-
BMJ Open Respiratory Research Jan 2024Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated conflicting results regarding the effects of corticosteroids on the treatment of severe community-acquired... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated conflicting results regarding the effects of corticosteroids on the treatment of severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of different corticosteroids on patients who were hospitalised for severe CAP.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search through PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to May 2023. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Data analysis was performed using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 10 RCTs comprising 1962 patients were included. Corticosteroids were associated with a lower rate of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR), 0.70 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.90); I=0.00%). When stratified into different corticosteroid types, hydrocortisone was associated with an approximately 50% lower mortality risk (RR, 0.48 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.72); I=0.00%). However, dexamethasone, methylprednisolone or prednisolone were not associated with an improvement in mortality. Furthermore, hydrocortisone was associated with a reduction in the rate of mechanical ventilation, acute respiratory distress syndrome, shock and duration of intensive care unit stay. These trends were not observed for dexamethasone, methylprednisolone or prednisolone. Corticosteroids were not associated with an increased risk of adverse events including gastrointestinal bleeding, secondary infection or hyperglycaemia.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of hydrocortisone, but not other types of corticosteroids, was associated with a reduction in mortality and improvement in pneumonia outcomes among patients hospitalised with severe CAP.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42023431360.
Topics: Humans; Hydrocortisone; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Methylprednisolone; Community-Acquired Infections; Pneumonia; Dexamethasone
PubMed: 38262670
DOI: 10.1136/bmjresp-2023-002141 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication, that can reduce patient satisfaction and may lead to serious consequences, such as wound dehiscence....
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication, that can reduce patient satisfaction and may lead to serious consequences, such as wound dehiscence. Many strategies have been proposed to prevent PONV; however, it remains common, especially in high-risk surgeries such as gynecological surgery. In recent years, opioid-free anesthesia has been widely studied because it minimizes adverse reactions of opioids, such as nausea, vomiting, and itching; however, conclusions have been inconsistent. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to investigate the effects of opioid-free anesthesia on PONV in patients undergoing gynecological surgery. A systematic search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases, from inception to 28 August 2023, was performed. Keywords and other free terms were used with Boolean operators (OR and, AND) to combine searches. This review was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Six studies involving 514 patients who underwent gynecological surgery were included. The forest plot revealed that the incidence of PONV (risk ratio = 0.52; < 0.00001) and consumption of postoperative antiemetics use (risk ratio = 0.64; = 0.03) were significantly lower in the opioid-free anesthesia group. In addition, opioid-free anesthesia improved the quality of recovery (mean difference = 4.69; < 0.0001). However, there were no significant differences in postoperative pain scores (mean difference = 0.05; = 0.85), analgesic use (risk ratio = 1.09; = 0.65), and the time of extubation (mean difference = -0.89; = 0.09) between the opioid-free anesthesia and control groups. OFA reduces PONV and the use of antiemetic drugs. In addition, it improves the quality of postoperative recovery. However, OFA can not reduce the postoperative pain scores, analgesic use and the time of extubation. Due to the strength of the evidence, we cannot support OFA as an ideal anesthesia method in gynecological surgery, and the implementation of anesthesia strategies should be case-by-case. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=462044], identifier [CRD42023462044].
PubMed: 38239201
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1330250 -
Emergency Medicine Australasia : EMA Apr 2024Ketamine is commonly used for procedural sedation anaesthesia in paediatric patients undergoing painful procedures in the ED. Ketamine's safety profile is excellent, but... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Review article: Efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron versus placebo or control in reducing vomiting in children undergoing ketamine procedural sedation in the emergency department: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ketamine is commonly used for procedural sedation anaesthesia in paediatric patients undergoing painful procedures in the ED. Ketamine's safety profile is excellent, but ketamine-associated vomiting (KAV) is common. Routine ondansetron prophylaxis could reduce KAV incidence. This literature review evaluated the efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron in reducing KAV incidence. A systematic literature review was performed on databases and trial registries on 14 January 2023 to identify randomised controlled trials. The primary outcome was reduction in KAV incidence, for any route of prophylactic ondansetron, in ED and up to 24 h post-discharge. ED length of stay, parental satisfaction and time to resumption of normal diet were secondary outcomes. Data analysis was performed using Revman 5.3. Meta-analysis was performed using random effects modelling. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 tool. Evidence quality was assessed using Grading of Recommendation, Assessment Development and Evaluation methodology. Five trials with 920 participants met the eligibility criteria. Prophylactic ondansetron resulted in a reduction in KAV incidence overall odds ratio of 0.51 (95% confidence interval: 0.36-0.73). Intravenous and intramuscular prophylactic ondansetron showed benefit whereas the effect of oral administration was unclear. There was no difference between groups for secondary outcomes overall. The quality of evidence was deemed to be low overall because of high risk of bias and imprecision in outcome measures. This review found low to moderate certainty evidence that prophylactic ondansetron reduces KAV incidence. Methodologically rigorous research, with appropriately timed prophylactic ondansetron based on the route of administration, would further elucidate prophylactic oral ondansetron's efficacy.
