-
The Lancet. Microbe Feb 2023HIV-1 infections initiated by multiple founder variants are characterised by a higher viral load and a worse clinical prognosis than those initiated with single founder... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
HIV-1 infections initiated by multiple founder variants are characterised by a higher viral load and a worse clinical prognosis than those initiated with single founder variants, yet little is known about the routes of exposure through which transmission of multiple founder variants is most probable. Here we used individual patient data to calculate the probability of multiple founders stratified by route of HIV exposure and study methodology.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that estimated founder variant multiplicity in HIV-1 infection, searching MEDLINE, Embase, and Global Health databases for papers published between Jan 1, 1990, and Sept 14, 2020. Eligible studies must have reported original estimates of founder variant multiplicity in people with acute or early HIV-1 infections, have clearly detailed the methods used, and reported the route of exposure. Studies were excluded if they reported data concerning people living with HIV-1 who had known or suspected superinfection, who were documented as having received pre-exposure prophylaxis, or if the transmitting partner was known to be receiving antiretroviral treatment. Individual patient data were collated from all studies, with authors contacted if these data were not publicly available. We applied logistic meta-regression to these data to estimate the probability that an HIV infection is initiated by multiple founder variants. We calculated a pooled estimate using a random effects model, subsequently stratifying this estimate across exposure routes in a univariable analysis. We then extended our model to adjust for different study methods in a multivariable analysis, recalculating estimates across the exposure routes. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020202672.
FINDINGS
We included 70 publications in our analysis, comprising 1657 individual patients. Our pooled estimate of the probability that an infection is initiated by multiple founder variants was 0·25 (95% CI 0·21-0·29), with moderate heterogeneity (Q=132·3, p<0·0001, I=64·2%). Our multivariable analysis uncovered differences in the probability of multiple variant infection by exposure route. Relative to a baseline of male-to-female transmission, the predicted probability for female-to-male multiple variant transmission was significantly lower at 0·13 (95% CI 0·08-0·20), and the probabilities were significantly higher for transmissions in people who inject drugs (0·37 [0·24-0·53]) and men who have sex with men (0·30 [0·33-0·40]). There was no significant difference in the probability of multiple variant transmission between male-to-female transmission (0·21 [0·14-0·31]), post-partum transmission (0·18 [0·03-0·57]), pre-partum transmission (0·17 [0·08-0·33]), and intra-partum transmission (0·27 [0·14-0·45]).
INTERPRETATION
We identified that transmissions in people who inject drugs and men who have sex with men are significantly more likely to result in an infection initiated by multiple founder variants, and female-to-male infections are significantly less probable. Quantifying how the routes of HIV infection affect the transmission of multiple variants allows us to better understand how the evolution and epidemiology of HIV-1 determine clinical outcomes.
FUNDING
Medical Research Council Precision Medicine Doctoral Training Programme and a European Research Council Starting Grant.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; HIV Infections; HIV-1; Homosexuality, Male; Sexual and Gender Minorities; Anti-HIV Agents; HIV Seropositivity
PubMed: 36642083
DOI: 10.1016/S2666-5247(22)00327-5 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Dec 2022The issue of bacterial infections in COVID-19 patients has received increasing attention among scientists. Antibiotics were widely prescribed during the early phase of... (Review)
Review
The issue of bacterial infections in COVID-19 patients has received increasing attention among scientists. Antibiotics were widely prescribed during the early phase of the pandemic. We performed a literature review to assess the reasons, evidence and practices on the use of antibiotics in COVID-19 in- and outpatients. Published articles providing data on antibiotics use in COVID-19 patients were identified through computerized literature searches on the MEDLINE and SCOPUS databases. Searching the MEDLINE database, the following search terms were adopted: ((antibiotic) AND (COVID-19)). Searching the SCOPUS database, the following search terms were used: ((antibiotic treatment) AND (COVID-19)). The risk of bias in the included studies was not assessed. Both quantitative and qualitative information were summarized by means of textual descriptions. Five-hundred-ninety-three studies were identified, published from January 2020 to 30 October 2022. Thirty-six studies were included in this systematic review. Of the 36 included studies, 32 studies were on the use of antibiotics in COVID-19 inpatients and 4 on antibiotic use in COVID-19 outpatients. Apart from the studies identified and included in the review, the main recommendations on antibiotic treatment from 5 guidelines for the clinical management of COVID-19 were also summarized in a separate paragraph. Antibiotics should not be prescribed during COVID-19 unless there is a strong clinical suspicion of bacterial coinfection or superinfection.
