-
The Journal of Obstetrics and... Jul 2023The aim of this study is to perform a Bayesian network meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of prophylactic bolus of different doses of ephedrine,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
The aim of this study is to perform a Bayesian network meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of prophylactic bolus of different doses of ephedrine, phenylephrine, and norepinephrine for the prevention of spinal hypotension during cesarean section.
METHODS
The Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library were searched until to May 20, 2022. The indicators included incidence of hypotension, reactive hypertension, bradycardia, nausea and vomiting, umbilical artery pH, and Apgar scores.
RESULTS
About 3125 related records were obtained and 17 RCTs met our eligibility criteria. Based on the results, prophylactic bolus injection of 21-30 mg ephedrine (82%) was the best efficacious option for preventing hypotension, followed by 13-16 μg norepinephrine and 81-120 mg phenylephrine; 121-150 μg phenylephrine had the highest probability (62%) caused reactive hypertension, followed by 11-30 mg ephedrine; phenylephrine was most likely to cause bradycardia in a dose-dependent manner; 81-120 μg phenylephrine had the highest probability (37%) which associated with IONV; 6-12 μg norepinephrine (31%) had the lowest influence on IONV and had highest probability (34%) associated with improving umbilical arterial pH; 13-16 μg norepinephrine had highest probability (67% at 1 min, 49% at 5 min) which associated with improving Apgar scores.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on this study, 5-10 mg ephedrine and 13-16 μg norepinephrine prophylactic bolus injection may be the optimum dosage of three drugs prevent spinal-induced hypotension, which has the least impact on maternal and neonatal outcomes.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Humans; Female; Phenylephrine; Ephedrine; Norepinephrine; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Cesarean Section; Bradycardia; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Anesthesia, Spinal; Hypotension; Hypertension; Anesthesia, Obstetrical; Double-Blind Method
PubMed: 37170779
DOI: 10.1111/jog.15671 -
Eye (London, England) Nov 2023To analyse and compare the efficacy of different interventions for myopia prevention and control in children. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To analyse and compare the efficacy of different interventions for myopia prevention and control in children.
METHODS
We searched CNKI, VIP, Wan-Fang, CBM, Chinese Clinical Registry, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to July 2022. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included interventions to slow myopia progression in children. The main outcomes included mean annual change in axial length (AL) (millimetres/year) and in refraction (R) (dioptres/year).
RESULTS
A total of 80 RCTs (27103 eyes) were included. In comparison with control, orthokeratology (AL, -0.36 [-0.53, -0.20], P < 0.05; R, 0.56 [0.34, 0.77], P < 0.05), 1%Atropine (AL, -0.39 [-0.65, -0.13], P < 0.05; R, 0.54 [0.31, 0.77], P < 0.05), 0.01%Atropine + orthokeratology (AL, -0.47 [-0.80, -0.14], P < 0.05; R, 0.81 [0.43, 1.20], P < 0.05) could significantly slow the progression of myopia; in addition, progressive multi-focal spectacle lenses (PMSL) (0.42, [0.06, 0.79], P < 0.05), bifocal soft contact lenses (0.40, [0.03, 0.77], P < 0.05), 0.5%Atropine (0.67 [0.25, 1.10], P < 0.05), 0.1%Atropine (0.42 [0.15, 0.71], P < 0.05), 0.05%Atropine (0.57 [0.28, 0.86], P < 0.05), 0.01%Atropine (0.33 [0.15, 0.52], P < 0.05), 1%Atropine + bifocal spectacle lenses (BSL) (1.30 [0.54, 2.00], P < 0.05), 1%Atropine + PMSL (0.66 [0.23, 1.10], P < 0.05), 0.01%Atropine + single vision spectacle lenses (SVSL) (0.70 [0.23, 1.10], P < 0.05), 0.01%Atropine + orthokeratology (0.81 [0.43, 1.20], P < 0.05), BSL + Massage (0.85 [0.22, 1.50], P < 0.05), SVSL + Red light (0.59 [0.06, 0.79], P < 0.05) showed significant slowing effect on the increase in R.
CONCLUSIONS
This network meta-analysis suggests that the combined measures were most effective in AL and R, followed by Atropine.
Topics: Child; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Disease Progression; Myopia; Atropine; Contact Lenses, Hydrophilic; Refraction, Ocular; Axial Length, Eye
PubMed: 37106147
DOI: 10.1038/s41433-023-02534-8 -
Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology... Jul 2023Prompt and correct use of epinephrine for treating anaphylaxis is considered essential in reducing the risk of fatal outcomes from anaphylaxis. Nevertheless, prehospital...
