-
Gland Surgery Feb 2024Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are key contributors to the delay of recovery and cause patients' considerable discomfort. This study aimed to evaluate the...
BACKGROUND
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are key contributors to the delay of recovery and cause patients' considerable discomfort. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of a specific dexamethasone dosage on PONV incidence, with a secondary objective of assessing its impact on postoperative pain in patients undergoing thyroid surgery.
METHODS
A meta-analysis was performed to examine the effects of preoperatively administering various doses of dexamethasone in combination with saline on PONV and pain relief in patients undergoing thyroidectomy. Relevant trials published before December 30, 2022, were searched in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. The collected data were analyzed using RevMan 5.3 software (Cochrane), and a random-effects model or fixed-effects model was employed to conduct the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Our meta-analysis included 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 1,544 participants. The results suggested that administering dexamethasone at a dosage of 8-10 mg can reduce the incidence of PONV in patients after thyroid surgery [odds ratio (OR) 0.27; 95% CI: 0.15-0.50; I=82%; P<0.0001]. Additionally, administering dexamethasone at a dosage of 8-10 mg was found to be significantly more effective in reducing the incidence of PONV than was a dosage of 4-5 mg (OR 0.39; 95% CI: 0.19-0.80; I=29%; P=0.01). The study also revealed that administering dexamethasone at a dosage of 8-10 mg can significantly reduce pain in patients undergoing thyroidectomy [mean difference (MD): -1.19; 95% CI: -1.97 to -0.41; I=96%; P=0.003]. However, administering dexamethasone at a dosage of 4-5 mg did not significantly reduce pain (MD: -0.27; 95% CI: -1.00 to 0.45; I=0%; P=0.46) according to the subgroup analysis. Our study found that the intervention of administering dexamethasone did not have a significant impact on the consumption of analgesic drugs (MD: -0.19; 95% CI: -0.45 to 0.08; I=62%; P=0.16).
CONCLUSIONS
A preoperative single dose of 8-10 mg of dexamethasone can significantly reduce PONV and the requirement for additional antiemetic medications, as well as alleviate postoperative pain after thyroidectomy. However, more RCTs should be conducted to determine the effects of varied dexamethasone dosages, particularly 4-5 mg, on the incidence of PONV and pain.
PubMed: 38455354
DOI: 10.21037/gs-23-260 -
Expert Review of Hematology 2024To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pomalidomide in combination treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pomalidomide in combination treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).
METHODS
Published clinical trials were searched in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE to February 2023. The literature was screened and evaluated according to the inclusion criteria, and the data were analyzed by a random effect model. Overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and full grade or ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) were the outcomes.
RESULTS
This study included 31 clinical trials, which included 4776 patients. The pooled ORR of the doublet regimens was 33.3% (95%CI: 27-39%) and the triplet regimens was 66% (95%CI: 58-74%). Among the 25 included studies, the median PFS was 8.29 months (95%CI: 7.27-9.31), and nine studies reported median OS of 19.43 months (95%CI: 14.56-24.30). In terms of safety, the most common hematologic AEs of grade ≥ 3 were neutropenia (41%) and anemia (20%); Non-hematologic AEs were pneumonia (14%) and infection/febrile neutropenia (14%).
CONCLUSIONS
Pomalidomide combined treatment regimens have shown good clinical efficacy, especially in pomalidomide + dexamethasone combined with other drugs. In terms of safety, it's important to pay attention to the likelihood of hematological adverse events when used clinically.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO: CRD42023420644.
