-
Drugs & Aging Jun 2024International guidelines discourage antipsychotic use for delirium; however, concerns persist about their continued use in clinical practice.
BACKGROUND
International guidelines discourage antipsychotic use for delirium; however, concerns persist about their continued use in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to describe the prevalence and patterns of antipsychotic use in delirium management with regard to best-practice recommendations. Primary outcomes investigated were prevalence of use, antipsychotic type, dosage and clinical indication.
METHODS
Eligibility criteria: studies of any design that examined antipsychotic use to manage delirium in adults in critical care, acute care, palliative care, rehabilitation, and aged care were included. Studies of patients in acute psychiatric care, with psychiatric illness or pre-existing antipsychotic use were excluded.
INFORMATION SOURCES
we searched five health databases on 16 August, 2023 (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, APA PsycInfo, ProQuest Health and Medical Collection) using MeSH terms and relevant keywords, including 'delirium' and 'antipsychotic'. Risk of bias: as no included studies were randomised controlled trials, all studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.
SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS
descriptive data were extracted in Covidence and synthesised in Microsoft Excel.
RESULTS
Included studies: 39 studies published between March 2004 and August 2023 from 13 countries (n = 1,359,519 patients). Most study designs were retrospective medical record audits (n = 16).
SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS
in 18 studies, participants' mean age was ≥65 years (77.79, ±5.20). Palliative care had the highest average proportion of patients with delirium managed with antipsychotics (70.87%, ±33.81%); it was lower and varied little between intensive care unit (53.53%, ±19.73%) and non-intensive care unit settings [medical, surgical and any acute care wards] (56.93%, ±26.44%) and was lowest in in-patient rehabilitation (17.8%). Seventeen different antipsychotics were reported on. In patients aged ≥65 years, haloperidol was the most frequently used and at higher than recommended mean daily doses (2.75 mg, ±2.21 mg). Other antipsychotics commonly administered were olanzapine (mean 11 mg, ±8.54 mg), quetiapine (mean 64.23 mg, ±43.20 mg) and risperidone (mean 0.97 mg, ±0.64 mg).
CONCLUSIONS
The use of antipsychotics to manage delirium is strongly discouraged in international guidelines. Antipsychotic use in delirium care is a risk for adverse health outcomes and a longer duration of delirium, especially in older people. However, this study has provided evidence that clinicians continue to use antipsychotics for delirium management, the dose, frequency and duration of which are often outside evidence-based guideline recommendations. Clinicians continue to choose antipsychotics to manage delirium symptoms to settle agitation and maintain patient and staff safety, particularly in situations where workload pressures are high. Sustained efforts are needed at the individual, team and organisational levels to educate, train and support clinicians to prioritise non-pharmacological interventions early before deciding to use antipsychotics. This could prevent delirium and avert escalation in behavioural symptoms that often lead to antipsychotic use.
Topics: Humans; Delirium; Antipsychotic Agents; Aged; Adult; Hospitals
PubMed: 38856874
DOI: 10.1007/s40266-024-01122-z -
Frontiers in Oncology 2024Administering adjuvant therapy following liver resection is crucial for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) exhibiting high-risk recurrence factors. Immune...
Can adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors improve the long-term outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma with high-risk recurrent factors after liver resection? A meta-analysis and systematic review.
BACKGROUND
Administering adjuvant therapy following liver resection is crucial for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) exhibiting high-risk recurrence factors. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are effective against unresectable HCC; however, their effectiveness and safety for this specific patient group remain uncertain.
METHODS
We conducted an extensive literature search across four scholarly databases to identify relevant studies. Our primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and adverse events (AEs). OS and RFS were quantified using hazard ratios (HRs), whereas the 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS and RFS rates were expressed as risk ratios (RRs). Additionally, the incidence of AEs was calculated.
RESULTS
Our meta-analysis included 11 studies (N = 3,219 patients), comprising two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nine retrospective studies. Among these, eight studies reported HRs for OS, showing a statistically significant improvement in OS among patients receiving adjuvant ICIs (HR, 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.80; p < 0.0001). All included studies reported HRs for RFS, indicating a favorable impact of adjuvant ICIs (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52-0.73; p < 0.0001). Moreover, aggregated data demonstrated improved 1- and 2-year OS and RFS rates with adjuvant ICIs. The incidence rate of AEs of any grade was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.49-0.91), with grade 3 or above AEs occurring at a rate of 0.12 (95% CI, 0.05-0.20).
