-
Anaesthesia Jul 2018Postoperative sore throat has a negative impact on patient satisfaction and recovery. Benzydamine hydrochloride is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug available for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Topical benzydamine hydrochloride for prevention of postoperative sore throat in adults undergoing tracheal intubation for elective surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Postoperative sore throat has a negative impact on patient satisfaction and recovery. Benzydamine hydrochloride is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug available for topical use. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of topical application of benzydamine to prevent postoperative sore throat in adults undergoing elective surgery under general anaesthesia. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify relevant randomised controlled trials and pooled the data using a random effects model. The primary outcomes were the incidence and severity of sore throat 24 h after surgery/extubation, and adverse events. The quality of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Thirteen randomised controlled trials involving 1842 patients were included. Compared with control patients who did not receive analgesia, benzydamine was associated with a decreased incidence of postoperative sore throat, with a risk ratio (95%CI) of 0.31 (0.20-0.47), but not with significantly reduced severity, the standardised mean difference (95%CI) being -0.27 (-0.63 to 0.08). There were no significant adverse events related to benzydamine. Benzydamine was also associated with a reduced incidence of postoperative sore throat when compared with lidocaine, with a risk ratio (95%CI) of 0.18 (0.07-0.43). We judged the evidence for the outcome 'incidence of postoperative sore throat' as high quality.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Anesthesia, General; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Benzydamine; Elective Surgical Procedures; Humans; Intubation, Intratracheal; Pharyngitis; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 29377080
DOI: 10.1111/anae.14224 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2017Acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common infectious diseases in children. It has been reported that 64% of infants have an episode of AOM by the age of six... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common infectious diseases in children. It has been reported that 64% of infants have an episode of AOM by the age of six months and 86% by one year. Although most cases of AOM are due to bacterial infection, it is commonly triggered by a viral infection. In most children AOM is self limiting, but it does carry a risk of complications. Since antibiotic treatment increases the risk of antibiotic resistance, influenza vaccines might be an effective way of reducing this risk by preventing the development of AOM.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in reducing the occurrence of acute otitis media in infants and children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov (15 February 2017). We also searched the reference lists of included studies to identify any additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing influenza vaccine with placebo or no treatment in infants and children aged younger than six years. We included children of either sex and of any ethnicity, with or without a history of recurrent AOM.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened studies, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. We performed statistical analyses using the random-effects and fixed-effect models and expressed the results as risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 trials (6 trials in high-income countries and 5 multicentre trials in high-, middle-, and low-income countries) involving 17,123 children aged 6 months to 6 years. Eight trials recruited participants from a healthcare setting. Ten trials (and all four trials that contributed to the primary outcome) declared funding from vaccine manufacturers. Four trials reported adequate allocation concealment, and 10 trials reported adequate blinding of participants and personnel. Attrition was low for eight trials included in the analysis.The primary outcome showed a small reduction in at least one episode of AOM over at least six months of follow-up (4 trials, 3134 children; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.02; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to -0.00; NNTB 25, 95% CI 12.5 to 100; low-quality evidence).The subgroup analyses (i.e. number of courses and types of vaccine administered) showed no differences.There was a reduction in the use of antibiotics in vaccinated children (2 trials, 1223 children; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.83; RD -0.11, 95% CI -0.16 to -0.06; moderate-quality evidence).We were unable to demonstrate whether there was any difference in the utilisation of health care. The use of influenza vaccine resulted in a significant increase in fever (7 trials, 10,615 children; RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.24; RD 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.04; low-quality evidence), rhinorrhoea (6 trials, 10,563 children; RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.29; RD 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.16; low-quality evidence), but no difference in pharyngitis. No major adverse events were reported.Differing from the protocol, the original publication of the review included a subgroup analysis of AOM episodes by season, and the secondary outcome 'types of influenza vaccine' was changed to a subgroup analysis. For this update, we removed the subgroup analyses for trial setting, season, and utilisation of health care due to the small number of trials involved. We removed Belshe 2000 from primary and secondary outcomes (courses of vaccine and types of vaccine) because it reported episodes of AOM per person. We did not perform a subgroup analysis by type of adverse event. We have reported each type of adverse event as a separate analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Influenza vaccine results in a small reduction in AOM. The observed reduction in the use of antibiotics needs to be considered in light of current recommended practices aimed at avoiding antibiotic overuse. Safety data from these trials were limited. The benefits may not justify the use of influenza vaccine without taking into account the vaccine efficacy in reducing influenza and safety data. We judged the quality of the evidence to be low to moderate. Additional research is needed.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Influenza Vaccines; Otitis Media; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29039160
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010089.pub3 -
International Journal of Clinical... Nov 2017Deutetrabenazine is a deuterated formulation of tetrabenazine. The aim of this systematic review is to describe the efficacy, tolerability and safety of deutetrabenazine... (Review)
Review
Deutetrabenazine for tardive dyskinesia: A systematic review of the efficacy and safety profile for this newly approved novel medication-What is the number needed to treat, number needed to harm and likelihood to be helped or harmed?