Topics: Multiple Myeloma; Humans; Thalidomide; Dexamethasone; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Recurrence; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38421372
DOI: 10.1080/17474086.2024.2326219 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2024Oral submucous fibrosis (OSF) is a chronic disease of the oral cavity that causes progressive constriction of the cheeks and mouth accompanied by severe pain and reduced... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Oral submucous fibrosis (OSF) is a chronic disease of the oral cavity that causes progressive constriction of the cheeks and mouth accompanied by severe pain and reduced mouth opening. OSF has a significant impact on eating and swallowing, affecting quality of life. There is an increased risk of oral malignancy in people with OSF. The main risk factor for OSF is areca nut chewing, and the mainstay of treatment has been behavioural interventions to support habit cessation. This review is an update of a version last published in 2008.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of interventions for the management of oral submucous fibrosis.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 5 September 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with a biopsy-confirmed diagnosis of OSF treated with systemic, locally delivered or topical drugs at any dosage, duration or delivery method compared against placebo or each other. We considered surgical procedures compared against other treatments or no active intervention. We also considered other interventions such as physiotherapy, ultrasound or alternative therapies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. participant-reported resumption of normal eating, chewing and speech; 2. change or improvement in maximal mouth opening (interincisal distance); 3. improvement in range of jaw movement; 4. change in severity of oral/mucosal burning pain/sensation; 5.
ADVERSE EFFECTS
Our secondary outcomes were 6. quality of life; 7. postoperative discomfort or pain as a result of the intervention; 8. participant satisfaction; 9. hospital admission; 10. direct costs of medication, hospital bed days and any associated inpatient costs for the surgical interventions. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 30 RCTs (2176 participants) in this updated review. We assessed one study at low risk of bias, five studies at unclear risk of bias and 24 studies at high risk of bias. We found diverse interventions, which we categorised according to putative mechanism of action. We present below our main findings for the comparison 'any intervention compared with placebo or no active treatment' (though most trials included habit cessation for all participants). Results for head-to-head comparisons of active interventions are presented in full in the main review. Any intervention versus placebo or no active treatment Participant-reported resumption of normal eating, chewing and speech No studies reported this outcome. Interincisal distance Antioxidants may increase mouth opening (indicated by interincisal distance (mm)) when measured at less than three months (mean difference (MD) 3.11 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 5.77; 2 studies, 520 participants; low-certainty evidence), and probably increase mouth opening slightly at three to six months (MD 8.83 mm, 95% CI 8.22 to 9.45; 3 studies, 620 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Antioxidants may make no difference to interincisal distance at six-month follow-up or greater (MD -1.41 mm, 95% CI -5.74 to 2.92; 1 study, 90 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pentoxifylline may increase mouth opening slightly (MD 1.80 mm, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.58; 1 study, 106 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, it should be noted that these results are all less than 10 mm, which could be considered the minimal change that is meaningful to someone with oral submucous fibrosis. The evidence was very uncertain for all other interventions compared to placebo or no active treatment (intralesional dexamethasone injections, pentoxifylline, hydrocortisone plus hyaluronidase, physiotherapy). Burning sensation Antioxidants probably reduce burning sensation visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at less than three months (MD -30.92 mm, 95% CI -31.57 to -30.27; 1 study, 400 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), at three to six months (MD -70.82 mm, 95% CI -94.39 to -47.25; 2 studies, 500 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and at more than six months (MD -27.60 mm, 95% CI -36.21 to -18.99; 1 study, 90 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for the other interventions that were compared to placebo and measured burning sensation (intralesional dexamethasone, vasodilators). Adverse effects Fifteen studies reported adverse effects as an outcome. Six of these studies found no adverse effects. One study evaluating abdominal dermal fat graft reported serious adverse effects resulting in prolonged hospital stay for 3/30 participants. There were mild and transient general adverse effects to systemic drugs, such as dyspepsia, abdominal pain and bloating, gastritis and nausea, in studies evaluating vasodilators and antioxidants in particular.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found moderate-certainty evidence that antioxidants administered systemically probably improve mouth opening slightly at three to six months and improve burning sensation VAS scores up to and beyond six months. We found only low/very low-certainty evidence for all other comparisons and outcomes. There was insufficient evidence to make an informed judgement about potential adverse effects associated with any of these treatments. There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of the other interventions tested. High-quality, adequately powered intervention trials with a low risk of bias that compare biologically plausible treatments for OSF are needed. It is important that relevant participant-reported outcomes are evaluated.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Oral Submucous Fibrosis; Pentoxifylline; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Vasodilator Agents; Abdominal Pain; Antioxidants; Dexamethasone
PubMed: 38415846
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007156.pub3 -
BMJ Open Feb 2024Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a leading perioperative morbidity outcome following general anaesthesia. This systematic review aims to identify, appraise...