Topics: Humans; Child; Ondansetron; Ketamine; Antiemetics; Aftercare; Patient Discharge; Vomiting; Anesthesia; Emergency Service, Hospital; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38220580
DOI: 10.1111/1742-6723.14372 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Mar 2024The evidence of treatment options' efficacy on acute bipolar manic episodes is relatively less in youths than adults. We aimed to compare and rank the drug's efficacy,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The evidence of treatment options' efficacy on acute bipolar manic episodes is relatively less in youths than adults. We aimed to compare and rank the drug's efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety for acute mania in children and adolescents.
METHOD
We systematically reviewed the double-blinded, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing drugs or placebo for acute manic episodes of bipolar disorder in children and adolescents using PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, EBSCO, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and https://clinicaltrials.gov from inception until November 20, 2022. Response to treatment was the primary outcome, and random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted (PROSPERO 2022: CRD42022367455).
RESULTS
Of 10,134 citations, we included 15 RCTs, including 2372 patients (47 % female), 15 psychotropic drugs, and the placebo. Risperidone 0.5-2.5 mg/day, aripiprazole 30 mg/day olanzapine, quetiapine 400 mg/day, quetiapine 600 mg/day, asenapine 5 mg/day, asenapine 10 mg, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole 10 mg were found to be effective (in comparison with placebo) in children and adolescents, respectively (τ = 0.0072, I = 10.2 %). The tolerability of aripiprazole 30 mg/day was lower than risperidone 0.5-2.5 mg/day and olanzapine. Oxcarbazepine had the highest discontinuation due to the adverse effects risk ratio.
LIMITATIONS
Efficacy ranking of the treatments could be performed by evaluating relatively few RCT results, and only monotherapies were considered.
CONCLUSIONS
Efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety are changing with the doses of antipsychotics for children and adolescents with acute bipolar manic episodes. Drug selection and optimum dosage should be carefully adjusted in children and adolescents.
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; Adult; Child; Risperidone; Olanzapine; Aripiprazole; Bipolar Disorder; Quetiapine Fumarate; Mania; Network Meta-Analysis; Antipsychotic Agents; Dibenzocycloheptenes
PubMed: 38211745
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2024.01.067 -
Inflammopharmacology Apr 2024This study is the first to summarize the evidence on how the use of anti-inflammatory drugs during acute pain has an impact on the development of chronic pain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This study is the first to summarize the evidence on how the use of anti-inflammatory drugs during acute pain has an impact on the development of chronic pain.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials retrieved from nine databases included anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs or steroids) versus non-anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with acute pain and reported the incidence of chronic pain. No specified date, age, sex, or language restrictions. Subgroup analyses were performed according to pain classification, follow-up time, and medication. The GRADE method was used to evaluate quality of evidence.
RESULTS
A total of 29 trials (5220 patients) were included. Steroids or NSAIDs did not reduce the incidence of chronic nociceptive pain. Steroid use in acute phase significantly reduced the incidence of chronic neuropathic pain. In subgroup analysis, benefits were observed for methylprednisolone and dexamethasone, with some adverse effects. Steroids or NSAIDs were statistically significant in reducing pain intensity over 1 year, but the effect size was too small, and whether the long-term effect is clinically relevant needs to be further studied.
CONCLUSION
Quality of the evidence was low to moderate. No drug can be recommended to prevent chronic nociceptive pain. Injections of steroids (methylprednisolone or dexamethasone) during the acute phase reduce the incidence of chronic neuropathic pain, but most included studies also used local anesthetics. The results are indirect and need to be interpreted with caution. The pooled data effect sizes for pain intensity were small, so the clinical relevance was unclear. Study registration PROSPERO (CRD42022367030).
Topics: Humans; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Chronic Pain; Acute Pain; Incidence; Steroids; Neuralgia; Methylprednisolone; Nociceptive Pain; Dexamethasone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38153536
DOI: 10.1007/s10787-023-01405-8 -
Journal of Neuro-oncology Jan 2024Glioblastomas, the most common primary malignant brain tumors in adults, still hold poor prognosis. Corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone, are usually prescribed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Glioblastomas, the most common primary malignant brain tumors in adults, still hold poor prognosis. Corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone, are usually prescribed to reduce peritumoral edema and limit neurological symptoms, although potential detrimental effects of these drugs have been described. The present meta-analysis aimed to explore the association of dexamethasone with overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma.
