-
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jan 2013To clarify whether any particular β blocker is superior in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction or whether the benefits of these agents are mainly... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To clarify whether any particular β blocker is superior in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction or whether the benefits of these agents are mainly due to a class effect.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of efficacy of different β blockers in heart failure.
DATA SOURCES
CINAHL(1982-2011), Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Trials (-2011), Embase (1980-2011), Medline/PubMed (1966-2011), and Web of Science (1965-2011).
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized trials comparing β blockers with other β blockers or other treatments.
DATA EXTRACTION
The primary endpoint was all cause death at the longest available follow-up, assessed with odds ratios and Bayesian random effect 95% credible intervals, with independent extraction by observers.
RESULTS
21 trials were included, focusing on atenolol, bisoprolol, bucindolol, carvedilol, metoprolol, and nebivolol. As expected, in the overall analysis, β blockers provided credible mortality benefits in comparison with placebo or standard treatment after a median of 12 months (odds ratio 0.69, 0.56 to 0.80). However, no obvious differences were found when comparing the different β blockers head to head for the risk of death, sudden cardiac death, death due to pump failure, or drug discontinuation. Accordingly, improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction were also similar irrespective of the individual study drug.
CONCLUSION
The benefits of β blockers in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction seem to be mainly due to a class effect, as no statistical evidence from current trials supports the superiority of any single agent over the others.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Bayes Theorem; Heart Failure; Humans; Odds Ratio; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke Volume; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 23325883
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f55 -
Advances in Therapy Jun 2021In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who experience further exacerbations or symptoms, despite being prescribed dual long-acting muscarinic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who experience further exacerbations or symptoms, despite being prescribed dual long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β-agonist (LABA) or inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA therapies, triple ICS/LAMA/LABA therapy is recommended. A previous network meta-analysis showed comparable efficacy of the ICS/LAMA/LABA, budesonide/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate (BUD/GLY/FOR) 320/18/9.6 µg, to other fixed-dose and open combination triple therapies at 24 weeks in COPD. Subsequently, the ETHOS study was published, including data for 8509 patients, assessing the efficacy and safety of BUD/GLY/FOR over 52 weeks. This network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare the relative efficacy, safety, and tolerability of BUD/GLY/FOR 320/18/9.6 µg with other fixed-dose and open combination triple therapies in COPD over 52 weeks, including data from ETHOS. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify ≥ 10-week randomized controlled trials, including ≥ 1 fixed-dose or open combination triple-therapy arm, in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. The methodologic quality and risk of bias of included studies were assessed. Study results were combined using a three-level hierarchical Bayesian NMA model to assess efficacy and safety outcomes at or over 24 and 52 weeks. Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were used to assess heterogeneity across studies. Nineteen studies (n = 37,741 patients) met the inclusion criteria of the review; 15 contributed to the base case network. LAMA/LABA dual combinations were combined as a single treatment group to create a connected network. Across all outcomes for exacerbations, lung function, symptoms, health-related quality of life, safety, and tolerability, the efficacy and safety of BUD/GLY/FOR were comparable to those of other triple ICS/LAMA/LABA fixed-dose (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol and beclomethasone dipropionate/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate) and open combinations at or over 24 and 52 weeks. Sensitivity analyses and meta-regression results for exacerbation outcomes were broadly in line with the base case NMA. In this NMA, BUD/GLY/FOR 320/18/9.6 μg showed comparable efficacy versus other ICS/LAMA/LABA fixed-dose or open combination therapies in terms of reducing exacerbation rates and improving lung function, symptoms and health-related quality of life in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD, in line with previously published meta-analysis results of triple combinations in COPD. The safety and tolerability profile of BUD/GLY/FOR was also found to be comparable to other triple combination therapies.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Bayes Theorem; Bronchodilator Agents; Budesonide; Drug Combinations; Formoterol Fumarate; Fumarates; Glycopyrrolate; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quality of Life
PubMed: 33929661
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-021-01703-z -
International Journal of Environmental... Dec 2022Nightmares are highly prevalent and distressing for the sufferer, which underlines the need for well-documented treatments. A comprehensive literature review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Nightmares are highly prevalent and distressing for the sufferer, which underlines the need for well-documented treatments. A comprehensive literature review and meta-analysis of the effects of different pharmacological placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials, covering the period up to 1 December 2022, was performed. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsychInfo, Cinahl, and Google Scholar, resulting in the identification of 1762 articles, of which 14 met the inclusion criteria: pharmacological intervention of nightmares, based on a placebo-controlled randomized trial published in a European language, reporting outcomes either/or in terms of nightmare frequency, nightmare distress, or nightmare intensity, and reporting sufficient information enabling calculation of effect sizes. Most studies involved the effect of the α-adrenergic antagonist prazosin in samples of veterans or soldiers suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder. Other medications used were hydroxyzine, clonazepam, cyproheptadine, nabilone, and doxazosin. The vast majority of studies were conducted in the USA. The studies comprised a total of 830 participants. The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale was the most frequently used outcome measure. The results showed an overall effect size of Hedges' = 0.50 (0.42 after adjustment for publication bias). The synthetic cannabinoid nabilone (one study) showed the highest effect size ( = 1.86), followed by the histamine H-antagonist hydroxyzine (one study), and prazosin (10 studies), with effect sizes of = 1.17 and = 0.54, respectively. Findings and limitations are discussed, and recommendations for future studies are provided.