OBJECTIVE
Deutetrabenazine is a deuterated formulation of tetrabenazine. The aim of this systematic review is to describe the efficacy, tolerability and safety of deutetrabenazine for the treatment of tardive dyskinesia (TD).
DATA SOURCES
The pivotal registration trials were accessed by querying http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ and http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, for the search terms 'deutetrabenazine' OR 'SD-809', and by also querying the EMBASE (Elsevier) commercial database for clinical poster abstracts, and by asking the manufacturer for copies of posters presented at congresses. Product labelling provided additional information.
STUDY SELECTION
All available clinical reports of studies were identified.
DATA EXTRACTION
Descriptions of the principal results and calculation of number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) for relevant dichotomous outcomes were extracted from the available study reports and other sources of information.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Deutetrabenazine, a reversible inhibitor of vesicular monoamine transporter type 2 (VMAT2), received approval for the treatment of TD in adults based on a clinical trial development programme that included two 12-week parallel group, randomised and placebo-controlled studies. Deutetrabenazine dose is determined individually for each patient based on reduction of TD and tolerability. The recommended starting dose of deutetrabenazine for TD is 6 mg BID, administered with food, and can be increased at weekly intervals in increments of 6 mg/day to a maximum recommended daily dosage of 24 mg BID. The percentage of responders in the fixed-dose Phase III acute study, as defined by a rating of "much improved" or "very much improved" on the clinical global impression of change, was 46% for deutetrabenazine (pooled dose groups 12 and 18 mg BID) vs 26% for placebo, yielding a NNT of 5 (95% CI 3-19); the percentage of responders as defined by an improvement in Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) severity score (sum of items 1-7) of 50% or more, was 34% for deutetrabenazine (pooled dose groups 12 and 18 mg BID) vs 12% for placebo, yielding a NNT of 5 (95% CI 3-11). Pooling the data across both short-term studies, NNT for AIMS response for the therapeutic doses of deutetrabenazine vs placebo was 7 (95% CI 4-18). Discontinuation because of an adverse event occurred among 3.6% of patients randomised to deutetrabenazine (any dose) vs 3.1% for placebo, yielding a NNH of 189 (not significant). The Likelihood to be Helped or Harmed comparing success (AIMS response) vs discontinuation because of an adverse event is 27. The most common adverse reactions (that occurred in ≥4% of deutetrabenazine-treated patients with TD and greater than placebo) were nasopharyngitis and insomnia, with NNH values of 50 (not significant) and 34 (95% CI 18-725), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Deutetrabenazine is the second FDA-approved agent specifically indicated for the treatment of TD. Head-to-head comparisons with other VMAT2 inhibitors among patients with TD in the "real world" are needed.
