-
Sports Medicine - Open Aug 2020Several studies have highlighted the substantial role of the athlete's redox and inflammation status during the training process. However, many factors such as... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Several studies have highlighted the substantial role of the athlete's redox and inflammation status during the training process. However, many factors such as differences in testing protocols, assays, sample sizes, and fitness levels of the population are affecting findings and the understanding regarding how exercise affects related biomarkers in adolescent athletes.
OBJECTIVES
To search redox homeostasis variables' and inflammatory mediators' responses in juvenile athletes following short- or long-term training periods and examine the effect size of those variations to training paradigms.
METHODS
A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. The entire content of PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and Science Direct were systematically searched until December 2019. Studies with outcomes including (1) a group of adolescent athletes from any individual or team sport, (2) the assessment of redox and/or inflammatory markers after a short- (training session or performance testing) or longer training period, and (3) variables measured in blood were retained. The literature search initially identified 346 potentially relevant records, of which 36 studies met the inclusion criteria for the qualitative synthesis. From those articles, 27 were included in the quantitative analysis (meta-analysis) as their results could be converted into common units.
RESULTS
Following a short training session or performance test, an extremely large increase in protein carbonyls (PC) (ES 4.164; 95% CI 1.716 to 6.613; Z = 3.333, p = 0.001), a large increase in thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) (ES 1.317; 95% CI 0.522 to 2.112; Z = 3.247, p = 0.001), a large decrease in glutathione (GSH) (ES - 1.701; 95% CI - 2.698 to - 0.705; Z = - 3.347, p = 0.001), and a moderate increase of total antioxidant capacity (TAC) level (ES 1.057; 95% CI - 0.044 to 2.158; Z = 1.882, p = 0.060) were observed. Following more extended training periods, GSH showed moderate increases (ES 1.131; 95% CI 0.350 to 1.913; Z = 2.839, p = 0.005) while TBARS displayed a small decrease (ES 0.568; 95% CI - 0.062 to 1.197; Z = 1.768, p = 0.077). Regarding cytokines, a very large and large increase were observed in IL-6 (ES 2.291; 95% CI 1.082 to 3.501; Z = 3.713, p = 0.000) and IL-1 receptor antagonist (ra) (ES 1.599; 95% CI 0.347 to 2.851; Z = 2.503, p = 0.012), respectively, following short-duration training modalities in juvenile athletes.
CONCLUSIONS
The results showed significant alterations in oxidative stress and cytokine levels after acute exercise, ranging from moderate to extremely large. In contrast, the variations after chronic exercise ranged from trivial to moderate. However, the observed publication bias and high heterogeneity in specific meta-analysis advocate the need for further exploration and consistency when we deal with the assessed variables to ascertain the implications of structured training regimes on measured variables in order to develop guidelines for training, nutritional advice, and wellbeing in young athletes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42020152105.
PubMed: 32748060
DOI: 10.1186/s40798-020-00262-x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020The prevalence of opiate use among pregnant women can range from 1% to 2% to as high as 21%. Just in the United States alone, among pregnant women with hospital... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The prevalence of opiate use among pregnant women can range from 1% to 2% to as high as 21%. Just in the United States alone, among pregnant women with hospital delivery, a fourfold increase in opioid use is reported from 1999 to 2014 (Haight 2018). Heroin crosses the placenta, and pregnant, opiate-dependent women experience a six-fold increase in maternal obstetric complications such as low birth weight, toxaemia, third trimester bleeding, malpresentation, puerperal morbidity, fetal distress and meconium aspiration. Neonatal complications include narcotic withdrawal, postnatal growth deficiency, microcephaly, neuro-behavioural problems, increased neonatal mortality and a 74-fold increase in sudden infant death syndrome. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review first published in 2008 and last updated in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of any maintenance treatment alone or in combination with a psychosocial intervention compared to no intervention, other pharmacological intervention or psychosocial interventions alone for child health status, neonatal mortality, retaining pregnant women in treatment, and reducing the use of substances.