Topics: Humans; Dreams; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Prazosin; Adrenergic alpha-1 Receptor Antagonists; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic; Hydroxyzine
PubMed: 36613097
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20010777 -
Advances in Therapy Nov 2022Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual maintenance therapies for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual maintenance therapies for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus other dual and mono-bronchodilator therapies in symptomatic patients with COPD.
METHODS
A systematic literature review (October 2015-November 2020) was performed to identify RCTs ≥ 8 weeks long in adult patients with COPD that compared LAMA/LABA combinations against any long-acting bronchodilator-containing dual therapy or monotherapy. Data extracted on changes from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score, rescue medication use and moderate/severe exacerbation rate were analysed using an NMA in a frequentist framework. The primary comparison was at 24 weeks. Fixed effects model results are presented.
RESULTS
The NMA included 69 full-length publications (including 10 GSK clinical study reports) reporting 49 studies. At 24 weeks, UMEC/VI provided statistically significant greater improvements in FEV versus all dual therapy and monotherapy comparators. UMEC/VI provided similar improvements in SGRQ total score compared with all other LAMA/LABAs, and significantly greater improvements versus UMEC 125 μg, glycopyrronium 50 μg, glycopyrronium 18 μg, tiotropium 18 μg and salmeterol 50 μg. UMEC/VI also provided significantly better outcomes versus some comparators for TDI focal score, rescue medication use, annualised moderate/severe exacerbation rate, and time to first moderate/severe exacerbation.
CONCLUSION
UMEC/VI provided generally better outcomes compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapies, and consistent improvements in lung function (measured by change from baseline in trough FEV at 24 weeks) versus dual therapies. Treatment with UMEC/VI may improve outcomes for symptomatic patients with COPD compared with alternative maintenance treatments.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Adult; Benzyl Alcohols; Bronchodilator Agents; Chlorobenzenes; Drug Combinations; Dyspnea; Forced Expiratory Volume; Glycopyrrolate; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quinuclidines; Salmeterol Xinafoate; Tiotropium Bromide; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35857184
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-022-02234-x -
JACC. Heart Failure Aug 2015This study sought to evaluate the effects of beta-blocker withdrawal in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
This study sought to evaluate the effects of beta-blocker withdrawal in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF).
BACKGROUND
Published reports showed trends for either no harm or increased risk of in-hospital mortality, short-term mortality, and rehospitalization rates in patients admitted for ADHF that discontinued beta-blockers; however, a comprehensive analysis has not been conducted.
METHODS
Relevant studies from January 2000 through January 2015 were identified in the PubMed, EMBASE, and COCHRANE electronic databases. Where appropriate data were available, weighted relative risks were estimated using random-effects meta-analysis techniques.
RESULTS
Five observational studies and 1 randomized clinical trial (n = 2,704 patients who continued beta-blocker therapy and n = 439 patients who discontinued beta-blocker therapy) that reported the short-term effects of beta-blocker withdrawal in ADHF were included in the analyses. In 2 studies, beta-blocker withdrawal significantly increased risk of in-hospital mortality (risk ratio: 3.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.51 to 9.14). Short-term mortality (relative risk: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.04 to 2.49; 4 studies) and combined short-term rehospitalization or death (relative risk: 1.59; 95% CI: 1.03 to 2.45; 4 studies) were also significantly increased.
