-
PloS One 2024The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of azvudine in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of azvudine in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2).
METHODS
A search was carried out in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar until October 20, 2023. The Cochrane risk of bias tools were used to assess the quality of included studies. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software was used to analyze data.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies including 10,011 patients were examined. The meta-analysis results showed that azvudine and standard of care/placebo (SOC/PBO) were significantly different concerning mortality rate (risk ratio [RR] = 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40 to 0.57) and negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) conversion time (standard mean difference = - 0.75, 95% CI: -1.29 to-0.21). However, the two groups did not show significant differences concerning hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and need for mechanical ventilation (P > 0.05). On the other hand, azvudine and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir were significantly different in mortality rate (RR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.92), ICU admission (RR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.78), and need for mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.89), but the two treatments were not significantly different in negative PCR conversion time, and hospital stay (P > 0.05). The incidence of adverse events between groups was not significant (P > 0.05). The certainty of evidence was rated as low or moderate.
CONCLUSIONS
The antiviral effectiveness of azvudine against SARS-COV-2 is questionable with regard to the certainty of evidence. Further research should be conducted to establish the effectiveness and safety of azvudine in COVID-19.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Antiviral Agents; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38870134
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298772 -
Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine Jul 2024It is unclear if premorbid use of beta-blockers affects sepsis outcomes. The present systematic review aimed to assess the impact of premorbid beta-blocker use on...
It is unclear if premorbid use of beta-blockers affects sepsis outcomes. The present systematic review aimed to assess the impact of premorbid beta-blocker use on mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation in patients with sepsis. Embase, Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science were searched for studies comparing outcomes of patients with sepsis based on the premorbid use of beta-blockers. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcome was the need for mechanical ventilation. The results were reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 17 studies including 64,586 patients with sepsis were included. Of them, 8,665 patients received premorbid beta-blockers and 55,921 patients were not treated with premorbid beta-blockers and served as a control group. Pooled analysis of mortality rates revealed that premorbid use of beta-blockers did not affect in-hospital mortality (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.78, 1.18; and I=63%) but significantly reduced one-month mortality rates (OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.72, 0.96; and I=63%). Combined analysis of adjusted data showed that premorbid beta-blockers were associated with a significant survival advantage in patients with sepsis (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.72, 0.92; and I=70%). However, there was no effect of premorbid use of beta-blockers on the need for mechanical ventilation (OR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.66, 1.30); and I=72%). The results of the present study indicated that premorbid use of beta-blockers is associated with improved survival in patients with sepsis. However, it does not impact the need for mechanical ventilation. The results should be interpreted with caution as the data is observational and unadjusted.
PubMed: 38868611
DOI: 10.3892/etm.2024.12589 -
Australian Critical Care : Official... Jun 2024Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) are commonly on mechanical ventilation, either through endotracheal intubation or tracheostomy, which usually leaves them... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) are commonly on mechanical ventilation, either through endotracheal intubation or tracheostomy, which usually leaves them nonverbal. Low-technology augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) strategies are simple and effective ways to enhance communication between patients and their communication partners but are underutilised.
AIM
The aim of this study was to systematically review current evidence regarding the effectiveness, experience of use, and usability of low-technology AAC with nonverbal patients and their communication partners in the ICU.
METHODS
This review included quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies of adult ICU patients aged 18 or older who were nonverbal due to mechanical ventilation and their communication partners. Studies using low-technology AAC, such as communication boards and pen and paper, were included. Six databases were searched, and the review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A convergent segregated approach was used for data synthesis.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies were included. Low-technology AAC improved patient satisfaction, facilitated communication, and met patients' physical and psychological needs. Communication boards with mixed content (e.g., pictures, words, and letters) were preferred but were used less frequently than unaided strategies due to patients' medical status, tool availability, and staff attitudes. Boards should be user-friendly, tailored, include pen/paper, and introduced preoperation to increase patient's comfort when using them postoperatively.
CONCLUSION
Existing evidence support low-technology AAC's efficacy in meeting patients' needs. Better usability hinges on proper implementation and addressing challenges. Further research is crucial for refining communication-board design, ensuring both user-friendliness and sophistication to cater to ICU patients' diverse needs.