OBJECTIVES
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a leading perioperative morbidity outcome following general anaesthesia. This systematic review aims to identify, appraise and summarise the evidence synthesis studies of prophylactic interventions that reduce the incidence of paediatric PONV, thereby highlighting knowledge gaps and avenues of future research.
DESIGN
Systematic review using the AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2) tool and the ROBIS (Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews) tool.
DATA SOURCES
Seven major databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, from inception to 23 September 2022.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Evidence synthesis studies of only randomised controlled trials that explored prophylactic interventions for PONV in children undergoing general anaesthesia.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Following screening process by two reviewers, data were extracted from all eligible studies, including demographic parameters and details of interventions. Eligible studies were categorised into 'pharmacological' and 'non-pharmacological' groups and high-risk surgical groups of 'strabismus' and 'tonsillectomy' for qualitative synthesis.
RESULTS
There were 20 evidence synthesis reviews (17 meta-analyses, 2 systematic reviews, 1 network meta-analysis): 14 investigated pharmacological PONV prophylaxis in children, 5 investigated non-pharmacological interventions, 1 studied both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. Monotherapy pharmacological prophylaxis agents, for example, dexamethasone (relative risk (RR) 0.49, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.58), 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) antagonists (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.20) and α-adrenoreceptor agonists (dexmedetomidine: RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.54), are more effective than placebo. A combination of pharmacological agents provided superior efficacy to monotherapy, particularly dexamethasone and 5-HT antagonists (RR 0.21, 95% credible interval 0.15 to 0.28). Acustimulation practice was consistently favourable in preventing PONV compared with placebo (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.52).
CONCLUSION
Monotherapy pharmacological prophylaxis is more effective than placebo in reducing the incidence of paediatric PONV, with the efficacy increased further by using combination pharmacotherapy. Further research must compare multiple treatment arms of pharmacological and non-pharmacological prophylaxes for PONV to identify the optimal multimodal prophylaxis regimen.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42021236698.
Topics: Child; Humans; Antiemetics; Dexamethasone; Incidence; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Serotonin; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Meta-Analysis as Topic
PubMed: 38388499
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-070775 -
The Lancet. Psychiatry Mar 2024There are no recommendations based on the efficacy of specific drugs for the treatment of psychotic depression. To address this evidence gap, we did a network... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There are no recommendations based on the efficacy of specific drugs for the treatment of psychotic depression. To address this evidence gap, we did a network meta-analysis to assess and compare the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments for psychotic depression.
METHODS
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov, CENTRAL, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to Nov 23, 2023 for randomised controlled trials published in any language that assessed pharmacological treatments for individuals of any age with a diagnosis of a major depressive episode with psychotic features, in the context of major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder in any setting. We excluded continuation or maintenance trials. We screened the study titles and abstracts identified, and we extracted data from relevant studies after full-text review. If full data were not available, we requested data from study authors twice. We analysed treatments for individual drugs (or drug combinations) and by grouping them on the basis of mechanisms of action. The primary outcomes were response rate (ie, the proportion of participants who responded to treatment) and acceptability (ie, the proportion who discontinued treatment for any reason). We calculated risk ratios and did separate frequentist network meta-analyses by using random-effects models. The risk of bias of individual studies was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the confidence in the evidence with the Confidence-In-Network-Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023392926.