PubMed: 36498781
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11237207 -
Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) Aug 2022Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent for the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, has sparked a medical emergency... (Review)
Review
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent for the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, has sparked a medical emergency worldwide. With the rise in COVID-19 infections and an eventual increase in hospitalized critically ill patients, a trend of bacterial, fungal, and viral superinfection has been noted. One important agent of co-infection identified is . Due to its multidrug-resistant nature and easy transmissibility, is difficult to manage in COVID-positive patients. Patients with comorbidities, immunosuppressive states, intubated and on ventilators are more likely to contract the fungal infection. Therefore, it is essential to the first screen, diagnose, and isolate patients with infection and manage and treat them while preventing the spread of the disease. Failure to recognize and prevent its spread may lead to an eventual epidemic or even a pandemic during the current COVID-pandemic, which the exhausted healthcare system can most definitely not handle. This systematic review investigates the prevalence of , its pathophysiology, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.
PubMed: 36135214
DOI: 10.3390/diseases10030058 -
Cureus Mar 2022The prevalence, incidence, and characteristics of bacterial infections in patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 are not well understood... (Review)
Review
The prevalence, incidence, and characteristics of bacterial infections in patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 are not well understood and have been raised as an important knowledge gap. Therefore, our study focused on the most common opportunistic infections/secondary infections/superinfections in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Eligible studies were identified using PubMed/Medline since inception to June 25, 2021. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were selected. Statistical analysis was conducted in Review Manager 5.4.1. A random-effect model was used when heterogeneity was seen to pool the studies, and the result was reported as inverse variance and the corresponding 95% confidence interval. We screened 701 articles comprising 22 cohort studies which were included for analysis. The pooled prevalence of opportunistic infections/secondary infections/superinfections was 16% in COVID-19 patients. The highest prevalence of secondary infections was observed among viruses at 33%, followed by bacteria at 16%, fungi at 6%, and 25% among the miscellaneous group/wrong outcome. Opportunistic infections are more prevalent in critically ill patients. The isolated pathogens included Epstein-Barr virus, , , , , and invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. Large-scale studies are required to better identify opportunistic/secondary/superinfections in COVID-19 patients.
PubMed: 35505698
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.23687 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Aug 2022A significant increased risk of complications and mortality in immunocompromised patients affected by COVID-19 has been described. However, the impact of COVID-19 in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A significant increased risk of complications and mortality in immunocompromised patients affected by COVID-19 has been described. However, the impact of COVID-19 in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients is an issue still under debate, due to conflicting evidence that has emerged from different observational studies.
OBJECTIVES
We performed a systematic review with a meta-analysis to assess the clinical outcome in SOT recipients with COVID-19 compared with the general population.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed-MEDLINE and Scopus were independently searched until 13 October 2021.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Prospective or retrospective observational studies comparing clinical outcome in SOT recipients versus general populations affected by COVID-19 were included. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality.
PARTICIPANTS
Participants were patients with confirmed COVID-19.
INTERVENTIONS
Interventions reviewed were SOTs.
METHODS
The quality of the included studies was independently assessed with the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool for observational studies. The meta-analysis was performed by pooling ORs retrieved from studies providing adjustment for confounders using a random-effects model with the inverse variance method. Multiple subgroups and sensitivity analyses were conducted to investigate the source of heterogeneity.
RESULTS
A total of 3501 articles were screened, and 31 observational studies (N = 590 375; 5759 SOT recipients vs. 584 616 general population) were included in the meta-analyses. No difference in 30-day mortality rate was found in the primary analysis, including studies providing adjustment for confounders (N = 17; 3752 SOT recipients vs. 159 745 general population; OR: 1.13; 95% CI, 0.94-1.35; I = 33.9%). No evidence of publication bias was reported. A higher risk of intensive care unit admission (OR: 1.56; 95% CI, 1.03-2.63) and occurrence of acute kidney injury (OR: 2.50; 95% CI, 1.81-3.45) was found in SOT recipients.