CONCLUSION
Adjuvant ICI therapy can enhance both OS and RFS rates in patients with HCC exhibiting high-risk recurrence factors, with manageable AEs.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails PROSPERO, identifier CRD42023488250.
PubMed: 38854716
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1374262 -
Cureus May 2024Surgical site infections (SSIs) pose a significant clinical challenge, with heightened risks and severe consequences for diabetic patients undergoing surgical... (Review)
Review
Surgical site infections (SSIs) pose a significant clinical challenge, with heightened risks and severe consequences for diabetic patients undergoing surgical procedures. This systematic review aims to synthesize the current evidence on effective prevention strategies for mitigating SSI risk in this vulnerable population. From inception to March 2024, we comprehensively searched multiple electronic databases (PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL) to identify relevant studies evaluating SSI prevention strategies in diabetic surgical patients. Our search strategy followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, utilizing a combination of keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms related to diabetes, surgical site infections, prevention strategies, and surgical procedures. Inclusion criteria focused on peer-reviewed clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, and meta-analyses published in English. The search yielded three studies meeting the eligibility criteria, subject to data extraction and qualitative synthesis. Key findings highlighted the efficacy of interventions such as optimized perioperative glycemic control, timely prophylactic antibiotic administration, and meticulous preoperative skin antisepsis in reducing SSI rates among diabetic surgical patients. The potential for personalized prevention approaches based on individual patient factors, such as diabetes type and surgical complexity, was explored. This systematic review underscores the importance of a multifaceted, evidence-based approach to SSI prevention in diabetic surgical patients, integrating strategies like glycemic control, antibiotic prophylaxis, and preoperative skin antisepsis. Furthermore, our findings suggest the potential benefits of personalized care pathways tailored to individual patient characteristics. Implementing these interventions requires interdisciplinary collaboration, adaptation to diverse healthcare settings, and patient engagement through culturally sensitive education initiatives. This comprehensive analysis informs clinical practice, fosters patient safety, and contributes to the global efforts to enhance surgical outcomes for this high-risk population.
PubMed: 38854286
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.59849 -
Journal of Translational Medicine Jun 2024The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a serious public health issue. In COVID-19 patients, the elevated levels of inflammatory cytokines lead to the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a serious public health issue. In COVID-19 patients, the elevated levels of inflammatory cytokines lead to the manifestation of COVID-19 symptoms, such as lung tissue edema, lung diffusion dysfunction, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), secondary infection, and ultimately mortality. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) exhibit anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties, thus providing a potential treatment option for COVID-19. The number of clinical trials of MSCs for COVID-19 has been rising. However, the treatment protocols and therapeutic effects of MSCs for COVID-19 patients are inconsistent. This meta-analysis was performed to systematically determine the safety and efficacy of MSC infusion in COVID-19 patients.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive literature search from PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library up to 22 November 2023 to screen for eligible randomized controlled trials. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for searched literature were formulated according to the PICOS principle, followed by the use of literature quality assessment tools to assess the risk of bias. Finally, outcome measurements including therapeutic efficacy, clinical symptoms, and adverse events of each study were extracted for statistical analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 14 randomized controlled trials were collected. The results of enrolled studies demonstrated that patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who received MSC inoculation showed a decreased mortality compared with counterparts who received conventional treatment (RR: 0.76; 95% CI [0.60, 0.96]; p = 0.02). Reciprocally, MSC inoculation improved the clinical symptoms in patients (RR: 1.28; 95% CI [1.06, 1.55]; p = 0.009). In terms of immune biomarkers, MSC treatment inhibited inflammation responses in COVID-19 patients, as was indicated by the decreased levels of CRP and IL-6. Importantly, our results showed that no significant differences in the incidence of adverse reactions or serious adverse events were monitored in patients after MSC inoculation.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis demonstrated that MSC inoculation is effective and safe in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Without increasing the incidence of adverse events or serious adverse events, MSC treatment decreased patient mortality and inflammatory levels and improved the clinical symptoms in COVID-19 patients. However, large-cohort randomized controlled trials with expanded numbers of patients are required to further confirm our results.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Mesenchymal Stem Cell Transplantation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; Treatment Outcome; Mesenchymal Stem Cells
PubMed: 38851730
DOI: 10.1186/s12967-024-05358-6 -
Medicine Jun 2024Systematic review and meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Interspinous process devices (IPD) were used as a treatment in selected patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). However, the use of IPD was still debated that it had significantly higher reoperation rates compared to traditional decompression. Therefore, the purpose of the meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IPD treatment in comparison to traditional treatment.