Topics: Adrenergic Uptake Inhibitors; Humans; Nasopharyngitis; Numbers Needed To Treat; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders; Tardive Dyskinesia; Tetrabenazine; Treatment Outcome; Vesicular Monoamine Transport Proteins
PubMed: 29024264
DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.13030 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Sep 2017To estimate the benefits and harms of using corticosteroids as an adjunct treatment for sore throat. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To estimate the benefits and harms of using corticosteroids as an adjunct treatment for sore throat. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control trials. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), trial registries up to May 2017, reference lists of eligible trials, related reviews. Randomised controlled trials of the addition of corticosteroids to standard clinical care for patients aged 5 or older in emergency department and primary care settings with clinical signs of acute tonsillitis, pharyngitis, or the clinical syndrome of sore throat. Trials were included irrespective of language or publication status. Reviewers identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the evidence, independently and in duplicate. A parallel guideline committee ( Rapid Recommendation) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including the selection of outcomes important to patients. Random effects model was used for meta-analyses. Quality of evidence was assessed with the GRADE approach. 10 eligible trials enrolled 1426 individuals. Patients who received single low dose corticosteroids (the most common intervention was oral dexamethasone with a maximum dose of 10 mg) were twice as likely to experience pain relief after 24 hours (relative risk 2.2, 95% confidence interval 1.2 to 4.3; risk difference 12.4%; moderate quality evidence) and 1.5 times more likely to have no pain at 48 hours (1.5, 1.3 to 1.8; risk difference 18.3%; high quality). The mean time to onset of pain relief in patients treated with corticosteroids was 4.8 hours earlier (95% confidence interval -1.9 to -7.8; moderate quality) and the mean time to complete resolution of pain was 11.1 hours earlier (-0.4 to -21.8; low quality) than in those treated with placebo. The absolute pain reduction at 24 hours (visual analogue scale 0-10) was greater in patients treated with corticosteroids (mean difference 1.3, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 1.9; moderate quality). Nine of the 10 trials sought information regarding adverse events. Six studies reported no adverse effects, and three studies reported few adverse events, which were mostly complications related to disease, with a similar incidence in both groups. Single low dose corticosteroids can provide pain relief in patients with sore throat, with no increase in serious adverse effects. Included trials did not assess the potential risks of larger cumulative doses in patients with recurrent episodes of acute sore throat. PROSPERO CRD42017067808.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Dexamethasone; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Pharyngitis; Tonsillitis
PubMed: 28931508
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j3887 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2017Concerns exist regarding antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) owing to adverse reactions, cost, and antibacterial resistance. One proposed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Concerns exist regarding antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) owing to adverse reactions, cost, and antibacterial resistance. One proposed strategy to reduce antibiotic prescribing is to provide prescriptions, but to advise delay in antibiotic use with the expectation that symptoms will resolve first. This is an update of a Cochrane Review originally published in 2007, and updated in 2010 and 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects on clinical outcomes, antibiotic use, antibiotic resistance, and patient satisfaction of advising a delayed prescription of antibiotics in respiratory tract infections.
SEARCH METHODS
For this 2017 update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2017), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infection Group's Specialised Register; Ovid MEDLINE (2013 to 25 May 2017); Ovid Embase (2013 to 2017 Week 21); EBSCO CINAHL Plus (1984 to 25 May 2017); Web of Science (2013 to 25 May 2017); WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (1 September 2017); and ClinicalTrials.gov (1 September 2017).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials involving participants of all ages defined as having an RTI, where delayed antibiotics were compared to immediate antibiotics or no antibiotics. We defined a delayed antibiotic as advice to delay the filling of an antibiotic prescription by at least 48 hours. We considered all RTIs regardless of whether antibiotics were recommended or not.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Three review authors independently extracted and collated data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included trials. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing information.