CONCLUSIONS
No increased risk in mortality was found in SOT recipients affected by COVID-19 compared with the general population when adjusted for demographic and clinical features and COVID-19 severity.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Organ Transplantation; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Transplant Recipients
PubMed: 35289294
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.02.039 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022Viruses cause about 80% of all cases of acute conjunctivitis. Human adenoviruses are believed to account for 65% to 90% of cases of viral conjunctivitis, or 20% to 75%... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Viruses cause about 80% of all cases of acute conjunctivitis. Human adenoviruses are believed to account for 65% to 90% of cases of viral conjunctivitis, or 20% to 75% of all causes of infectious keratoconjunctivitis worldwide. Epidemic keratoconjunctivitis (EKC) is a highly contagious subset of adenoviral conjunctivitis that has been associated with large outbreaks at military installations and at medical facilities. It is accompanied by severe conjunctival inflammation, watery discharge, and light sensitivity, and can lead to chronic complications such as corneal and conjunctival scarring with discomfort and poor quality of vision. Due to a lack of consensus on the efficacy of any pharmacotherapy to alter the clinical course of EKC, no standard of care exists, therefore many clinicians offer only supportive care.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of topical pharmacological therapies versus placebo, an active control, or no treatment for adults with EKC.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), with no restrictions on language or year of publication. The date of the last search was 27 April 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials in which antiseptic agents, virustatic agents, or topical immune-modulating therapy was compared with placebo, an active control, or no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 10 studies conducted in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa with a total of 892 participants who were treated for 7 days to 6 months and followed for 7 days up to 1.5 years. Study characteristics and risk of bias In most studies participants were predominantly men (range: 44% to 90%), with an age range from 9 to 82 years. Three studies reported information on trial registration, but we found no published study protocol. The majority of trials had small sample sizes, ranging from 18 to 90 participants enrolled per study; the only exception was a trial that enrolled 350 participants. We judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias across risk of bias domains. Findings We included 10 studies of 892 EKC participants and estimated combined intervention effects in analyses stratified by steroid-containing control treatment or artificial tears. Six trials contributed to the comparisons of topical interventions (povidone-iodine [PVP-I], trifluridine, ganciclovir, dexamethasone plus neomycin) with artificial tears (or saline). Very low certainty evidence from two trials comparing trifluridine or ganciclovir with artificial tears showed inconsistent effects on shortening the mean duration of cardinal symptoms or signs of EKC. Low certainty evidence based on two studies (409 participants) indicated that participants treated with PVP-I alone more often experienced resolution of symptoms (risk ratio (RR) 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.24) and signs (RR 3.19, 95% CI 2.29 to 4.45) during the first week of treatment compared with those treated with artificial tears. Very low certainty evidence from two studies (77 participants) suggested that PVP-I or ganciclovir prevented the development of subepithelial infiltrates (SEI) when compared with artificial tears within 30 days of treatment (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.56). Four studies compared topical interventions (tacrolimus, cyclosporin A [CsA], trifluridine, PVP-I + dexamethasone) with topical steroids, and one trial compared fluorometholone (FML) plus polyvinyl alcohol iodine (PVA-I) with FML plus levofloxacin. Evidence from one trial showed that more eyes receiving PVP-I 1.0% plus dexamethasone 0.1% had symptoms resolved by day seven compared with those receiving dexamethasone alone (RR 9.00, 95% CI 1.23 to 66.05; 52 eyes). In two trials, fewer eyes treated with PVP-I or PVA-I plus steroid developed SEI within 15 days of treatment compared with steroid alone or steroid plus levofloxacin (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55; 69 eyes). One study found that CsA was no more effective than steroid for resolving SEI within four weeks of treatment (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.06; N = 88). The evidence from trials comparing topical interventions with steroids was overall of very low level certainty. Adverse effects Antiviral or antimicrobial agents plus steroid did not differ from artificial tears in terms of ocular discomfort upon instillation (RR 9.23, 95% CI 0.61 to 140.67; N = 19). CsA and tacrolimus eye drops were associated with more cases of severe ocular discomfort, and sometimes intolerance, when compared with steroids (RR 4.64, 95% CI 1.15 to 18.71; 2 studies; N = 141). Compared with steroids, tacrolimus did not increase the risk of elevated intraocular pressure (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0 to 1.13; 1 study; N = 80), while trifluridine conferred no additional risk compared to tear substitute (RR 5.