REGISTRATION
The review protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, with registration number CRD42022331566.
PubMed: 38866691
DOI: 10.1016/j.aucc.2024.04.006 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2024The therapeutic effects of vitamin D supplementation on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) aggravation remain controversial and inconclusive. To probe into this...
BACKGROUND
The therapeutic effects of vitamin D supplementation on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) aggravation remain controversial and inconclusive. To probe into this contentious issue, we performed the present meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS
Literature published up to June 2023 was retrieved from Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science and Embase. RCTs assessing mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation (MV), length of hospitalization (LOH), and inflammatory markers containing C-reactive protein (CRP), D-dimer, interleukin-6 (IL-6), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) were included. 19 RCTs were involved in the analysis and were conducted subgroup analyses on the baseline COVID-19 severity and vitamin D administration.
RESULTS
In the severity subgroup, statistically significant effects in moderate to severe group were observed in ICU admission (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23, 0.80; = 0.008), MV (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27, 0.72; = 0.001) and LOH (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.92, -0.06; = 0.027). In the administration subgroup, effects of ICU admission (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.16, 0.97; = 0.044), MV (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07, 0.46; = 0.000) and LOH (SMD -0.50, 95% CI -0.96, -0.04; = 0.034) were more pronounced in patients supplied with multiple-dose vitamin D than single-dose. Although the result of mortality showed no statistically significant effect, it indicated a reduced trend (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.63, 1.12; > 0.05). The results of inflammatory markers reached no statistical differences.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis revealed that moderate to severe COVID-19 patients supplied with multiple doses of vitamin D were less apt to need ICU admission, mechanical ventilation and have shorter hospital stays.
PubMed: 38860175
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1367686 -
Annals of Saudi Medicine 2024Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which results in lung injury as a consequence of sepsis and septic shock, is associated with severe systemic inflammation and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which results in lung injury as a consequence of sepsis and septic shock, is associated with severe systemic inflammation and is responsible for a high worldwide mortality rate.
OBJECTIVE
Investigate whether corticosteroids could benefit clinical outcomes in adult with ARDS.
METHODS
A comprehensive search of electronic databases Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMbase, and Cochrane Library from their inception to 7 May 2023 was conducted to identify studies that met the eligibility criteria, including only randomized controlled trials. The study was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the methods of trial sequential analysis.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Mortality rates, including including the 14-, 28-, 45-, and 60-day mortality, hospital mortality, and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality.
SAMPLE SIZE
17 studies with 2508 patients.
RESULTS
Data relating to mortality at 14, 28, 45, and 60 days were not significantly different when treatments with corticosteroids and placebo were compared. In terms of hospital and ICU mortality, the mortality of those who had received corticosteroids was significantly lower than that of those who had not. ARDS patients who received assisted ventilation benefited from corticosteroid therapy, as revealed by the significant difference in outcome days between those who received assisted ventilation and those who did not. Corticosteroid had significantly more days free from mechanical ventilation, ICU-free days, and MODS-free days during the first 28 days, but not more organ support-free days up to day 28.
CONCLUSION
Although corticosteroid therapy did not reduce mortality rates at different observation periods, it significantly reduced hospital and ICU mortality. Administering corticosteroids to ARDS patients significantly decreased the days of assisted ventilation and time cost consumption. This study confirmed that long-term use of low-dose glucocorticoids may have a positive effect on early ARDS.