BACKGROUND
Prompt and correct use of epinephrine for treating anaphylaxis is considered essential in reducing the risk of fatal outcomes from anaphylaxis. Nevertheless, prehospital use of epinephrine remains low. Although asthma is a common comorbidity in individuals experiencing severe allergic reactions, little attention has been given to whether asthma functions as a predictor of prehospital epinephrine administration.
OBJECTIVE
To perform a scoping review of the extant literature on using epinephrine to manage anaphylaxis in patients with comorbid asthma before presenting to the emergency department.
METHODS
Per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping Review guidelines, peer-reviewed articles published in English or French were searched for within the Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Embase databases between June 11 and June 18, 2021. We excluded studies that did not contain primary data.
RESULTS
The literature search yielded 1022 articles that were screened at the title and abstract level by 2 independent reviewers. Of these, 90 (8.8%) advanced to full-text review, and ultimately, 8 studies (0.8% of all articles; 8.9% of full-text articles) were included in the analysis. Overall, the association between comorbid asthma and epinephrine use in the prehospital setting for managing anaphylaxis was inconsistently reported in the literature. Three studies reported a positive association, whereas 2 others suggested a link, but their results were no longer significant when controlling for other study variables. Three studies described no significant association.
CONCLUSION
Although asthma is frequently comorbid in individuals experiencing anaphylaxis, the association between comorbid asthma and prehospital epinephrine treatment rates remains an understudied area of patient care.
Topics: Humans; Anaphylaxis; Asthma; Comorbidity; Emergency Medical Services; Epinephrine
PubMed: 37088194
DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2023.04.010 -
BMJ Open Apr 2023To demonstrate the therapeutic effect of vasopressin as an alternative treatment for cardiac arrest. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To demonstrate the therapeutic effect of vasopressin as an alternative treatment for cardiac arrest.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched for randomised controlled trials. The intervention included administration of vasopressin alone or vasopressin combined with epinephrine or vasopressin, steroids and epinephrine (VSE) versus epinephrine combined with placebo as control group. The primary outcome was the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). The secondary outcomes included mid-term survival and mid-term good neurological outcome. We conducted subgroup analyses of the primary outcome based on different settings, different study drug strategies and different types of initial rhythm.
RESULTS
Twelve studies (n=6718) were included, of which eight trials (n=5638) reported the data on patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and four trials (n=1080) on patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). There were no significant differences between intravenous vasopressin and placebo in the outcomes of ROSC (relative risk (RR): 1.11; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.26), mid-term survival (RR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.66) and mid-term good neurological outcome (RR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.87). However, in the subgroup analysis, intravenous vasopressin as part of VSE can significantly improve the rate of ROSC (RR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.18 to 1.47) but not the rate of mid-term survival (RR: 2.15; 95% CI: 0.75 to 6.16) and mid-term good neurological outcome (RR: 1.80; 95% CI: 0.81 to 4.01) for patients with IHCA.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study failed to demonstrate increased benefit from vasopressin with or without epinephrine compared with the standard of care. However, vasopressin as a part of VSE is associated with the improvement of ROSC in patients with IHCA, and the benefit on mid-term survival or mid-term good neurological outcome is uncertain. Larger trials should be conducted in the future to address the effect of vasopressin only, vasopressin plus epinephrine or VSE on cardiac arrest.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42021293347.
Topics: Humans; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Epinephrine; Vasopressins; Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest; Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
PubMed: 37068900
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065061 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2023This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of interventions to control myopia progression. In this systematic review, the primary outcomes were mean differences... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of interventions to control myopia progression. In this systematic review, the primary outcomes were mean differences (MD) between treatment and control groups in myopia progression (D) and axial length (AL) elongation (mm).
RESULTS
The following interventions were found to be effective ( < 0.001): highly aspherical lenslets (HAL, 0.80 D, 95% CI, 0.77-0.83; -0.35 mm, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.34), MiSight contact lenses (0.66 D, 95% CI, 0.63-0.69; -0.28 mm, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.27), low dose atropine 0.05% (0.54 D, 95% CI, 0.38-0.70; -0.21 mm, 95% CI-0.28 to -0.14), Biofinity +2.50 D (0.45 D, 95% CI, 0.29, 0.61; -0.24 mm, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.15), defocus incorporated multiple segments [DIMS] (0.44 D, 95% CI, 0.42-0.46; -0.34 mm, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.33) and ortho-k lenses (-0.24 mm, 95% CI -0.33 to -01.5).