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 96.49; 1 study; N = 97). Overall, bacterial superinfection was rare (one in 23 CsA users) and not associated with use of the intervention steroid (RR 3.63, 95% CI 0.15 to 84.98; N = 51). The evidence for all estimates was of low or very low certainty.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence for the seven specified outcomes was of low or very low certainty due to imprecision and high risk of bias. The evidence that antiviral agents shorten the duration of symptoms or signs when compared with artificial tears was inconclusive. Low certainty evidence suggests that PVP-I alone resolves signs and symptoms by seven days relative to artificial tears. PVP-I or PVA-I, alone or with steroid, is associated with lower risks of SEI development than artificial tears or steroid (very low certainty evidence). The currently available evidence is insufficient to determine whether any of the evaluated interventions confers an advantage over steroids or artificial tears with respect to virus eradication or its spread to initially uninvolved fellow eyes. Future updates of this review should provide evidence of high-level certainty from trials with larger sample sizes, enrollment of participants with similar durations of signs and symptoms, and validated methods to assess short- and long-term outcomes.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Child; Conjunctivitis; Conjunctivitis, Viral; Cyclosporine; Dexamethasone; Female; Fluorometholone; Ganciclovir; Humans; Keratoconjunctivitis; Levofloxacin; Lubricant Eye Drops; Male; Middle Aged; Povidone-Iodine; Tacrolimus; Trifluridine; Young Adult
PubMed: 35238405
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013520.pub2 -
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva 2021The Sociedade Portuguesa de Cuidados Intensivos and the Infection and Sepsis Group have previously issued health service and management recommendations for critically...
Update of the recommendations of the Sociedade Portuguesa de Cuidados Intensivos and the Infection and Sepsis Group for the approach to COVID-19 in Intensive Care Medicine.
INTRODUCTION
The Sociedade Portuguesa de Cuidados Intensivos and the Infection and Sepsis Group have previously issued health service and management recommendations for critically ill patients with COVID-19. Due to the evolution of knowledge, the panel of experts was again convened to review the current evidence and issue updated recommendations.
METHODS
A national panel of experts who declared that they had no conflicts of interest regarding the development of the recommendations was assembled. Operational questions were developed based on the PICO methodology, and a rapid systematic review was conducted by consulting different bibliographic sources. The panel determined the direction and strength of the recommendations using two Delphi rounds, conducted in accordance with the principles of the GRADE system. A strong recommendation received the wording "is recommended", and a weak recommendation was written as "is suggested."
RESULTS
A total of 48 recommendations and 30 suggestions were issued, covering the following topics: diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, coinfection and superinfection; criteria for admission, cure and suspension of isolation; organization of services; personal protective equipment; and respiratory support and other specific therapies (antivirals, immunomodulators and anticoagulation).
CONCLUSION
These recommendations, specifically oriented to the Portuguese reality but that may also apply to Portuguese-speaking African countries and East Timor, aim to support health professionals in the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19. They will be continuously reviewed to reflect the progress of our understanding and the treatment of this pathology.
Topics: COVID-19; Critical Care; Humans; Intensive Care Units; SARS-CoV-2; Sepsis
PubMed: 35081236
DOI: 10.5935/0103-507X.0103-507X-rbti-20210080 -
Current Opinion in Critical Care Feb 2022We conducted a systematic literature review to summarize the available evidence regarding the incidence, risk factors, and clinical characteristics of...
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
We conducted a systematic literature review to summarize the available evidence regarding the incidence, risk factors, and clinical characteristics of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation because of acute respiratory distress syndrome secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection (C-ARDS).