LIMITATION
Risk of bias due to the differences in patient characteristics.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Hospital Mortality; Intensive Care Units; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Distress Syndrome; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38853475
DOI: 10.5144/0256-4947.2024.167 -
Reviews in Medical Virology Jul 2024This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of azvudine versus nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) in treating coronavirus... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of azvudine versus nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) in treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The researchers conducted searches on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, medRxiv, and Google Scholar until January 2024. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was utilised to evaluate the quality of the included studies, and data analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Thirteen studies, including 4949 patients, were analysed. The meta-analysis results showed no significant difference between the azvudine and Paxlovid groups in terms of mortality rate (odds rate [OR] = 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-1.21), negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) conversion time (standard mean difference [SMD] = 1.52, 95% CI: -1.07-4.11), and hospital stay (SMD = -0.39, 95% CI: -1.12-0.33). However, a significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of intensive care unit admission (OR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.23-0.75) and the need for mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.44-0.86) in favour of azvudine. The incidence of adverse events in the azvudine group was significantly lower (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.43-0.99). The certainty of evidence was rated as low and moderate. Azvudine and Paxlovid demonstrated similar effectiveness in reducing mortality rates, negative PCR conversion time and hospital stay. However, azvudine showed better effectiveness in improving other outcomes. Regarding the level of certainty of evidence, further research is needed to validate or challenge these results.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Antiviral Agents; SARS-CoV-2; Ritonavir; Drug Combinations; COVID-19; Lopinavir; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38849982
DOI: 10.1002/rmv.2551 -
Critical Care (London, England) Jun 2024The spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) technique that best balance successful extubation with the risk for reintubation is unknown. We sought to determine the comparative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) technique that best balance successful extubation with the risk for reintubation is unknown. We sought to determine the comparative efficacy and safety of alternative SBT techniques.
METHODS
We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to February 2023 for randomized or quasi-randomized trials comparing SBT techniques in critically ill adults and children and reported initial SBT success, successful extubation, reintubation (primary outcomes) and mortality (ICU, hospital, most protracted; secondary outcome) rates. Two reviewers screened, reviewed full-texts, and abstracted data. We performed frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis.
RESULTS
We included 40 RCTs (6716 patients). Pressure Support (PS) versus T-piece SBTs was the most common comparison. Initial successful SBT rates were increased with PS [risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.05-1.11)], PS/automatic tube compensation (ATC) [1.12 (1.01 -1.25), high flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) [1.07 (1.00-1.13) (all moderate certainty), and ATC [RR 1.11, (1.03-1.20); low certainty] SBTs compared to T-piece SBTs. Similarly, initial successful SBT rates were increased with PS, ATC, and PS/ATC SBTs compared to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) SBTs. Successful extubation rates were increased with PS [RR 1.06, (1.03-1.09); high certainty], ATC [RR 1.13, (1.05-1.21); moderate certainty], and HFNC [RR 1.06, (1.02-1.11); high certainty] SBTs, compared to T-piece SBTs. There was little to no difference in reintubation rates with PS (vs. T-piece) SBTs [RR 1.05, (0.91-1.21); low certainty], but increased reintubation rates with PS [RR 2.84, (1.61-5.03); moderate certainty] and ATC [RR 2.95 (1.57-5.56); moderate certainty] SBTs compared to HFNC SBTs.
CONCLUSIONS
SBTs conducted with pressure augmentation (PS, ATC, PS/ATC) versus without (T-piece, CPAP) increased initial successful SBT and successful extubation rates. Although SBTs conducted with PS or ATC versus HFNC increased reintubation rates, this was not the case for PS versus T-piece SBTs.
Topics: Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Network Meta-Analysis; Airway Extubation; Ventilator Weaning
PubMed: 38849936
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-024-04958-4 -
Intensive Care Medicine Jun 2024Severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with PaO/FiO < 80 mmHg is a life-threatening condition. The optimal management strategy is unclear. The aim of...
Comparison of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, prone position and supine mechanical ventilation for severely hypoxemic acute respiratory distress syndrome: a network meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
Severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with PaO/FiO < 80 mmHg is a life-threatening condition. The optimal management strategy is unclear. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the effects of low tidal volumes (V), moderate V, prone ventilation, and venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) on mortality in severe ARDS.
METHODS
We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with participants who had severe ARDS and met eligibility criteria for VV-ECMO or had PaO/FiO < 80 mmHg. We applied the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to discern the relative effect of interventions on mortality and the certainty of the evidence.
RESULTS
Ten RCTs including 812 participants with severe ARDS were eligible. VV-ECMO reduces mortality compared to low V (risk ratio [RR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.99, moderate certainty) and compared to moderate V (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57-0.98, low certainty). Prone ventilation reduces mortality compared to moderate V (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66-0.93, high certainty) and compared to low V (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63-1.02, moderate certainty). We found no difference in the network comparison of VV-ECMO compared to prone ventilation (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72-1.26), but inferences were based solely on indirect comparisons with very low certainty due to very wide confidence intervals.