CONCLUSION
Low-dose atropine 0.01% was not effective in reducing AL progression in two studies. Treatment efficacy with low-dose atropine of 0.05% showed good efficacy. Spectacles (HAL and DIMS) and contact lenses (MiSight and Biofinity) may confer a comparable treatment benefit compared to atropine, to slow myopia progression.
Topics: Humans; Myopia; Atropine; Treatment Outcome; Contact Lenses; Eyeglasses
PubMed: 37033047
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1125000 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Jun 2023Food-dependent exercise-induced allergic reactions can manifest with wheals, angioedema, and anaphylaxis, alone or in combination.
BACKGROUND
Food-dependent exercise-induced allergic reactions can manifest with wheals, angioedema, and anaphylaxis, alone or in combination.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the clinical manifestation, culprit foods and exercise, augmenting factors, comorbidities, and treatment options of each phenotype.
METHODS
Using predefined search terms, we assessed and analyzed the relevant literature until June 2021. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis recommendations were applied to this systematic review.
RESULTS
A total of 231 studies with 722 patients were included. The most common phenotype was anaphylaxis with wheals, angioedema, or both, reported in 80% of patients. This was associated with a higher number of anaphylactic episodes, augmenting factors, and use of on-demand antihistamine compared with the least common phenotype, anaphylaxis without wheals or angioedema, reported in 4% of patients. Anaphylaxis with wheals/angioedema was also associated with distinct characteristics compared with stand-alone wheals, angioedema, or both, in 17% of patients. Patients with anaphylaxis were older at the time of disease onset, less often had a history of atopy, showed more positive results in response to food and exercise provocation tests, had a more restricted spectrum of culprit foods, and more often used on-demand epinephrine.
CONCLUSIONS
The three phenotypes of allergic reactions to food and exercise differ in clinical characteristics, triggers, and response to treatment. Knowledge of these differences may help with patient education and counseling as well as disease management.
Topics: Humans; Anaphylaxis; Urticaria; Angioedema; Epinephrine; Food Hypersensitivity; Allergens; Phenotype
PubMed: 36997120
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2023.03.035 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2023Traumatic hyphema is the entry of blood into the anterior chamber, the space between the cornea and iris, following significant injury to the eye. Hyphema may be... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Traumatic hyphema is the entry of blood into the anterior chamber, the space between the cornea and iris, following significant injury to the eye. Hyphema may be associated with significant complications that uncommonly cause permanent vision loss. Complications include elevated intraocular pressure, corneal blood staining, anterior and posterior synechiae, and optic nerve atrophy. People with sickle cell trait or disease may be particularly susceptible to increases in intraocular pressure and optic atrophy. Rebleeding is associated with an increase in the rate and severity of complications.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of various medical interventions in the management of traumatic hyphema.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2022, Issue 3); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase.com; PubMed (1948 to March 2022); the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The last date of the search was 22 March 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Two review authors independently assessed the titles and abstracts of all reports identified by the electronic and manual searches. We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials that compared various medical (non-surgical) interventions versus other medical interventions or control groups for the treatment of traumatic hyphema following closed-globe trauma. We applied no restrictions on age, gender, severity of the closed-globe trauma, or level of visual acuity at time of enrollment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 23 randomized and seven quasi-randomized studies with a total of 2969 participants. Interventions included antifibrinolytic agents (systemic and topical aminocaproic acid, tranexamic acid, and aminomethylbenzoic acid), corticosteroids (systemic and topical), cycloplegics, miotics, aspirin, conjugated estrogens, traditional Chinese medicine, monocular versus bilateral patching, elevation of the head, and bed rest. We found no evidence of an effect on visual acuity for any intervention, whether measured within two weeks (short term) or for longer periods. In a meta-analysis of two trials, we found no evidence of an effect of aminocaproic acid on long-term visual acuity (RR 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.29) or final visual acuity measured up to three years after the hyphema (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18). Oral tranexamic acid appeared to provide little to no benefit on visual acuity in four trials (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.25). The remaining trials evaluated the effects of various interventions on short-term visual acuity; none of these interventions was measured in more than one trial. No intervention showed a statistically significant effect (RRs ranged from 0.75 to 1.10). Similarly, visual acuity measured for longer periods in four trials evaluating different interventions was also not statistically significant (RRs ranged from 0.82 to 1.02). The evidence supporting these findings was of low or very low certainty. Systemic aminocaproic acid reduced the rate of recurrent hemorrhage (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.60), as assessed in six trials with 330 participants. A sensitivity analysis omitting two studies not using an intention-to-treat analysis reduced the strength of the evidence (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.08). We obtained similar results for topical aminocaproic acid (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.10) in two trials with 131 participants. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as low. Systemic tranexamic acid had a significant effect in reducing the rate of secondary hemorrhage (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.53) in seven trials with 754 participants, as did aminomethylbenzoic acid (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.41), as reported in one study. Evidence to support an associated reduction in risk of complications from secondary hemorrhage (i.e. corneal blood staining, peripheral anterior synechiae, elevated intraocular pressure, and development of optic atrophy) by antifibrinolytics was limited by the small number of these events. Use of aminocaproic acid was associated with increased nausea, vomiting, and other adverse events compared with placebo. We found no evidence of an effect on the number of adverse events with the use of systemic versus topical aminocaproic acid or with standard versus lower drug dose. The number of days for the primary hyphema to resolve appeared to be longer with the use of systemic aminocaproic acid compared with no use, but this outcome was not altered by any other intervention. The available evidence on usage of systemic or topical corticosteroids, cycloplegics, or aspirin in traumatic hyphema was limited due to the small numbers of participants and events in the trials. We found no evidence of an effect between a single versus binocular patch on the risk of secondary hemorrhage or time to rebleed. We also found no evidence of an effect on the risk of secondary hemorrhage between ambulation and complete bed rest.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no evidence of an effect on visual acuity of any of the interventions evaluated in this review. Although the evidence was limited, people with traumatic hyphema who receive aminocaproic acid or tranexamic acid are less likely to experience secondary hemorrhage. However, hyphema took longer to clear in people treated with systemic aminocaproic acid. There is no good evidence to support the use of antifibrinolytic agents in the management of traumatic hyphema, other than possibly to reduce the rate of secondary hemorrhage. The potentially long-term deleterious effects of secondary hemorrhage are unknown. Similarly, there is no evidence to support the use of corticosteroids, cycloplegics, or non-drug interventions (such as patching, bed rest, or head elevation) in the management of traumatic hyphema. As these multiple interventions are rarely used in isolation, further research to assess the additive effect of these interventions might be of value.
Topics: Humans; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Aminocaproic Acid; Antifibrinolytic Agents; Aspirin; Glaucoma; Hyphema; Mydriatics; Tranexamic Acid
PubMed: 36912744
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005431.pub5 -
Therapeutic Advances in Cardiovascular... 2023Currently, no pharmacological or device-based intervention has been fully proven to reverse the no-reflow phenomenon.
BACKGROUND
Currently, no pharmacological or device-based intervention has been fully proven to reverse the no-reflow phenomenon.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of intracoronary (IC) epinephrine in the management of no-reflow phenomenon following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), either as first-line treatment or after the failure of conventional agents.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES AND METHODS
PubMed and Scopus databases were systematically searched up to 28 May 2022, with additional manual search on the Google Scholar and review of the reference lists of the relevant studies to identify all published studies. Cohort studies, case series, and interventional studies written in English which evaluated the efficacy and safety of IC epinephrine in patients with no-flow phenomenon were included in our review.
RESULTS
Six of the 646 articles identified in the initial search met our inclusion criteria. IC epinephrine was used either as a first-line treatment [two randomized clinical trials (RCTs)] or after the failure of conventional agents (two cohort studies and two case series) for restoring the coronary flow, mainly after primary PCI. As first-line therapy, IC epinephrine successfully restored coronary flow in over 90% of patients in both RCTs, which significantly outperformed IC adenosine (78%) but lagged behind combination of verapamil and tirofiban (100%) in this regard. In the refractory no-flow phenomenon, successful reperfusion [thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade = 3] was achieved in three out of four patients after the administration of IC epinephrine based on the results from both case series. Their findings were confirmed by a recent cohort study that further compared IC epinephrine with IC adenosine and found significant differences between them in terms of efficacy [% TIMI flow grade 3: (69.1% 52.7%, respectively; value = 0.04)] and 1-year major adverse cardiac event (MACE) outcomes (11.3% 26.7%, respectively; value ⩽ 0.01). Overall, malignant ventricular arrhythmias were reported in none of the patients treated with IC epinephrine.