FINDINGS
Of 6313 reports identified, 16 randomised controlled trials were included in the systematic review, and 14 were included in the network meta-analyses. The 16 trials included 1161 people with psychotic depression (mean age 50·5 years [SD 11·4]). 516 (44·4%) participants were female and 422 (36·3%) were male; sex data were not available for the other 223 (19·2%). 489 (42·1%) participants were White, 47 (4·0%) were African American, and 12 (1·0%) were Asian; race or ethnicity data were not available for the other 613 (52·8%). Only the combination of fluoxetine plus olanzapine was associated with a higher proportion of participants with a treatment response compared with placebo (risk ratio 1·91 [95% CI 1·27-2·85]), with no differences in terms of safety outcomes compared with placebo. When treatments were grouped by mechanism of action, the combination of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor with a second-generation antipsychotic was associated with a higher proportion of treatment responses than was placebo (1·89 [1·17-3·04]), with no differences in terms of safety outcomes. In head-to-head comparisons of active treatments, a significantly higher proportion of participants had a response to amitriptyline plus perphenazine (3·61 [1·23-10·56]) and amoxapine (3·14 [1·01-9·80]) than to perphenazine, and to fluoxetine plus olanzapine compared with olanzapine alone (1·60 [1·09-2·34]). Venlafaxine, venlafaxine plus quetiapine (2·25 [1·09-4·63]), and imipramine (1·95 [1·01-3·79]) were also associated with a higher proportion of treatment responses overall. In head-to-head comparisons grouped by mechanism of action, antipsychotic plus antidepressant combinations consistently outperformed monotherapies from either drug class in terms of the proportion of participants with treatment responses. Heterogeneity was low. No high-risk instances were identified in the bias assessment for our primary outcomes.
INTERPRETATION
According to the available evidence, the combination of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and a second-generation antipsychotic-and particularly of fluoxetine and olanzapine-could be the optimal treatment choice for psychotic depression. These findings should be taken into account in the development of clinical practice guidelines. However, these conclusions should be interpreted cautiously in view of the low number of included studies and the limitations of these studies.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Depressive Disorder, Major; Fluoxetine; Perphenazine; Network Meta-Analysis; Bipolar Disorder; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Depression; Antipsychotic Agents; Olanzapine
PubMed: 38360024
DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(24)00006-3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2024Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) causes progressive or relapsing weakness and numbness of the limbs, which lasts for at least two months.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) causes progressive or relapsing weakness and numbness of the limbs, which lasts for at least two months. Uncontrolled studies have suggested that intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) could help to reduce symptoms. This is an update of a review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin in people with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers on 8 March 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that tested any dose of IVIg versus placebo, plasma exchange, or corticosteroids in people with definite or probable CIDP.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was significant improvement in disability within six weeks after the start of treatment, as determined and defined by the study authors. Our secondary outcomes were change in mean disability score within six weeks, change in muscle strength (Medical Research Council (MRC) sum score) within six weeks, change in mean disability score at 24 weeks or later, frequency of serious adverse events, and frequency of any adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for our main outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine RCTs with 372 participants (235 male) from Europe, North America, South America, and Israel. There was low statistical heterogeneity between the trial results, and the overall risk of bias was low for all trials that contributed data to the analysis. Five trials (235 participants) compared IVIg with placebo, one trial (20 participants) compared IVIg with plasma exchange, two trials (72 participants) compared IVIg with prednisolone, and one trial (45 participants) compared IVIg with intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP). We included one new trial in this update, though it contributed no data to any meta-analyses. IVIg compared with placebo increases the probability of significant improvement in disability within six weeks of the start of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.72 to 3.36; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 4, 95% CI 3 to 5; 5 trials, 269 participants; high-certainty evidence). Since each trial used a different disability scale and definition of significant improvement, we were unable to evaluate the clinical relevance of the pooled effect. IVIg compared with placebo improves disability measured on the Rankin scale (0 to 6, lower is better) two to six weeks after the start of treatment (mean difference (MD) -0.26 points, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.05; 3 trials, 90 participants; high-certainty evidence). IVIg compared with placebo probably improves disability measured on the Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment (INCAT) scale (1 to 10, lower is better) after 24 weeks (MD 0.80 points, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.37; 1 trial, 117 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference between IVIg and placebo in the frequency of serious adverse events (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.87; 3 trials, 315 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The trial comparing IVIg with plasma exchange reported none of our main outcomes. IVIg compared with prednisolone probably has little or no effect on the probability of significant improvement in disability four weeks after the start of treatment (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.68; 1 trial, 29 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and little or no effect on change in mean disability measured on the Rankin scale (MD 0.21 points, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.61; 1 trial, 24 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference between IVIg and prednisolone in the frequency of serious adverse events (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.69; 1 cross-over trial, 32 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). IVIg compared with IVMP probably increases the likelihood of significant improvement in disability two weeks after starting treatment (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.40 to 5.38; 1 trial, 45 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). IVIg compared with IVMP probably has little or no effect on change in disability measured on the Rankin scale two weeks after the start of treatment (MD 0.24 points, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.63; 1 trial, 45 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or on change in mean disability measured with the Overall Neuropathy Limitation Scale (ONLS, 1 to 12, lower is better) 24 weeks after the start of treatment (MD 0.03 points, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.97; 1 trial, 45 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The frequency of serious adverse events may be higher with IVIg compared with IVMP (RR 4.40, 95% CI 0.22 to 86.78; 1 trial, 45 participants, moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence from RCTs shows that IVIg improves disability for at least two to six weeks compared with placebo, with an NNTB of 4. During this period, IVIg probably has similar efficacy to oral prednisolone and IVMP. Further placebo-controlled trials are unlikely to change these conclusions. In one large trial, the benefit of IVIg compared with placebo in terms of improved disability score persisted for 24 weeks. Further research is needed to assess the long-term benefits and harms of IVIg relative to other treatments.