MAIN RESULTS
For this 2017 update we added one new trial involving 405 participants with uncomplicated acute respiratory infection. Overall, this review included 11 studies with a total of 3555 participants. These 11 studies involved acute respiratory infections including acute otitis media (three studies), streptococcal pharyngitis (three studies), cough (two studies), sore throat (one study), common cold (one study), and a variety of RTIs (one study). Five studies involved only children, two only adults, and four included both adults and children. Six studies were conducted in a primary care setting, three in paediatric clinics, and two in emergency departments.Studies were well reported, and appeared to be of moderate quality. Randomisation was not adequately described in two trials. Four trials blinded the outcomes assessor, and three included blinding of participants and doctors. We conducted meta-analysis for antibiotic use and patient satisfaction.We found no differences among delayed, immediate, and no prescribed antibiotics for clinical outcomes in the three studies that recruited participants with cough. For the outcome of fever with sore throat, three of the five studies favoured immediate antibiotics, and two found no difference. For the outcome of pain related to sore throat, two studies favoured immediate antibiotics, and three found no difference. One study compared delayed antibiotics with no antibiotic for sore throat, and found no difference in clinical outcomes.Three studies included participants with acute otitis media. Of the two studies with an immediate antibiotic arm, one study found no difference for fever, and the other study favoured immediate antibiotics for pain and malaise severity on Day 3. One study including participants with acute otitis media compared delayed antibiotics with no antibiotics and found no difference for pain and fever on Day 3.Two studies recruited participants with common cold. Neither study found differences for clinical outcomes between delayed and immediate antibiotic groups. One study favoured delayed antibiotics over no antibiotics for pain, fever, and cough duration (moderate quality evidence for all clinical outcomes - GRADE assessment).There were either no differences for adverse effects or results favoured delayed antibiotics over immediate antibiotics (low quality evidence - to GRADE assessment) with no significant differences in complication rates. Delayed antibiotics resulted in a significant reduction in antibiotic use compared to immediate antibiotics prescription (odds ratio (OR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.05). However, a delayed antibiotic was more likely to result in reported antibiotic use than no antibiotics (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.59 to 4.08) (moderate quality evidence - GRADE assessment).Patient satisfaction favoured delayed over no antibiotics (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.06). There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction between delayed antibiotics and immediate antibiotics (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.10) (moderate quality evidence - GRADE assessment).None of the included studies evaluated antibiotic resistance.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For many clinical outcomes, there were no differences between prescribing strategies. Symptoms for acute otitis media and sore throat were modestly improved by immediate antibiotics compared with delayed antibiotics. There were no differences in complication rates. Delaying prescribing did not result in significantly different levels of patient satisfaction compared with immediate provision of antibiotics (86% versus 91%) (moderate quality evidence). However, delay was favoured over no antibiotics (87% versus 82%). Delayed antibiotics achieved lower rates of antibiotic use compared to immediate antibiotics (31% versus 93%) (moderate quality evidence). The strategy of no antibiotics further reduced antibiotic use compared to delaying prescription for antibiotics (14% versus 28%). Delayed antibiotics for people with acute respiratory infection reduced antibiotic use compared to immediate antibiotics, but was not shown to be different to no antibiotics in terms of symptom control and disease complications. Where clinicians feel it is safe not to prescribe antibiotics immediately for people with respiratory infections, no antibiotics with advice to return if symptoms do not resolve is likely to result in the least antibiotic use while maintaining similar patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes to delaying prescription of antibiotics. Where clinicians are not confident in using a no antibiotic strategy, a delayed antibiotics strategy may be an acceptable compromise in place of immediate prescribing to significantly reduce unnecessary antibiotic use for RTIs, and thereby reduce antibiotic resistance, while maintaining patient safety and satisfaction levels.Editorial note: As a living systematic review, this review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Common Cold; Cough; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Prescriptions; Fever; Humans; Otitis Media; Pain; Patient Satisfaction; Pharyngitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Tract Infections; Time Factors
PubMed: 28881007
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004417.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2017Tonsillectomy is a very common operation and is performed using various surgical methods. Coblation is a popular method because it purportedly causes less pain than... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Tonsillectomy is a very common operation and is performed using various surgical methods. Coblation is a popular method because it purportedly causes less pain than other surgical methods. However, the superiority of coblation is unproven.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of coblation tonsillectomy for chronic tonsillitis or tonsillar hypertrophy with other surgical techniques, both hot and cold, on intraoperative morbidity, postoperative morbidity and procedural cost.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 3); PubMed; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 20 April 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of children and adults undergoing tonsillectomy with coblation compared with any other surgical technique. This review is limited to trials of extracapsular (traditional) tonsillectomy and excludes trials of intracapsular tonsil removal (tonsillotomy).