RECENT FINDINGS
Sixteen studies (6484 patients) were identified. Bacterial coinfection was uncommon at baseline (<15%) but a high proportion of patients developed positive bacterial cultures thereafter leading to a VAP diagnosis (range 21-64%, weighted average 50%). Diagnostic criteria varied between studies but most signs of VAP have substantial overlap with the signs of C-ARDS making it difficult to differentiate between bacterial colonization versus superinfection. Most episodes of VAP were associated with Gram-negative bacteria. Occasional cases were also attributed to herpes virus reactivations and pulmonary aspergillosis. Potential factors driving high VAP incidence rates include immunoparalysis, prolonged ventilation, exposure to immunosuppressants, understaffing, lapses in prevention processes, and overdiagnosis.
SUMMARY
Covid-19 patients who require mechanical ventilation for ARDS have a high risk (>50%) of developing VAP, most commonly because of Gram-negative bacteria. Further work is needed to elucidate the disease-specific risk factors for VAP, strategies for prevention, and how best to differentiate between bacterial colonization versus superinfection.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Overdiagnosis; Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Distress Syndrome; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34932525
DOI: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000908 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2021Atopic eczema (AE), also known as atopic dermatitis, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that causes significant burden. Phototherapy is sometimes used to treat AE... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Atopic eczema (AE), also known as atopic dermatitis, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that causes significant burden. Phototherapy is sometimes used to treat AE when topical treatments, such as corticosteroids, are insufficient or poorly tolerated.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of phototherapy for treating AE.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov to January 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials in adults or children with any subtype or severity of clinically diagnosed AE. Eligible comparisons were any type of phototherapy versus other forms of phototherapy or any other treatment, including placebo or no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology. For key findings, we used RoB 2.0 to assess bias, and GRADE to assess certainty of the evidence. Primary outcomes were physician-assessed signs and patient-reported symptoms. Secondary outcomes were Investigator Global Assessment (IGA), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), safety (measured as withdrawals due to adverse events), and long-term control.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 32 trials with 1219 randomised participants, aged 5 to 83 years (mean: 28 years), with an equal number of males and females. Participants were recruited mainly from secondary care dermatology clinics, and study duration was, on average, 13 weeks (range: 10 days to one year). We assessed risk of bias for all key outcomes as having some concerns or high risk, due to missing data, inappropriate analysis, or insufficient information to assess selective reporting. Assessed interventions included: narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB; 13 trials), ultraviolet A1 (UVA1; 6 trials), broadband ultraviolet B (BB-UVB; 5 trials), ultraviolet AB (UVAB; 2 trials), psoralen plus ultraviolet A (PUVA; 2 trials), ultraviolet A (UVA; 1 trial), unspecified ultraviolet B (UVB; 1 trial), full spectrum light (1 trial), Saalmann selective ultraviolet phototherapy (SUP) cabin (1 trial), saltwater bath plus UVB (balneophototherapy; 1 trial), and excimer laser (1 trial). Comparators included placebo, no treatment, another phototherapy, topical treatment, or alternative doses of the same treatment. Results for key comparisons are summarised (for scales, lower scores are better): NB-UVB versus placebo/no treatment There may be a larger reduction in physician-assessed signs with NB-UVB compared to placebo after 12 weeks of treatment (mean difference (MD) -9.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.62 to -15.18; 1 trial, 41 participants; scale: 0 to 90). Two trials reported little difference between NB-UVB and no treatment (37 participants, four to six weeks of treatment); another reported improved signs with NB-UVB versus no treatment (11 participants, nine weeks of treatment). NB-UVB may increase the number of people reporting reduced itch after 12 weeks of treatment compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.72, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.69; 1 trial, 40 participants). Another trial reported very little difference in itch severity with NB-UVB (25 participants, four weeks of treatment). The number of participants with moderate to greater global improvement may be higher with NB-UVB than placebo after 12 weeks of treatment (RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.10 to 7.17; 1 trial, 41 participants). NB-UVB may not affect rates of withdrawal due to adverse events. No withdrawals were reported in one trial of NB-UVB versus placebo (18 participants, nine weeks of treatment). In two trials of NB-UVB versus no treatment, each reported one withdrawal per group (71 participants, 8 to 12 weeks of treatment). We judged that all reported outcomes were supported with