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to February 2020: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science. We also searched two trials registers and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials which assessed the efficacy of any pharmacological maintenance treatment for opiate-dependent pregnant women.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We found four trials with 271 pregnant women. Three compared methadone with buprenorphine and one methadone with oral slow-release morphine. Three out of four studies had adequate allocation concealment and were double-blind. The major flaw in the included studies was attrition bias: three out of four had a high dropout rate (30% to 40%), and this was unbalanced between groups. Methadone versus buprenorphine: There was probably no evidence of a difference in the dropout rate from treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 1.20, three studies, 223 participants, moderate-quality evidence). There may be no evidence of a difference in the use of primary substances between methadone and buprenorphine (RR 1.81, 95% CI 0.70 to 4.68, two studies, 151 participants, low-quality evidence). Birth weight may be higher in the buprenorphine group in the two trials that reported data MD;-530.00 g, 95%CI -662.78 to -397.22 (one study, 19 particpants) and MD: -215.00 g, 95%CI -238.93 to -191.07 (one study, 131 participants) although the results could not be pooled due to very high heterogeneity (very low-quality of evidence). The third study reported that there was no evidence of a difference. We found there may be no evidence of a difference in the APGAR score (MD: 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03, two studies,163 participants, low-quality evidence). Many measures were used in the studies to assess neonatal abstinence syndrome. The number of newborns treated for neonatal abstinence syndrome, which is the most critical outcome, may not differ between groups (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.87 to1.63, three studies, 166 participants, low-quality evidence). Only one study which compared methadone with buprenorphine reported side effects. We found there may be no evidence of a difference in the number of mothers with serious adverse events (AEs) (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.83, 175 participants, low-quality evidence) and we found there may be no difference in the numbers of newborns with serious AEs (RR 4.77, 95% CI 0.59, 38.49,131 participants, low-quality evidence). Methadone versus slow-release morphine: There were no dropouts in either treatment group. Oral slow-release morphine may be superior to methadone for abstinence from heroin use during pregnancy (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.77, one study, 48 participants, low-quality evidence). In the comparison between methadone and slow-release morphine, no side effects were reported for the mother. In contrast, one child in the methadone group had central apnoea, and one child in the morphine group had obstructive apnoea (low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Methadone and buprenorphine may be similar in efficacy and safety for the treatment of opioid-dependent pregnant women and their babies. There is not enough evidence to make conclusions for the comparison between methadone and slow-release morphine. Overall, the body of evidence is too small to make firm conclusions about the equivalence of the treatments compared. There is still a need for randomised controlled trials of adequate sample size comparing different maintenance treatments.
Topics: Birth Weight; Buprenorphine; Delayed-Action Preparations; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Methadone; Morphine; Narcotics; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Opioid-Related Disorders; Patient Dropouts; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33165953
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006318.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2017Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is an iatrogenic and potentially life threatening condition resulting from excessive ovarian stimulation. Reported incidence of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is an iatrogenic and potentially life threatening condition resulting from excessive ovarian stimulation. Reported incidence of moderate to severe OHSS ranges from 0.6% to 5% of in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. The factors contributing to OHSS have not been completely explained. The release of vasoactive substances secreted by the ovaries under human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) stimulation may play a key role in triggering this syndrome. This condition is characterised by a massive shift of fluid from the intravascular compartment to the third space, resulting in profound intravascular depletion and haemoconcentration.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of withholding gonadotrophins (coasting) on the prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in assisted reproduction cycles.