CONCLUSION
Results from available evidence suggest that IC epinephrine might be an effective and safe agent in managing the no-reflow phenomenon.
Topics: Humans; Adenosine; Epinephrine; Heart; No-Reflow Phenomenon; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
PubMed: 36852839
DOI: 10.1177/17539447231154654 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2023Myopia is a common refractive error, where elongation of the eyeball causes distant objects to appear blurred. The increasing prevalence of myopia is a growing global... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Myopia is a common refractive error, where elongation of the eyeball causes distant objects to appear blurred. The increasing prevalence of myopia is a growing global public health problem, in terms of rates of uncorrected refractive error and significantly, an increased risk of visual impairment due to myopia-related ocular morbidity. Since myopia is usually detected in children before 10 years of age and can progress rapidly, interventions to slow its progression need to be delivered in childhood.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the comparative efficacy of optical, pharmacological and environmental interventions for slowing myopia progression in children using network meta-analysis (NMA). To generate a relative ranking of myopia control interventions according to their efficacy. To produce a brief economic commentary, summarising the economic evaluations assessing myopia control interventions in children. To maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE; Embase; and three trials registers. The search date was 26 February 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of optical, pharmacological and environmental interventions for slowing myopia progression in children aged 18 years or younger. Critical outcomes were progression of myopia (defined as the difference in the change in spherical equivalent refraction (SER, dioptres (D)) and axial length (mm) in the intervention and control groups at one year or longer) and difference in the change in SER and axial length following cessation of treatment ('rebound'). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods. We assessed bias using RoB 2 for parallel RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the outcomes: change in SER and axial length at one and two years. Most comparisons were with inactive controls.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 64 studies that randomised 11,617 children, aged 4 to 18 years. Studies were mostly conducted in China or other Asian countries (39 studies, 60.9%) and North America (13 studies, 20.3%). Fifty-seven studies (89%) compared myopia control interventions (multifocal spectacles, peripheral plus spectacles (PPSL), undercorrected single vision spectacles (SVLs), multifocal soft contact lenses (MFSCL), orthokeratology, rigid gas-permeable contact lenses (RGP); or pharmacological interventions (including high- (HDA), moderate- (MDA) and low-dose (LDA) atropine, pirenzipine or 7-methylxanthine) against an inactive control. Study duration was 12 to 36 months. The overall certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Since the networks in the NMA were poorly connected, most estimates versus control were as, or more, imprecise than the corresponding direct estimates. Consequently, we mostly report estimates based on direct (pairwise) comparisons below. At one year, in 38 studies (6525 participants analysed), the median change in SER for controls was -0.65 D. The following interventions may reduce SER progression compared to controls: HDA (mean difference (MD) 0.90 D, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 1.18), MDA (MD 0.65 D, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.03), LDA (MD 0.38 D, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.66), pirenzipine (MD 0.32 D, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.49), MFSCL (MD 0.26 D, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.35), PPSLs (MD 0.51 D, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.82), and multifocal spectacles (MD 0.14 D, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.21). By contrast, there was little or no evidence that RGP (MD 0.02 D, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.10), 7-methylxanthine (MD 0.07 D, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.24) or undercorrected SVLs (MD -0.15 D, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.00) reduce progression. At two years, in 26 studies (4949 participants), the median change in SER for controls was -1.02 D. The following interventions may reduce SER progression compared to controls: HDA (MD 1.26 D, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.36), MDA (MD 0.45 D, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.83), LDA (MD 0.24 D, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.31), pirenzipine (MD 0.41 D, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.69), MFSCL (MD 0.30 D, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.41), and multifocal spectacles (MD 0.19 D, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.30). PPSLs (MD 0.34 D, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.76) may also reduce progression, but the results were inconsistent. For RGP, one study found a benefit and another found no difference with control. We found no difference in SER change for undercorrected SVLs (MD 0.02 D, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.09). At one year, in 36 studies (6263 participants), the median change in axial length for controls was 0.31 mm. The following interventions may reduce axial elongation compared to controls: HDA (MD -0.33 mm, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.30), MDA (MD -0.28 