CONCLUSIONS
Discontinuation of beta-blockers in patients admitted with ADHF was associated with significantly increased in-hospital mortality, short-term mortality, and the combined endpoint of short-term rehospitalization or mortality. These data suggest beta-blockers should be continued in ADHF patients if their clinical picture allows.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Heart Failure; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Survival Rate
PubMed: 26251094
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchf.2015.03.008 -
JAMA Network Open Feb 2021Combining 2 first-line treatments for erectile dysfunction (ED) or initiating other modalities in addition to a first-line therapy may produce beneficial outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Combining 2 first-line treatments for erectile dysfunction (ED) or initiating other modalities in addition to a first-line therapy may produce beneficial outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
To assess whether different ED combination therapies were associated with improved outcomes compared with first-line ED monotherapy in various subgroups of patients with ED.
DATA SOURCES
Studies were identified through a systematic search in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus from inception of these databases to October 10, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials or prospective interventional studies of the outcomes of combination therapy vs recommended monotherapy in men with ED were identified. Only comparative human studies, which evaluated the change from baseline of self-reported erectile function using validated questionnaires, that were published in any language were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data extraction and synthesis were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
A meta-analysis was conducted that included randomized clinical trials that compared outcomes of combination therapy with phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors plus another agent vs PDE5 inhibitor monotherapy. Separate analyses were performed for the mean International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) score change from baseline and the number of adverse events (AEs) by different treatment modalities and subgroups of patients.
RESULTS
A total of 44 studies included 3853 men with a mean (SD) age of 55.8 (11.9) years. Combination therapy compared with monotherapy was associated with a mean IIEF score improvement of 1.76 points (95% CI, 1.27-2.24; I2 = 77%; 95% PI, -0.56 to 4.08). Adding daily tadalafil, low-intensity shockwave therapy, vacuum erectile device, folic acid, metformin hydrochloride, or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors was associated with a significant IIEF score improvement, but each measure was based on only 1 study. Specifically, the weighted mean difference (WMD) in IIEF score was 1.70 (95% CI, 0.79-2.61) for the addition of daily tadalafil, 3.50 (95% CI, 0.22-6.78) for the addition of low-intensity shockwave therapy, 8.40 (95% CI, 4.90-11.90) for the addition of a vacuum erectile device, 3.46 (95% CI, 2.16-4.76) for the addition of folic acid, 4.90 (95% CI, 2.82-6.98) for the addition of metformin hydrochloride and 2.07 (95% CI, 1.37-2.77) for the addition of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. The addition of α-blockers to PDE5 inhibitors was not associated with improvement in IIEF score (WMD, 0.80; 95% CI, -0.06 to 1.65; I2 = 72%). Compared with monotherapy, combination therapy was associated with improved IIEF score in patients with hypogonadism (WMD, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.99-2.23; I2 = 0%), monotherapy-resistant ED (WMD, 4.38; 95% CI, 2.37-6.40; I2 = 52%), or prostatectomy-induced ED (WMD, 5.47; 95% CI, 3.11-7.83; I2 = 53%). The treatment-related AEs did not differ between combination therapy and monotherapy (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.66-1.85; I2 = 78%). Despite multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses, the levels of heterogeneity remained high.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This study found that combination therapy of PDE5 inhibitors and antioxidants was associated with improved ED without increasing the AEs. Treatment with PDE5 inhibitors and daily tadalafil, shockwaves, or a vacuum device was associated with additional improvement, but this result was based on limited data. These findings suggest that combination therapy is safe, associated with improved outcomes, and should be considered as a first-line therapy for refractory, complex, or difficult-to-treat cases of ED.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antioxidants; Combined Modality Therapy; Drug Therapy, Combination; Equipment and Supplies; Erectile Dysfunction; Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy; Folic Acid; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Male; Metformin; Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors; Sildenafil Citrate; Tadalafil; Treatment Outcome; Vitamin B Complex
PubMed: 33599772
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.36337 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2018Non-selective beta-blockers are recommended for the prevention of bleeding in people with cirrhosis, portal hypertension and gastroesophageal varices. Carvedilol is a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Non-selective beta-blockers are recommended for the prevention of bleeding in people with cirrhosis, portal hypertension and gastroesophageal varices. Carvedilol is a non-selective beta-blocker with additional intrinsic alpha-blocking effects, which may be superior to traditional, non-selective beta-blockers in reducing portal pressure and, therefore, in reducing the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of carvedilol compared with traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices.