METHODS
The databases were searched of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chongqing VIP Database and Wan Fang Database up to January 2024. Relevant studies were identified by using specific eligibility criteria and data was extracted and analyzed based on primary and secondary endpoints.
RESULTS
A total of 13 studies were included (5 RCTs and 8 retrospective studies). There was no significant difference of Oswestey Disability Index (ODI) score in the last follow-up (MD = -3.81, 95% CI: -8.91-1.28, P = .14). There was significant difference of Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back pain scoring in the last follow-up (MD = -1.59, 95% CI: -3.09--0.09, P = .04), but there existed no significant difference of leg pain in the last follow-up (MD = -2.35, 95% CI: -6.15-1.45, P = .23). What's more, operation time, bleeding loss, total complications and reoperation rate had no significant difference. However, IPD had higher device problems (odds ratio [OR] = 9.00, 95% CI: 2.39-33.91, P = .001) and lesser dural tears (OR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.15-0.67, P = .002) compared to traditional decompression.
CONCLUSION
Although IPD had lower back pain score and lower dural tears compared with traditional decompression, current evidence indicated no superiority for patient-reported outcomes for IPD compared with alone decompression treatment. However, these findings needed to be verified in further by multicenter, double-blind and large sample RCTs.
Topics: Humans; Spinal Stenosis; Decompression, Surgical; Lumbar Vertebrae; Treatment Outcome; Pain Measurement
PubMed: 38847722
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038370 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2024Ensuring high-quality healthcare for newborns is essential for improving their chances of survival within Ethiopia's healthcare system. Although various intervention...
BACKGROUND
Ensuring high-quality healthcare for newborns is essential for improving their chances of survival within Ethiopia's healthcare system. Although various intervention approaches have been implemented, neonatal mortality rates remain stable. Therefore, the present review seeks to identify initiatives for enhancing healthcare quality, their effects on neonatal wellbeing, and the factors hindering or supporting these Quality Improvement (QI) efforts' success in Ethiopia.
METHODS
We searched for original research studies up to June 23, 2023, using PubMed/Medline, WHO-Global Health Library, Cochrane, Clinical Trials.gov, and Hinari. After selecting eligible studies, we assessed their quality using a mixed-method appraisal tool. Quality of care refers to how healthcare services effectively improve desired outcomes for individuals and patient populations. It encompasses vital principles such as safety, effectiveness, timeliness, efficiency, equity, and patient-centeredness.
RESULTS
We found 3,027 publication records and included 13 studies during our search. All these interventions primarily aimed to provide safe healthcare, with a strong focus on Domain One, which deals with the evidence-based routine upkeep and handling of complications, and Domain Seven, which revolves around ensuring staff competency, emerged as a frequent target for intervention. Many interventions aimed at improving quality also concentrate on essential quality measure elements such as processes, focusing on the activities that occur during care delivery, and quality planning, involving distributing resources, such as basic medicine and equipment, and improving infrastructure. Moreover, little about the facilitators and barriers to QI interventions is investigated.
CONCLUSIONS
This review highlights the significance of introducing QI initiatives in Ethiopia, enhancing the healthcare system's capabilities, engaging the community, offering financial incentives, and leveraging mobile health technologies. Implementing QI interventions in Ethiopia poses difficulties due to resource constraints, insufficient infrastructure, and medical equipment and supplies shortages. It necessitates persistent endeavors to improve neonatal care quality, involving ongoing training, infrastructure enhancement, the establishment of standardized protocols, and continuous outcome monitoring. These efforts are crucial to achieving the optimal outcomes for newborns and their families.