mm, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.17), LDA (MD -0.13 mm, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.05), orthokeratology (MD -0.19 mm, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.15), MFSCL (MD -0.11 mm, 95% CI -0.13 to -0.09), pirenzipine (MD -0.10 mm, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.02), PPSLs (MD -0.13 mm, 95% CI -0.24 to -0.03), and multifocal spectacles (MD -0.06 mm, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.04). We found little or no evidence that RGP (MD 0.02 mm, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.10), 7-methylxanthine (MD 0.03 mm, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.03) or undercorrected SVLs (MD 0.05 mm, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.11) reduce axial length. At two years, in 21 studies (4169 participants), the median change in axial length for controls was 0.56 mm. The following interventions may reduce axial elongation compared to controls: HDA (MD -0.47mm, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.34), MDA (MD -0.33 mm, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.20), orthokeratology (MD -0.28 mm, (95% CI -0.38 to -0.19), LDA (MD -0.16 mm, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.12), MFSCL (MD -0.15 mm, 95% CI -0.19 to -0.12), and multifocal spectacles (MD -0.07 mm, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.03). PPSL may reduce progression (MD -0.20 mm, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.05) but results were inconsistent. We found little or no evidence that undercorrected SVLs (MD -0.01 mm, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.03) or RGP (MD 0.03 mm, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.12) reduce axial length. There was inconclusive evidence on whether treatment cessation increases myopia progression. Adverse events and treatment adherence were not consistently reported, and only one study reported quality of life. No studies reported environmental interventions reporting progression in children with myopia, and no economic evaluations assessed interventions for myopia control in children.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Studies mostly compared pharmacological and optical treatments to slow the progression of myopia with an inactive comparator. Effects at one year provided evidence that these interventions may slow refractive change and reduce axial elongation, although results were often heterogeneous. A smaller body of evidence is available at two or three years, and uncertainty remains about the sustained effect of these interventions. Longer-term and better-quality studies comparing myopia control interventions used alone or in combination are needed, and improved methods for monitoring and reporting adverse effects.
Topics: Humans; Child; Network Meta-Analysis; Myopia; Refractive Errors; Atropine; Refraction, Ocular
PubMed: 36809645
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014758.pub2 -
Chest Aug 2023Epinephrine is the most commonly used drug in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitation, but evidence supporting its efficacy is mixed. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Epinephrine is the most commonly used drug in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitation, but evidence supporting its efficacy is mixed.
RESEARCH QUESTION
What are the comparative efficacy and safety of standard dose epinephrine, high-dose epinephrine, epinephrine plus vasopressin, and placebo or no treatment in improving outcomes after OHCA?
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, we searched six databases from inception through June 2022 for randomized controlled trials evaluating epinephrine use during OHCA resuscitation. We performed frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and present ORs and 95% CIs. We used the the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to rate the certainty of evidence. Outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission, survival to discharge, and survival with good functional outcome.
RESULTS
We included 18 trials (21,594 patients). Compared with placebo or no treatment, high-dose epinephrine (OR, 4.27; 95% CI, 3.68-4.97), standard-dose epinephrine (OR, 3.69; 95% CI, 3.32-4.10), and epinephrine plus vasopressin (OR, 3.54; 95% CI, 2.94-4.26) all increased ROSC. High-dose epinephrine (OR, 3.53; 95% CI, 2.97-4.20), standard-dose epinephrine (OR, 3.00; 95% CI, 2.66-3.38), and epinephrine plus vasopressin (OR, 2.79; 95% CI, 2.27-3.44) all increased survival to hospital admission as compared with placebo or no treatment. However, none of these agents may increase survival to discharge or survival with good functional outcome as compared with placebo or no treatment. Compared with placebo or no treatment, standard-dose epinephrine improved survival to discharge among patients with nonshockable rhythm (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.21-3.63), but not in those with shockable rhythm (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.39-1.85).
INTERPRETATION
Use of standard-dose epinephrine, high-dose epinephrine, and epinephrine plus vasopressin increases ROSC and survival to hospital admission, but may not improve survival to discharge or functional outcome. Standard-dose epinephrine improved survival to discharge among patients with nonshockable rhythm, but not those with shockable rhythm.
TRIAL REGISTRY
Center for Open Science: https://osf.io/arxwq.
Topics: Humans; Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest; Network Meta-Analysis; Epinephrine; Vasopressins; Resuscitation; Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation; Emergency Medical Services
PubMed: 36736487
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2023.01.033