SEARCH METHODS
We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 08 May 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised clinical trials comparing carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, irrespective of publication status, blinding, or language. We included trials evaluating both primary and secondary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and verified gastroesophageal varices.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors (AZ, RJ and LH), independently extracted data. The primary outcome measures were mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains and the quality of the evidence with GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
Eleven trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One trial did not report clinical outcomes. We included the remaining 10 randomised clinical trials, involving 810 participants with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices, in our analyses. The intervention comparisons were carvedilol versus propranolol (nine trials), or nadolol (one trial). Six trials were of short duration (mean 6 (range 1 to 12) weeks), while four were of longer duration (13.5 (6 to 30) months). Three trials evaluated primary prevention; three evaluated secondary prevention; while four evaluated both primary and secondary prevention. We classified all trials as at 'high risk of bias'. We gathered mortality data from seven trials involving 507 participants; no events occurred in four of these. Sixteen of 254 participants receiving carvedilol and 19 of 253 participants receiving propranolol or nadolol died (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53; I = 0%, low-quality evidence). There appeared to be no differences between carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers and the risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.37; 810 participants; 10 trials; I = 45%, very low-quality evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42; 810 participants; 10 trials; I = 14%, low-quality evidence). Significantly more deaths, episodes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events occurred in the long-term trials but there was not enough information to determine whether there were differences between carvedilol and traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, by trial duration. There was also insufficient information to detect differences in the effects of these interventions in trials evaluating primary or secondary prevention. There appeared to be no differences in the risk of non-serious adverse events between carvedilol versus its comparators (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.29; 596 participants; 6 trials; I = 88%; very low-quality evidence). Use of carvedilol was associated with a greater reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient than traditional, non-selective beta-blockers both in absolute (MD -1.75 mmHg, 95% CI -2.60 to -0.89; 368 participants; 6 trials; I = 0%; low-quality evidence) and percentage terms (MD -8.02%, 95% CI -11.49% to -4.55%; 368 participants; 6 trials; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). However, we did not observe a concomitant reduction in the number of participants who failed to achieve a sufficient haemodynamic response (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; 368 participants; 6 trials; I = 42%; very low-quality evidence) or in clinical outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no clear beneficial or harmful effects of carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers on mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, serious or non-serious adverse events despite the fact that carvedilol was more effective at reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient. However, the evidence was of low or very low quality, and hence the findings are uncertain. Additional evidence is required from adequately powered, long-term, double-blind, randomised clinical trials, which evaluate both clinical and haemodynamic outcomes.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Adult; Carvedilol; Esophageal and Gastric Varices; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Liver Cirrhosis; Nadolol; Primary Prevention; Propranolol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 30372514
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011510.pub2 -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... Feb 2023The objective was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and nonpharmacological management options for atrial fibrillation/atrial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The objective was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and nonpharmacological management options for atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter with rapid ventricular response (AFRVR) in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) in the acute care setting.
METHODS
This study was a systematic review of observational studies or randomized clinical trials (RCT) of adult patients with AFRVR and concomitant ADHF in the emergency department (ED), intensive care unit, or step-down unit. The primary effectiveness outcome was successful rate or rhythm control. Safety outcomes were adverse events, such as symptomatic hypotension and venous thromboembolism.