Topics: Male; Humans; Immunoglobulins, Intravenous; Polyradiculoneuropathy, Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Methylprednisolone
PubMed: 38353301
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001797.pub4 -
Clinical and Investigative Medicine.... Dec 2023Glucocorticoids are often used to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the efficacy and safety of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Glucocorticoids are often used to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids in the treatment of ARDS caused by COVID-19 are still controversial; therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis of the literature on this topic.
METHODS
Four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were searched from the establishment of the databases to August 16, 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that compared glucocorticoid versus standard treatment for ARDS caused by COVID-19 were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) checklist and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were used to evaluate the risk of bias. Review Manager 5.4 software and STATA 17.0 were used for meta-analy-sis, and the relative risk (RR), mean difference, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were then determined. Results: A total of 17 studies involving 8592 patients were evaluated, including 14 retrospective studies and 3 RCTs. Sixteen studies reported data on all-cause mortality. The results of the meta-analysis showed that glucocorticoids did not reduce all-cause (RR, 0.96; 95% CI 0.82-1.13, P = .62) or 28-day (RR, 1.01; 95% CI 0.78-1.32, P = .93) mortality. Subgroup analysis showed that only methylprednisolone reduced all-cause mortality. No matter whether glucocorticoid use was early or delayed, high-dose or low-dose, long-term or short-term, no regimen reduced all-cause mortality. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, length of hospital stay, hyperglycemia, and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP); how-ever, glucocorticoids increased the number of ventilator-free days.
CONCLUSIONS
Although methylprednisolone may reduce all-cause mortality from ARDS caused by COVID-19, this effect was not found with other types of glucocorticoids. At the same time, glucocorticoid use was associ-ated with more ventilator-free days, without increasing the incidence of hyperglycemic events or VAP. Con-sidering that almost all of the included studies were retrospective cohort studies, more RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Glucocorticoids; Respiratory Distress Syndrome; Methylprednisolone
PubMed: 38330183
DOI: 10.3138/cim.v46i4e03 -
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy =... Mar 2024By meta-analysing pooled studies and available individual participant data, we aim to provide new insight on olanzapine therapeutic drug monitoring in schizophrenia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
By meta-analysing pooled studies and available individual participant data, we aim to provide new insight on olanzapine therapeutic drug monitoring in schizophrenia.
METHOD
We conducted a computerized search of bibliographic databases (Pubmed, Cochrane library, Web of Science and PsycINFO) to identify studies that assessed the relationship between olanzapine plasma concentration and the change in patients' clinical scores. We investigated this relationship with olanzapine plasma level 12h00 post-intake using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
7 studies were included in the pooled data analysis (781 patients). We found no difference in oral dose between responders and non-responders but a significantly higher concentration of 4.50 µg/L in responders (p < 0.01). Olanzapine concentration above the thresholds identified in each study was associated with response (odd ratio = 3.50, p = 0.0007). We identified that non-responder patients showed greater inter-individual variability than responders. In the individual data analysis (159 patients), we found no relationship between dose and clinical response but an association between plasma level and response in the shape of a parabolic curve. The Receiver Operating Characteristic curve found a threshold of 22.07 µg/L to identify responders (96% sensitivity, 86% specificity) and a threshold of 56.47 µg/L to identify a decreased probability of response.