PubMed: 38841585
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1293473 -
Cureus May 2024Patterned hair loss (PHL) is a severe hair condition that affects both sexes. Mesotherapy is a treatment that involves microinjecting medications and/or vitamins into... (Review)
Review
Patterned hair loss (PHL) is a severe hair condition that affects both sexes. Mesotherapy is a treatment that involves microinjecting medications and/or vitamins into the middle layer of the skin. Mesotherapy reduces systemic adverse effects by delivering drugs directly to the hair follicle, increasing local bioavailability while lowering systemic exposure. Local side effects and reactions may develop due to mesotherapy. This study systematically evaluated the safety and efficacy of mesotherapy to minoxidil 5%, as well as addressing its limitations, dosing, and technique, with the intent of providing valuable trials and insights for clinicians and patients considering mesotherapy for improved androgenetic alopecia (AGA) outcomes. The literature search carried out by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria yielded 11 relevant studies from an initial pool of 18 articles. These studies covered various aspects of the role of mesotherapy and minoxidil in AGA, including techniques, complications, limitations, and outcomes. In conclusion, available trials and research on mesotherapy and minoxidil demonstrated excellent statistical significance and a high patient satisfaction rate, with the exception of two publications that took into account certain uncommon adverse effects of mesotherapy. However, recent research suggests that a mesotherapy method for alopecia with a low risk of side effects is effective.
PubMed: 38841017
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.59705 -
International Journal For Equity in... Jun 2024The provision of diversity-sensitive care is a promising approach towards reducing health disparities. Recent criticism and a scientific gap demonstrate the need for the...
BACKGROUND
The provision of diversity-sensitive care is a promising approach towards reducing health disparities. Recent criticism and a scientific gap demonstrate the need for the patient perspective on diversity-sensitive care. This systematic review aims to describe the patient perspective, including patient experiences, expectations, and satisfaction with diversity-sensitive care provided by healthcare providers.
METHODS
In December 2022 the Medline ALL, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, PsycINFO and additionally Google Scholar were searched for original studies that described or measured patient expectations, experiences, and/or satisfaction, specifically focusing on cultural or diversity competence of healthcare providers. Analysis of the collected data was performed using a convergent mixed-methods design based on thematic synthesis.
RESULTS
From initially 5,387 articles, 117 were selected for full-text screening, and ultimately, 34 articles were included in this study. The concept of diversity-sensitive care was observed to comprise three components. The first component is focused on patient-centered care and includes competencies such as clear and direct communication, shared decision-making, individualized care, empathy, and consideration. The second component centers on providing culturally tailored information, adjusting care to cultural needs, working with interpreters, allyship, community partnerships, self-awareness, and cultural knowledge, and builds upon the first component. Across the first two components of diversity-sensitive care, patients have reported experiencing dissatisfaction and encountering shortcomings in their healthcare providers, sometimes resulting in the third and final component pertaining to provider care. This component underscores the importance of linguistic, ethnic, cultural, and gender concordance in delivering quality care.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the patient perspective on diversity-sensitive care encompasses multiple components, from patient-centered care to concordant care. The components incorporate various competencies as communication skills, empathy, self-awareness and adjusting care to cultural needs. Patients reported experiencing dissatisfaction and shortcomings across all components of diversity-sensitive care provided by healthcare providers.