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: patient-reported pain using a validated pain scale at postoperative days 1, 3 and 7; intraoperative blood loss; primary postoperative bleeding (within 24 hours) and secondary postoperative bleeding (more than 24 hours after surgery). Secondary outcomes were: time until resumption of normal diet, time until resumption of normal activity, duration of surgery and adverse effects including blood transfusion and the need for reoperation. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 29 studies, with a total of 2561 participants. All studies had moderate or high risk of bias. Sixteen studies used an adequate randomisation technique, however the inability to mask the surgical teams and/or provide adequate methods to mitigate the risk of bias put nearly all studies at moderate or high risk of detection and measurement bias for intraoperative blood loss, and primary and secondary bleeding. In contrast most studies (20) were at low risk of bias for pain assessment. Most studies did not report data in a manner permitting meta-analysis.Most studies did not clearly report the participant characteristics, surgical indications or whether patients underwent tonsillectomy or adenotonsillectomy. Most studies reported that tonsillitis (infection) and/or tonsillar hypertrophy (obstruction) were the indication for surgery. Seven studies included only adults, 16 studies included only children and six studies included both. Pain At postoperative day 1 there is very low quality evidence that patients in the coblation group had less pain, with a standardised mean difference (SMD) of -0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.38 to -0.19; 538 participants; six studies). This effect is reduced a SMD of -0.44 (95% CI -0.97 to 0.09; 401 participants; five studies; very low-quality evidence) at day 3, and at day 7 there is low quality evidence of little or no difference in pain (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.19; 420 participants; five studies). Although this suggests that pain may be slightly less in the coblation group between days 1 and 3, the clinical significance is unclear. Intraoperative blood loss Methodological differences between studies in the measurement of intraoperative blood loss precluded meta-analysis. Primary and secondary bleeding The risk of primary bleeding was similar (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.05; 2055 participants; 25 studies; low-quality evidence). The risk of secondary bleeding was greater in the coblation group with a risk ratio of 1.36 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.95; 2118 participants; 25 studies; low-quality evidence). Using the median of the control group as the baseline risk, the absolute risk in the coblation group was 5% versus 3.6% in the control group. The difference of 1.3% has a 95% CI of 0.2% lower in the coblation group to 3.5% higher. Secondary outcomes Differences in study design and data reporting precluded the identification of differences in the time to resumption of normal diet or activity, or whether there was a difference in the duration of surgery.Although we could not feasibly compare the costs of equipment or operative facility, anaesthetic and surgical fees across different healthcare systems we used duration of surgery as a proxy for cost. Although this outcome was commonly reported in studies, it was not possible to pool the data to determine whether there was a difference.Adverse events other than bleeding were not well reported. It is unclear whether there is a difference in postoperative infections or the need for reoperation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The coblation technique may cause less pain on postoperative day 1, but the difference is small and may be clinically meaningless. By postoperative day 3, the difference decreases further and by postoperative day 7 there appears to be little or no difference. We found similar rates of primary bleeding but we cannot rule out a small increased risk of secondary bleeding with coblation. The evidence supporting these findings is of low or very low quality, i.e. there is a very high degree of uncertainty about the results. Moreover, for most outcomes data were only available from a few of the 29 included studies.The current evidence is of very low quality, therefore it is uncertain whether or not the coblation technique has any advantages over traditional tonsillectomy techniques. Despite the large number of studies, failure to use standardised or validated outcome measures precludes the ability to pool data across studies. Therefore, well-conducted RCTs using consistent, validated outcome measures are needed to establish whether the coblation technique has a benefit over other methods. In the included studies we identified no clear difference in adverse events. However, given the rarity of these events, randomised trials lack the power to detect a difference. Data from large-scale registries will provide a better estimate of any difference in these rare outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Catheter Ablation; Child; Humans; Hypertrophy; Pain, Postoperative; Palatine Tonsil; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sodium Chloride; Tonsillectomy; Tonsillitis
PubMed: 28828761
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004619.pub3 -
BMJ Open Aug 2017To evaluate the optimal dose of succinylcholine for laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion and all related morbidities. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the optimal dose of succinylcholine for laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion and all related morbidities.
DESIGN
Systematic review, meta-analysis and metaregression of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
DATA SOURCE AND STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
A comprehensive search of RCTs in the PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry up to July 2016 and articles that evaluated the use of succinylcholine chloride for LMA insertion were included in the analyses. The relative risk (RR) and the corresponding 95% CIs were determined.