low-certainty evidence, due to risk of bias and imprecision. No trials reported HRQoL. NB-UVB versus UVA1 We judged the evidence for NB-UVB compared to UVA1 to be very low certainty for all outcomes, due to risk of bias and imprecision. There was no evidence of a difference in physician-assessed signs after six weeks (MD -2.00, 95% CI -8.41 to 4.41; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 0 to 108), or patient-reported itch after six weeks (MD 0.3, 95% CI -1.07 to 1.67; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 0 to 10). Two split-body trials (20 participants, 40 sides) also measured these outcomes, using different scales at seven to eight weeks; they reported lower scores with NB-UVB. One trial reported HRQoL at six weeks (MD 2.9, 95% CI -9.57 to 15.37; 1 trial, 46 participants; scale: 30 to 150). One split-body trial reported no withdrawals due to adverse events over 12 weeks (13 participants). No trials reported IGA. NB-UVB versus PUVA We judged the evidence for NB-UVB compared to PUVA (8-methoxypsoralen in bath plus UVA) to be very low certainty for all reported outcomes, due to risk of bias and imprecision. There was no evidence of a difference in physician-assessed signs after six weeks (64.1% reduction with NB-UVB versus 65.7% reduction with PUVA; 1 trial, 10 participants, 20 sides). There was no evidence of a difference in marked improvement or complete remission after six weeks (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.89; 1 trial, 9/10 participants with both treatments). One split-body trial reported no withdrawals due to adverse events in 10 participants over six weeks. The trials did not report patient-reported symptoms or HRQoL. UVA1 versus PUVA There was very low-certainty evidence, due to serious risk of bias and imprecision, that PUVA (oral 5-methoxypsoralen plus UVA) reduced physician-assessed signs more than UVA1 after three weeks (MD 11.3, 95% CI -0.21 to 22.81; 1 trial, 40 participants; scale: 0 to 103). The trial did not report patient-reported symptoms, IGA, HRQoL, or withdrawals due to adverse events. There were no eligible trials for the key comparisons of UVA1 or PUVA compared with no treatment. Adverse events Reported adverse events included low rates of phototoxic reaction, severe irritation, UV burn, bacterial superinfection, disease exacerbation, and eczema herpeticum.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to placebo or no treatment, NB-UVB may improve physician-rated signs, patient-reported symptoms, and IGA after 12 weeks, without a difference in withdrawal due to adverse events. Evidence for UVA1 compared to NB-UVB or PUVA, and NB-UVB compared to PUVA was very low certainty. More information is needed on the safety and effectiveness of all aspects of phototherapy for treating AE.
Topics: Adult; Child; Dermatitis, Atopic; Eczema; Female; Humans; Male; Phototherapy; Quality of Life; Ultraviolet Therapy
PubMed: 34709669
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013870.pub2 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2021Corticosteroids are a common option used in sepsis treatment. However, the efficacy and potential risk of corticosteroids in septic patients have not been well assessed.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Corticosteroids are a common option used in sepsis treatment. However, the efficacy and potential risk of corticosteroids in septic patients have not been well assessed. This review was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases were searched from inception to March 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of corticosteroids on patients with sepsis were included. The quality of outcomes in the included articles was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. The data were pooled by using risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD). The random-effects model was used to evaluate the pooled MD or RR and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
Fifty RCTs that included 12,304 patients with sepsis were identified. Corticosteroids were not associated with the mortality in 28-day (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.87-1.02; evidence rank, moderate) and long-term mortality (>60 days) (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88-1.05) in patients with sepsis (evidence rank, low). However, corticosteroids may exert a significant effect on the mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU) (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.83-0.97), in-hospital (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.82-0.99; evidence rank, moderate) in patients with sepsis or septic shock (evidence rank, low). Furthermore, corticosteroids probably achieved a tiny reduction in the length of hospital stay and ICU. Corticosteroids were associated with a higher risk of hypernatremia and hyperglycemia; furthermore, they appear to have no significant effect on superinfection and gastroduodenal bleeding.
CONCLUSIONS
Corticosteroids had no significant effect on the 28-day and long-term mortality; however, they decreased the ICU and hospital mortality. The findings suggest that the clinical corticosteroids may be an effective therapy for patients with sepsis during the short time.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://inplasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/INPLASY-Protocol-1074-4.pdf.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Sepsis
PubMed: 34484209
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.709155