Topics: Humans; Cultural Diversity; Patient-Centered Care; Cultural Competency; Patient Satisfaction; Empathy; Health Personnel; Communication
PubMed: 38840119
DOI: 10.1186/s12939-024-02189-1 -
Scientific Reports Jun 2024Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is often managed surgically. Enzymatic chemonucleolysis emerged as a non-surgical alternative. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is often managed surgically. Enzymatic chemonucleolysis emerged as a non-surgical alternative. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of chemonucleolytic enzymes for LDH. The primary objective is to evaluate efficacy through "treatment success" (i.e., pain reduction) and severe adverse events (SAEs) rates. Additionally, differences in efficacy and safety trends among chemonucleolytic enzymes are explored. Following our PROSPERO registered protocol (CRD42023451546) and PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of PubMed and Web of Science databases was conducted up to July 18, 2023. Inclusion criteria involved human LDH treatment with enzymatic chemonucleolysis reagents, assessing pain alleviation, imaging changes, and reporting on SAEs, with focus on allergic reactions. Quality assessment employed the Cochrane Source of Bias and MINORS tools. Meta-analysis utilized odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Among 62 included studies (12,368 patients), chemonucleolysis demonstrated an 79% treatment success rate and significantly outperformed placebo controls (OR 3.35, 95% CI 2.41-4.65) and scored similar to surgical interventions (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.20-2.10). SAEs occurred in 1.4% of cases, with slightly higher rates in chymopapain cohorts. No significant differences in "proceeding to surgery" rates were observed between chemonucleolysis and control cohorts. Limitations include dated and heterogeneous studies, emphasizing the need for higher-quality trials. Further optimization through careful patient selection and advances in therapy implementation may further enhance outcomes. The observed benefits call for wider clinical exploration and adoption. No funding was received for this review.
Topics: Humans; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Lumbar Vertebrae; Treatment Outcome; Intervertebral Disc Chemolysis
PubMed: 38834631
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-62792-8 -
Therapeutic Advances in... 2024Long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) have advantages over oral antipsychotics (OAPs) in preventing relapse and hospitalization in chronically ill patients with...
Efficacy and safety of long-acting injectable oral antipsychotics in the treatment of patients with early-phase schizophrenia-spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) have advantages over oral antipsychotics (OAPs) in preventing relapse and hospitalization in chronically ill patients with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders (SSDs), but evidence in patients with first-episode/recent-onset, that is, early-phase-SSDs is less clear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the relative medium- and long-term efficacy and safety of LAIs OAPs in the maintenance treatment of patients with early-phase SSDs.
METHOD
We searched major electronic databases for head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LAIs and OAPs for the maintenance treatment of patients with early-phase-SSDs.
DESIGN
Pairwise, random-effects meta-analysis. Relapse/hospitalization and acceptability (all-cause discontinuation) measured at study-endpoint were co-primary outcomes, calculating risk ratios (RRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses sought to identify factors moderating differences in efficacy or acceptability between LAIs and OAPs.
RESULTS
Across 11 head-to-head RCTs ( = 2374, median age = 25.2 years, males = 68.4%, median illness duration = 45.8 weeks) lasting 13-104 (median = 78) weeks, no significant differences emerged between LAIs and OAPs for relapse/hospitalization prevention (RR = 0.79, 95%CI = 0.58-1.06, = 0.13) and acceptability (RR = 0.92, 95%CI = 0.80-1.05, = 0.20). The included trials were highly heterogeneous regarding methodology and patient populations. LAIs outperformed OAPs in preventing relapse/hospitalization in studies with stable patients (RR = 0.65, 95%CI = 0.45-0.92), pragmatic design (RR = 0.67, 95%CI = 0.54-0.82), and strict intent-to-treat approach (RR = 0.64, 95%CI = 0.52-0.80). Furthermore, LAIs were associated with better acceptability in studies with schizophrenia patients only (RR = 0.87, 95%CI = 0.79-0.95), longer illness duration (RR = 0.88, 95%CI = 0.80-0.97), unstable patients (RR = 0.89, 95%CI = 0.81-0.99) and allowed OAP supplementation of LAIs (RR = 0.90, 95%CI = 0.81-0.99).
CONCLUSION
LAIs and OAPs did not differ significantly regarding relapse prevention/hospitalization and acceptability. However, in nine subgroup analyses, LAIs were superior to OAPs in patients with EP-SSDs with indicators of higher quality and/or pragmatic design regarding relapse/hospitalization prevention (four subgroup analyses) and/or reduced all-cause discontinuation (five subgroup analyses), without any instance of OAP superiority LAIs. More high-quality pragmatic trials comparing LAIs with OAPs in EP-SSDs are needed.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
CRD42023407120 (PROSPERO).
PubMed: 38831918
DOI: 10.1177/20451253241257062