INTERVENTION
Succinylcholine as the coinduction agent and the doses were divided into mini (≤0.3 mg/kg) and low (0.3-1.0 mg/kg) doses for dose-dependent effect analyses.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES
The primary outcome was the first-attempt LMA insertion failure rate. Secondary outcomes included all related adverse events.
RESULTS
Data from 10 RCTs comprising 625 participants showed that succinylcholine reduced the first-attempt LMA insertion failure rate (RR, 0.22; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.43), coughing and gagging (RR, 0.26; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.45) and laryngospasm (RR, 0.14; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.39). The use of succinylcholine did not result in a significant increase of postoperative myalgia (RR, 2.58; 95% CI 0.79 to 8.44) and did not reduce the risk of postoperative sore throat (RR, 0.76; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.03). Subgroup analysis further showed that low-dose succinylcholine reduced the LMA insertion failure rate and its related coughing and gagging when compared with mini dose.
CONCLUSION
The use of succinylcholine compared with none can facilitate LMA insertion and reduce insertion-related reflexes without significant postoperative myalgia. However, additional prospective studies with a larger sample size are required to fully evaluate the dose-dependent effect and complications of succinylcholine for LMA insertion.
Topics: Cough; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Gagging; Humans; Intubation, Intratracheal; Laryngeal Masks; Neuromuscular Depolarizing Agents; Pain, Postoperative; Pharyngitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Succinylcholine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28780538
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014274 -
Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2016The prevalence of Group C beta-hemolytic and among patients with sore throat in the outpatient setting has not been previously summarized. We set out to derive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The prevalence of Group C beta-hemolytic and among patients with sore throat in the outpatient setting has not been previously summarized. We set out to derive prevalence information from the existing literature.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE for studies reporting the prevalence of or Group C or both in prospective, consecutive series of outpatients with sore throat, as well as laboratory-based studies of throat cultures submitted from primary care. We limited searches to studies where the majority of data was collected after January 1, 2000, to reflect contemporary microbiological methods and prevalences. Each author independently reviewed the articles for inclusion and abstraction of data; we resolved discrepancies by consensus discussion. We then performed a meta-analysis to calculate the pooled prevalence estimates using a random effects model of raw proportions.
RESULTS
A total of 16 studies met our inclusion criteria. The overall prevalences of Group C and were 6.1% (95% CI, 3.2%-9.0%) and 18.9% (95% CI, 10.5%-27.2%), respectively. When stratified by study type, the prevalences of Group C and in laboratory-based studies were 6.6% (95% CI, -1.0% to 14.2%) and 18.8% (95% CI, 6.5%-31.1%), respectively. In primary care patients with sore throat, Group C had a prevalence of 6.1% (95% CI, 3.1%-9.2%), while had a prevalence of 19.4% (95% CI, 14.7%-24.1%).
CONCLUSIONS
Group C and are commonly detected in patients with acute pharyngitis. Research is needed, however, to determine whether these bacteria are truly pathogenic in patients with pharyngitis and whether antibiotics reduce the duration of symptoms or the likelihood of complications.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Fusobacterium Infections; Fusobacterium necrophorum; Humans; Pharyngitis; Prevalence; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Streptococcal Infections; Streptococcus
PubMed: 28376443
DOI: 10.1370/afm.2005 -
Pediatrics Feb 2017The effectiveness of tonsillectomy or adenotonsillectomy ("tonsillectomy") for recurrent throat infection compared with watchful waiting is uncertain. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
CONTEXT
The effectiveness of tonsillectomy or adenotonsillectomy ("tonsillectomy") for recurrent throat infection compared with watchful waiting is uncertain.
OBJECTIVE
To compare sleep, cognitive, behavioral, and health outcomes of tonsillectomy versus watchful waiting in children with recurrent throat infections.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library.
STUDY SELECTION
Two investigators independently screened studies against predetermined criteria.
DATA EXTRACTION
One investigator extracted data with review by a second. Investigators independently assessed risk of bias and strength of evidence (SOE) and confidence in the estimate of effects.