SEARCH METHODS
For the update of this review, we searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), CINHAL, PsycINFO, Embase, Google, and clinicaltrials.gov to 6 July 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which coasting was used to prevent OHSS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials and extracted data. They resolved disagreements by discussion. They contacted study authors to request additional information or missing data. The intervention comparisons were coasting versus no coasting, coasting versus early unilateral follicular aspiration (EUFA), coasting versus gonadotrophin releasing hormone antagonist (antagonist), coasting versus follicle stimulating hormone administration at the time of hCG trigger (FSH co-trigger), and coasting versus cabergoline. We performed statistical analysis in accordance with Cochrane guidelines. Our primary outcomes were moderate or severe OHSS and live birth.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs (702 women at high risk of developing OHSS). The quality of evidence was low or very low. The main limitations were failure to report live birth, risk of bias due to lack of information about study methods, and imprecision due to low event rates and lack of data. Four of the studies were published only as abstracts, and provided limited data. Coasting versus no coastingRates of OHSS were lower in the coasting group (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.24; I² = 0%, two RCTs; 207 women; low-quality evidence), suggesting that if 45% of women developed moderate or severe OHSS without coasting, between 4% and 17% of women would develop it with coasting. There were too few data to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in rates of live birth (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.62; one RCT; 68 women; very low-quality evidence), clinical pregnancy (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.44; I² = 0%; two RCTs; 207 women; low-quality evidence), multiple pregnancy (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.81; one RCT; 139 women; low-quality evidence), or miscarriage (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.86; I² = 0%; two RCTs; 207 women; very low-quality evidence). Coasting versus EUFAThere were too few data to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in rates of OHSS (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.85; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs; 83 women; very low-quality evidence), or clinical pregnancy (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.79; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs; 83 women; very low-quality evidence); no studies reported live birth, multiple pregnancy, or miscarriage. Coasting versus antagonistOne RCT (190 women) reported this comparison, and no events of OHSS occurred in either arm. There were too few data to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.31; one RCT; 190 women; low-quality evidence), or multiple pregnancy rates (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.32; one RCT; 98 women; very low-quality evidence); the study did not report live birth or miscarriage. Coasting versus FSH co-triggerRates of OHSS were higher in the coasting group (OR 43.74, 95% CI 2.54 to 754.58; one RCT; 102 women; very low-quality evidence), with 15 events in the coasting arm and none in the FSH co-trigger arm. There were too few data to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.10; one RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence). This study did not report data suitable for analysis on live birth, multiple pregnancy, or miscarriage, but stated that there was no significant difference between the groups. Coasting versus cabergolineThere were too few data to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in rates of OHSS (OR 1.98, 95% CI 0.09 to 5.68; P = 0.20; I² = 72%; two RCTs; 120 women; very low-quality evidence), with 11 events in the coasting arm and six in the cabergoline arm. The evidence suggested that coasting was associated with lower rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.88; P = 0.02; I² =0%; two RCTs; 120 women; very low-quality evidence), but there were only 33 events altogether. These studies did not report data suitable for analysis on live birth, multiple pregnancy, or miscarriage.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was low-quality evidence to suggest that coasting reduced rates of moderate or severe OHSS more than no coasting. There was no evidence to suggest that coasting was more beneficial than other interventions, except that there was very low-quality evidence from a single small study to suggest that using FSH co-trigger at the time of HCG administration may be better at reducing the risk of OHSS than coasting. There were too few data to determine clearly whether there was a difference between the groups for any other outcomes.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Cabergoline; Chorionic Gonadotropin; Ergolines; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Follicle Stimulating Hormone; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Live Birth; Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Pregnancy, Multiple; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 28535578
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002811.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2019Parents and carers have a major influence on children's learning and development from birth, through the school years, and into adulthood. Parental contributions to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Parents and carers have a major influence on children's learning and development from birth, through the school years, and into adulthood. Parental contributions to education include providing a secure environment in which to learn, providing intellectual stimulation, transmitting social norms and values, shaping the child's resilience through fostering literacy and problem-solving, and encouraging personal and social aspiration. Increasingly, providers of formalised education are recognising the primary role of parents, carers, and the wider family, as well as peers and the environment, in shaping children's education, health, and life experiences.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of the Families and Schools Together (FAST) programme in improving outcomes among children and their families.