METHODS
PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for pertinent studies following the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis checklist. Pooled multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for OS and PFS and their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random-effects model and the heterogeneity among studies was assessed using I. The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria.
RESULTS
Seven studies were included, pooling data of 1,257 patients, with age varying from 11 to 81 years. Glioblastoma patients on pre- or peri-operative dexamethasone were associated with a significantly poorer overall survival (HR: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.15, 1.55; 7 studies; I: 59.9%) and progression free survival (HR: 1.77, 95% CI: 1.05, 2.97; 3 studies; I: 71.1%) compared to patients not on dexamethasone. The quality of evidence was moderate for overall survival and low for progression free survival.
CONCLUSION
Dexamethasone appeared to be associated with poor survival outcomes of glioblastoma patients.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Child; Adolescent; Young Adult; Middle Aged; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Glioblastoma; Progression-Free Survival; Dexamethasone; Disease-Free Survival
PubMed: 38151699
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-023-04549-3 -
Psychiatry Research Feb 2024Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are widely used in treating schizophrenia and related disorders, also other mental disorders. However, the efficacy and safety of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are widely used in treating schizophrenia and related disorders, also other mental disorders. However, the efficacy and safety of SGAs for treating other mental disorders is unclear. A systematic literature search for randomized, placebo-controlled trials of 11 SGAs for treating 18 mental disorders apart from schizophrenia were carried out from database inception to April 3, 2022. The primary outcome was the mean change in the total score for different mental disorders. The secondary outcome was the odds ratio (OR) of response, remission rates and risk ratio (RR) of adverse events (AEs). A total of 181 studies (N = 65,480) were included. All SGAs showed significant effects in treating other mental disorders compared with placebo, except autistic disorder and dementia. Aripiprazole is the most effective treatment for bipolar mania [effect size = -0.90, 95% CI: -1.59, -0.21] and Tourette's disorder [effect size = -0.80, 95% CI: -1.14, -0.45], olanzapine for bipolar depression [effect size = -0.86, 95% CI: -1.32, -0.39] and post-traumatic stress disorder [effect size = -0.98, 95% CI: -1.55, -0.41], lurasidone for depression [effect size = -0.66, 95% CI: -0.82, -0.50], quetiapine for anxiety [effect size = -1.20, 95% CI: -1.96, -0.43], sleep disorders [effect size = -1.2, 95% CI: -1.97, -0.58], and delirium [effect size = -0.36, 95% CI: -0.70, -0.03], and risperidone for obsessive-compulsive disorder [effect size = -2.37, 95% CI: -3.25, -1.49], respectively. For safety, AE items for each SGAs was different. Interestingly, we found that some AEs of OLZ, QTP, RIS and PALI have significant palliative effects on some symptoms. Significant differences in the efficacy and safety of different SGAs for treatment of other mental disorders should be considered for choosing the drug and for the balance between efficacy and tolerability for the specific patient.
Topics: Humans; Antipsychotic Agents; Olanzapine; Quetiapine Fumarate; Risperidone; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 38150810
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2023.115637 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Dec 2023This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine,...
PURPOSE
This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine, dacarbazine, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, and cyclophosphamide in doses of > 1500 mg/m and the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline (AC) in women with breast cancer.
METHODS
A systematic review report following the PRISMA guidelines of the literature from January 1, 2015, until February 1, 2023, was performed. PubMed (Ovid), Scopus (Google), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. The literature search was limited to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Forty-six new references were determined to be relevant. The main topics identified were (1) steroid-sparing regimens, (2) olanzapine-containing regimens, and (3) other issues such as comparisons of antiemetics of the same drug class, intravenous NK receptor antagonists, and potentially new antiemetics. Five updated recommendations are presented.
CONCLUSION
There is no need to prescribe steroids (dexamethasone) beyond day 1 after AC HEC, whereas a 4-day regimen is recommended in non-AC HEC. Olanzapine is now recommended as a fixed part of a four-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen in both non-AC and AC HEC. No major differences between 5-HT receptor antagonists or between NK receptor antagonists were identified. No new antiemetic agents qualified for inclusion in the updated recommendations.
