulating and maintaining blood volume and pressure. This analysis aimed to investigate the effect of exercise training on plasma renin, angiotensin-II and aldosterone, epinephrine, norepinephrine, urinary sodium and potassium, BP and heart rate (HR). We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library of Controlled Trials until 30 November 2022. The search strategy included RAAS key words in combination with exercise training terms and medical subject headings. Manual searching of reference lists from systematic reviews and eligible studies completed the search. A random effects meta-analysis model was used. Eighteen trials with a total of 803 participants were included. After exercise training, plasma angiotensin-II (SMD -0.71; 95% CI -1.24, -0.19; p = 0.008; n = 9 trials), aldosterone (SMD -0.37; 95% CI -0.65, -0.09; p = 0.009; n = 8 trials) and norepinephrine (SMD -0.82; 95% CI -1.18, -0.46; p < 0.001; n = 8 trials) were reduced. However, plasma renin activity, epinephrine, and 24-h urinary sodium and potassium excretion remained unchanged with exercise training. Systolic BP was reduced (MD -6.2 mmHg; 95% CI -9.9, -2.6; p = 0.001) as was diastolic BP (MD -4.5 mmHg; 95% CI -6.9, -2.1; p < 0.001) but not HR (MD -3.0 bpm; 95% CI -6.0, 0.4; p = 0.053). Exercise training may reduce some aspects of RAAS and sympathetic nervous system activity, and this explains some of the anti-hypertensive response.
Topics: Humans; Renin-Angiotensin System; Renin; Aldosterone; Blood Pressure; Norepinephrine; Epinephrine; Angiotensin II; Potassium; Sodium; Exercise
PubMed: 38017087
DOI: 10.1038/s41371-023-00872-4 -
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Aug 2022According to current guidelines, initial burn resuscitation should be performed with fluids alone. The aims of the study were to review the frequency of use of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
According to current guidelines, initial burn resuscitation should be performed with fluids alone. The aims of the study were to review the frequency of use of vasoactive and/or inotropic drugs in initial burn resuscitation, and assess the benefits and harms of adding such drugs to fluids.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, UpToDate, and SveMed+ through 3 December 2021. The search included studies on critically ill burn patients receiving vasoactive and/or inotropic drugs in addition to fluids within 48 h after burn injury.
RESULTS
The literature search identified 1058 unique publications that were screened for inclusion. After assessing 115 publications in full text, only two retrospective cohort studies were included. One study found that 16 out of 52 (31%) patients received vasopressor(s). Factors associated with vasopressor use were increasing age, burn depth, and % total body surface area (TBSA) burnt. Another study observed that 20 out of 111 (18%) patients received vasopressor(s). Vasopressor use was associated with increasing age, Baux score, and %TBSA burnt in addition to more frequent dialysis treatment and increased mortality. Study quality assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was considered good in one study, but uncertain due to limited description of methods in the other.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review revealed that there is a lack of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of using vasoactive and/or inotropic drugs in addition to fluids during early resuscitation of patients with major burns.
Topics: Humans; Burns; Fluid Therapy; Resuscitation; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 35583993
DOI: 10.1111/aas.14095