RESULTS
Seven studies including children with ≥3 infections in the previous 1 to 3 years addressed this question. In studies reporting baseline data, number of infections/sore throats decreased from baseline in both groups, with greater decreases in sore throat days, clinician contacts, diagnosed group A streptococcal infections, and school absences in tonsillectomized children in the short term (<12 months). Quality of life was not markedly different between groups at any time point.
LIMITATIONS
Few studies fully categorized infection/sore throat severity; attrition was high.
CONCLUSIONS
Throat infections, utilization, and school absences improved in the first postsurgical year in tonsillectomized children versus children not receiving surgery. Benefits did not persist over time; longer-term outcomes are limited. SOE is moderate for reduction in short-term throat infections and insufficient for longer-term reduction. SOE is low for no difference in longer-term streptococcal infection reduction. SOE is low for utilization and missed school reduction in the short term, low for no difference in longer-term missed school, and low for no differences in quality of life.
Topics: Absenteeism; Adenoidectomy; Child; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Pharyngitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Streptococcal Infections; Streptococcus pyogenes; Tonsillectomy; Tonsillitis; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 28096515
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2016-3490 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2016Peritonsillar abscess is a common infection presenting as a collection of pus in the peritonsillar area. The condition is characterised by a severe sore throat,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Peritonsillar abscess is a common infection presenting as a collection of pus in the peritonsillar area. The condition is characterised by a severe sore throat, difficulty in swallowing and pain on swallowing, fever and malaise, and trismus. Needle aspiration and incision and drainage are the two main treatment modalities currently used in the treatment of this condition. The effectiveness of one versus the other has not been clearly demonstrated and remains an area of debate.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and risks of needle aspiration versus incision and drainage for the treatment of peritonsillar abscess in older children (eight years of age or older), adolescents and adults.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 7); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 25 August 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing needle aspiration with incision and drainage.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were recurrence rate (proportion of patients needing repeat intervention) and adverse effects associated with the intervention. Secondary outcomes were time to resumption of normal diet, complications of the disease process and symptom scores. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 studies (674 participants). The risk of bias was high or unclear in all of the included studies. All studies compared needle aspiration to incision and drainage.All but one of the 11 studies reported on the primary outcome of recurrence. When we pooled data from the 10 studies the recurrence rate was higher in the needle aspiration group compared with incision and drainage: risk ratio (RR) 3.74 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.63 to 8.59; 612 participants). We detected moderate heterogeneity in this analysis (I = 48%). In interpreting the pooled result it is important to note that the evidence for this outcome was of very low quality.None of the other outcomes (adverse effects of the intervention, time to resumption of normal diet, complications of the disease process and symptom scores) were consistently measured across all studies.Only three studies reported on adverse effects/events associated with the intervention and only one such event in a single patient was reported (post-procedure bleeding following incision and drainage: 1/28, 3.6%) (very low-quality evidence). Time to resumption of normal diet was compared in two studies; neither found an obvious difference between needle aspiration and incision and drainage (very low-quality evidence).Only three studies stated that they would report complications of the disease process. In these three studies, the only complication reported was admission to hospital for dehydration in two patients who underwent incision and drainage (2/13, 6.7%). Symptom scores were measured in four studies; three evaluated pain using different scales and one other symptoms. The data could not be pooled in a meta-analysis. Two studies evaluating procedural pain reported this to be lower in the needle aspiration groups. One study found comparable rates of pain resolution at five days post-intervention between groups. The quality of the evidence for symptom scores was very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although a number of studies have sought to evaluate whether or not needle aspiration or incision and drainage is more effective in patients with peritonsillar abscess, there is no high-quality evidence to allow a firm conclusion to be drawn and the answer remains uncertain. Very low-quality evidence suggests that incision and drainage may be associated with a lower chance of recurrence than needle aspiration. There is some very low-quality evidence to suggest that needle aspiration is less painful.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Drainage; Eating; Humans; Needles; Peritonsillar Abscess; Recurrence; Retreatment; Suction; Symptom Assessment; Time Factors
PubMed: 28009937
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006287.pub4