CONCLUSION
In contrast to oral dose, our work confirmed that plasma olanzapine levels are associated with clinical response and should therefore be used to optimise treatment. We determined a treatment response threshold of 22.07 µg/L and suggest that a concentration above the therapeutic window may result in a decreased response.
Topics: Humans; Data Analysis; Odds Ratio; Olanzapine; Plasma; ROC Curve; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 38325263
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2024.116236 -
BMC Anesthesiology Feb 2024To systematically review the evidence about the effect of haloperidol on postoperative delirium in elderly patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the evidence about the effect of haloperidol on postoperative delirium in elderly patients.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were used to find concerned studies for meta-analysis. The main outcome was the incidence of postoperative delirium, and the secondary outcomes were side effects of haloperidol and the length of hospital stay. The meta-analyses were conducted using the Review Manager Version 5.1. This study was conducted based on the PRISMA statement.
RESULTS
Eight RCTs (1569 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. There was a significant difference in the incidence of postoperative delirium between haloperidol and control groups (OR = 0.62, 95%CI 0.48-0.80, P = 0.0002, I = 20%). In addition, side effects of haloperidol and the duration of hospitalization were comparable (OR = 0.58, 95%CI 0.25-1.35, P = 0.21, I = 0%; MD =-0.01, 95%CI -0.16-0.15, P = 0.92, I = 28%). Subgroup analysis implied the effect of haloperidol on postoperative delirium might vary with the dose (5 mg daily: OR = 0.40, 95%CI 0.22-0.71, P = 0.002, I = 0%; <5 mg daily: OR = 0.72, 95%CI 0.42-1.23, P = 0.23, I = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS
The meta-analysis revealed perioperative application of haloperidol could decrease the occurrence of postoperative delirium without obvious side effects in elderly people, and high-dose haloperidol (5 mg daily) possessed a greater positive effect.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Haloperidol; Antipsychotic Agents; Emergence Delirium; Delirium; Hospitalization
PubMed: 38308229
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-024-02434-8 -
Journal of Clinical Nursing May 2024Few reviews have addressed delirium prevention among intermediate to high-risk older surgical patients. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Few reviews have addressed delirium prevention among intermediate to high-risk older surgical patients.
AIMS
To map preoperative delirium prevention interventions for older surgical patients at intermediate to high risk of developing delirium, assess outcomes and identify gaps in knowledge.
DESIGN
Systematic narrative review of randomised controlled trials reported following the PRISMA checklist.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted of the literature published from 1990 to October 2022 in Medline, CINAHL and Ageline and of the grey literature in Google Scholar. Randomised controlled trials were retrieved that assessed the effectiveness of preoperative delirium prevention interventions for older surgical patients at intermediate to high risk of delirium. Data were extracted using a data extraction tool, and results were tabulated. Studies were assessed for bias using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies met the selection criteria including N = 5096 participants. Two studies tested cognitive training, two studies tested fascia iliaca compartment block and one study assessed femoral nerve block. Ten studies tested prophylactic medications including methylprednisolone. Five studies investigated geriatric assessment and management. One study assessed transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation. In the two studies testing fascia iliaca compartment block, there was a reduction in postoperative delirium for orthopaedic patients. Methylprednisolone reduced postoperative delirium in orthopaedic patients and in those undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. Results of all other interventions on the occurrence of postoperative delirium and additional outcomes including the severity and duration of delirium were inconclusive.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the promising results for fascia iliaca compartment block and methylprednisolone, there is limited knowledge regarding evidence-based delirium prevention interventions. Most studies had small sample sizes indicating that the current evidence is exploratory. There is an urgent need for the funding and conduct of trials to test preventative interventions for older surgical patients at intermediate to high risk of developing delirium.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Emergence Delirium; Delirium; Preoperative Care; Methylprednisolone
PubMed: 38284498
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.17020