Topics: Female; Humans; Emetics; Antiemetics; Consensus; Olanzapine; Nausea; Vomiting; Antineoplastic Agents; Cyclophosphamide; Anthracyclines
PubMed: 38127246
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-08221-4 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Dec 2023Currently, some meta-analyses on COVID-19 have suggested that glucocorticoids use can reduce the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients, utilization rate of invasive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Currently, some meta-analyses on COVID-19 have suggested that glucocorticoids use can reduce the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients, utilization rate of invasive ventilation, and improve the prognosis of patients. However, optimal regimen and dosages of glucocorticoid remain unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this network meta-analysis is to analyze the efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids in treating COVID-19 at regimens.
METHODS
This meta-analysis retrieved randomized controlled trials from the earliest records to December 30, 2022, published in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI Database and Wanfang Database, which compared glucocorticoids with placebos for their efficacy and safety in the treatment of COVID-19, Effects of different treatment regimens, types and dosages (high-dose methylprednisolone, very high-dose methylprednisolone, Pulse therapy methylprednisolone, medium-dose hydrocortisone, high-dose hydrocortisone, high-dose dexamethasone, very high-dose dexamethasone and placebo) on 28-day all-caused hospitalization mortality, hospitalization duration, mechanical ventilation requirement, ICU admission and safety outcome were compared.
RESULTS
In this network meta-analysis, a total of 10,544 patients from 19 randomized controlled trials were finally included, involving a total of 9 glucocorticoid treatment regimens of different types and dosages. According to the analysis results, the 28-day all-cause mortality rate was the lowest in the treatment with pulse therapy methylprednisolone (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02, 0.42), but the use of high-dose methylprednisolone (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59, 1.22), very high-dose dexamethasone (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.67, 1.35), high-dose hydrocortisone (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.34, 1.22), medium-dose hydrocortisone (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49, 1.31) showed no benefit in prolonging the 28-day survival of patient. Compared with placebo, the treatment with very high-dose methylprednisolone (MD = -3.09;95%CI: -4.10, -2.08) had the shortest length of hospital stay, while high-dose dexamethasone (MD = -1.55;95%CI: -3.13,0.03) and very high-dose dexamethasone (MD = -1.06;95%CI: -2.78,0.67) did not benefit patients in terms of length of stay.
CONCLUSIONS
Considering the available evidence, this network meta‑analysis suggests that the prognostic impact of glucocorticoids in patients with COVID-19 may depend on the regimens of glucocorticoids. It is suggested that pulse therapy methylprednisolone is associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality, very high-dose methylprednisolone had the shortest length of hospital stay in patients with COVID-19.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42022350407 (22/08/2022).
Topics: Humans; Glucocorticoids; COVID-19; Hydrocortisone; Network Meta-Analysis; Methylprednisolone; Dexamethasone
PubMed: 38124031
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08874-w -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Dec 2023Review the literature to update the MASCC guidelines from 2015 for controlling nausea and vomiting with systemic cancer treatment of moderate emetic potential.
PURPOSE
Review the literature to update the MASCC guidelines from 2015 for controlling nausea and vomiting with systemic cancer treatment of moderate emetic potential.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was completed using Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases. The literature search was done from June 2015 to January 2023 of the management of antiemetic prophylaxis for anticancer therapy of moderate emetic potential.
RESULTS
Of 342 papers identified, 19 were relevant to update recommendations about managing antiemetic prophylaxis for systemic cancer treatment regimens of moderate emetic potential. Important practice changing updates include the use of emetic prophylaxis based on a triple combination of neurokinin (NK) receptor antagonist, 5-HT receptor antagonist, and steroids for patients undergoing carboplatin (AUC ≥ 5) and women < 50 years of age receiving oxaliplatin-based treatment. A double combination of 5-HT receptor antagonist and steroids remains the recommended prophylaxis for other MEC. Based on the data in the literature, it is recommended that the administration of steroids should be limited to day 1 in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy regimens, due to the demonstration of non-inferiority between the different regimens. More data is needed on the emetogenicity of new agents at moderate emetogenic risk. Of particular interest would be antiemetic studies with the agents sacituzumab-govitecan and trastuzumab-deruxtecan. Experience to date with these agents indicate an emetogenic potential comparable to carboplatin > AUC 5. Future studies should systematically include patient-related risk assessment in order to define the risk of emesis with MEC beyond the emetogenicity of the chemotherapy and improve the guidelines for new drugs.
CONCLUSION
This antiemetic MASCC-ESMO guideline update includes new recommendations considering individual risk factors and the optimization of supportive anti-emetic treatments.
Topics: Humans; Female; Emetics; Antiemetics; Vomiting; Carboplatin; Consensus; Nausea; Antineoplastic Agents; Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonists; Steroids
PubMed: 38114821
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-08222-3