RESULTS
A total of 6577 unique articles were identified. Five studies met inclusion criteria: one RCT in the inpatient setting and four retrospective studies, two in the ED and the other three in the inpatient setting. In the RCT of diltiazem versus placebo, 22 patients (100%) in the treatment group had a therapeutic response compared to 0/15 (0%) in the placebo group, with no significant safety differences between the two groups. For three of the observational studies, data were limited. One observation study showed no difference between metoprolol and diltiazem for successful rate control, but worsening heart failure symptoms occurred more frequently in those receiving diltiazem compared to metoprolol (19 patients [33%] vs. 10 patients [15%], p = 0.019). A single study included electrical cardioversion (one patient exposed with failure to convert to sinus rhythm) as nonpharmacological management. The overall risk of bias for included studies ranged from serious to critical. Missing data and heterogeneity of definitions for effectiveness and safety outcomes precluded the combination of results for quantitative meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
High-level evidence to inform clinical decision making regarding effective and safe management of AFRVR in patients with ADHF in the acute care setting is lacking.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Atrial Fibrillation; Atrial Flutter; Diltiazem; Metoprolol; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Heart Failure; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36326565
DOI: 10.1111/acem.14618 -
Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) Mar 2022We aimed to address which antihypertensives are superior to placebo/no therapy or another antihypertensive for controlling nonsevere pregnancy hypertension and provide... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
We aimed to address which antihypertensives are superior to placebo/no therapy or another antihypertensive for controlling nonsevere pregnancy hypertension and provide future sample size estimates for definitive evidence.
METHODS
Randomized trials of antihypertensives for nonsevere pregnancy hypertension were identified from online electronic databases, to February 28, 2021 (registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; unique identifier: CRD42020188725). Our outcomes were severe hypertension, proteinuria/preeclampsia, fetal/newborn death, small-for-gestational age infants, preterm birth, and admission to neonatal care. A Bayesian random-effects model generated estimates of direct and indirect treatment comparisons. Trial sequential analysis informed future trials needed.
RESULTS
Of 1246 publications identified, 72 trials were included; 61 (6923 women) were informative. All commonly prescribed antihypertensives (labetalol, other β-blockers, methyldopa, calcium channel blockers, and mixed/multi-drug therapy) versus placebo/no therapy reduced the risk of severe hypertension by 30% to 70%. Labetalol decreased proteinuria/preeclampsia (odds ratio, 0.73 [95% credible interval, 0.54-0.99]) and fetal/newborn death (odds ratio, 0.54 [0.30-0.98]) compared with placebo/no therapy, and proteinuria/preeclampsia compared with methyldopa (odds ratio, 0.66 [0.44-0.99]) and calcium channel blockers (odds ratio, 0.63 [0.41-0.96]). No other differences were identified, but credible intervals were wide. Trial sequential analysis indicated that 2500 to 10 000 women/arm (severe hypertension or safety outcomes) to >15 000/arm (fetal/newborn death) would be required to provide definitive evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, all commonly prescribed antihypertensives in pregnancy reduce the risk of severe hypertension, but labetalol may also decrease proteinuria/preeclampsia and fetal/newborn death. Evidence is lacking for many other safety outcomes. Prohibitive sample sizes are required for definitive evidence. Real-world data are needed to individualize care.
Topics: Adult; Antihypertensive Agents; Female; Humans; Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced; Labetalol; Patient Acuity; Pregnancy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35138877
DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.121.18415 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2011Preterm birth occurs in about 5% to 10% of all births in resource-rich countries, but in recent years the incidence seems to have increased in some countries,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Preterm birth occurs in about 5% to 10% of all births in resource-rich countries, but in recent years the incidence seems to have increased in some countries, particularly in the USA. We found little reliable evidence for incidence in resource-poor countries. The rate in northwestern Ethiopia has been reported to vary from 11% to 22%, depending on the age group of mothers studied, and is highest in teenage mothers.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of preventive interventions in women at high risk of preterm delivery? What are the effects of interventions to improve neonatal outcome after preterm rupture of membranes? What are the effects of treatments to stop contractions in preterm labour? What are the effects of elective compared with selective caesarean delivery for women in preterm labour? What are the effects of interventions to improve neonatal outcome in preterm delivery? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 58 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: amnioinfusion for preterm rupture of membranes, antenatal corticosteroids, antibiotic treatment, bed rest, beta-mimetics, calcium channel blockers, elective caesarean, enhanced antenatal care programmes, magnesium sulphate, oxytocin receptor antagonists (atosiban), progesterone, prophylactic cervical cerclage, prostaglandin inhibitors (e.g., indometacin), selective caesarean, and thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH) (plus corticosteroids).
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenergic beta-Agonists; Cerclage, Cervical; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Obstetric Labor, Premature; Premature Birth; Progesterone; Thyrotropin-Releasing Hormone
PubMed: 21463540
DOI: No ID Found