CONCLUSIONS
In adults with ARDS and severe hypoxia, both VV-ECMO (low to moderate certainty evidence) and prone ventilation (moderate to high certainty evidence) improve mortality relative to low and moderate V strategies. The impact of VV-ECMO versus prone ventilation remains uncertain.
PubMed: 38842731
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-024-07492-7 -
European Journal of Physical and... Jun 2024Spinal cord injuries have a considerable impact on healthcare in terms of mortality and morbidity. To address the difficulties faced by people affected by this condition...
INTRODUCTION
Spinal cord injuries have a considerable impact on healthcare in terms of mortality and morbidity. To address the difficulties faced by people affected by this condition and to raise awareness among stakeholders and policymakers, it is crucial to understand factors impacting survival. The purpose of this study is to systematically review the literature on life expectancy in people with traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI), identifying key factors influencing mortality and survival.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We conducted a systematic review, searching the literature for articles published up to July 2023 in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and PEDro. Study outcomes had to be one of survival rate, life expectancy, standardized mortality ratio, or mortality rate. Only original research articles published in English were included. The quality of evidence was evaluated with the MINORS scale. The level of evidence was categorized according to the OCEBM model.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A comprehensive literature search yielded 102 articles, after the selection process 20 studies were included in our review. The main factors negatively influencing survival and life expectancy included higher neurological level of injury (NLI), completeness of the lesion, need for mechanical ventilation, increasing age, and male gender. The development of SCI-related comorbidities also negatively impacted survival as well as the lack of specialized care, especially in low-income countries. Additionally, pre-injury health status and personal income may affect survival.
CONCLUSIONS
Current literature shows that people affected by tSCI have a shorter life expectancy compared to the general population, highlighting some factors as possible predictors. It is difficult to compare available evidence due to the methodological heterogeneity across studies, which makes it challenging to draw generalizable conclusions on life expectancy in people with tSCI. Further studies are required to address these issues and accurately estimate life expectancy accounting for gaps in the management of people affected by tSCI to improve their care.
PubMed: 38842067
DOI: 10.23736/S1973-9087.24.08462-4 -
International Wound Journal Jun 2024Noninvasive ventilation interfaces are one of the main factors contributing to pressure injuries caused by medical devices. Prevention is still the best course of action... (Review)
Review
Noninvasive ventilation interfaces are one of the main factors contributing to pressure injuries caused by medical devices. Prevention is still the best course of action when discussing noninvasive ventilation-induced pressure injuries. A systematic review was designed to summarize and analyse all published literature on strategies to prevent pressure injuries caused by masks in patients undergoing noninvasive ventilation. The protocol of the systematic review followed the PRISMA guideline. An extensive search from the beginning to May 16, 2023, using current articles in databases such as Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane Library was conducted. Medical Subject Headings (MESH) were used as follows: "Pressure Injury," "Noninvasive Ventilation," "Prevention," and "Pressure Sore." Any language-published studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in this review. A risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool, including evaluation methodologies for all studies. Database searches yielded 2546 articles, which were reduced to 23 that met our criteria after reviewing full texts. A narrative synthesis was conducted. As a result, type of interface (14 studies), dressings (4 studies), adjustment of mask leakage (1 study), humidity (1 study), positioning (1 study), and design of personalized masks (2 studies) seem to be a practical approach to prevent pressure injuries caused by masks in patients undergoing noninvasive ventilation. The results of our study show the effectiveness of preventive methods in reducing the incidence of pressure injuries caused by masks. Given the significant occurrence of pressure injury related to noninvasive ventilation and the crucial role of prevention and treatment, it is imperative to conduct more rigorous studies to ascertain the efficacy of each strategy.
Topics: Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Masks; Noninvasive Ventilation; Female; Male; Aged; Middle Aged; Adult; Aged, 80 and over
PubMed: 38826030
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14909