SEARCH METHODS
Between October 2018 and December 2018, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 11 additional databases, and three trial registers. We handsearched the reference lists of included studies and relevant reports and reviews, contacted the programme developer and independent researchers, and searched relevant websites to identify other eligible studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs examining the effects of FAST, relative to waiting list, usual or alternative services, or no intervention, on outcomes for children (aged from birth to completion of compulsory education) and their families.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently evaluated the records retrieved from the search for relevance. One review author (JV) extracted data from eligible studies with a second independent review author (AF, DK, or SL). Review authors consulted with one another to resolve disagreements. We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis. We presented results as standardised mean differences (SMDs) because all outcomes were continuously scaled, and we accompanied these with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 10 completed RCTs, most of which were relatively recent (2007 or later) and were conducted with at least some involvement from the intervention developer or the FAST organisation. Nine of the 10 trials were from the USA; the other was from the UK. Children were young (five to nine years old; mean age approximately six years), and therefore, whilst not so named in the reports, evaluations consisted of what is sometimes referred to as 'Kids FAST' and sometimes 'Elementary Level FAST'). Among the USA-based studies, at least 62% of participants were members of a racial/ethnic minority group (most commonly, African American or Latino). FAST was usually delivered in schools after the school day. Trials lasted about eight weeks and usually examined the effects of FAST relative to no additional intervention. Most studies were funded by agencies in the US federal government. We judged the certainty of evidence in the included studies to be moderate or low for the main review outcomes. Failure to include all families in outcome analyses (attrition) and possible bias in recruitment of families into the trials were the main limitations in the evidence.We included over 9000 children and their families in at least one meta-analysis. The follow results relate to meta-analyses of data at long-term follow-up.Primary outcomesFour studies (approximately 6276 children) assessed child school performance at long-term follow-up. The effect size was very small, and the CI did not include effects that, if real, suggest possibly important positive or negative effects if viewed from an individual perspective (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.08). We assessed the certainty of evidence for this outcome as moderate. No studies assessed child adverse events, parental substance use, or parental stress.Secondary outcomesParent reports of child internalising behaviour (SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.17; 4 RCTs, approximately 908 children; low-certainty evidence) and family relationships (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.19; 4 RCTs, approximately 2569 children; moderate-certainty evidence) also yielded CIs that did not include effects that, if real, suggest possibly important positive or negative effects.The CI for parent reports of child externalising behaviour, however, did include effects that, if real, were possibly large enough to be important (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.05; 4 RCTs, approximately 754 children; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Given these results, it is hard to support the assertion that assignment to FAST is associated with important positive outcomes for children and their parents.
PubMed: 31425610
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012760.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Impaction of a soft food bolus in the oesophagus causes dysphagia and regurgitation. If the bolus does not pass spontaneously, then the patient is at risk of aspiration,...
BACKGROUND
Impaction of a soft food bolus in the oesophagus causes dysphagia and regurgitation. If the bolus does not pass spontaneously, then the patient is at risk of aspiration, dehydration, perforation, and death. Definitive management is with endoscopic intervention, recommended within 24 hours. Prior to endoscopy, many patients undergo a period of observation, awaiting spontaneous disimpaction, or may undergo enteral or parenteral treatments to attempt to dislodge the bolus. There is little consensus as to which of these conservative strategies is safe and effective to be used in this initial period, before resorting to definitive endoscopic management for persistent impaction.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of non-endoscopic conservative treatments in the management of soft food boluses impacted within the oesophagus.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases, using relevant search terms: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL. The date of the search was 18 August 2019. We screened the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews on the topic to identify any additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of the management of acute oesophageal soft food bolus impaction, in adults and children, reporting the incidence of disimpaction (confirmed radiologically or clinically by return to oral diet) without the need for endoscopic intervention. We did not include studies focusing on sharp or solid object impaction.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 890 unique records through the electronic searches. We excluded 809 clearly irrelevant records and retrieved 81 records for further assessment. We subsequently included one randomised controlled trial that met the eligibility criteria, which was conducted in four Swedish centres and randomised 43 participants to receive either intravenous diazepam followed by glucagon, or intravenous placebos. The effect of the active substances compared with placebo on rates of disimpaction without intervention is uncertain, as the numbers from this single study were small, and the rates were similar (38% versus 32%; risk ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 2.75, P = 0.69). The certainty of the evidence using GRADE for this outcome is low. Data on adverse events were lacking.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently inadequate data to recommend the use of any enteral or parenteral treatments in the management of acute oesophageal soft food bolus impaction. There is also inadequate data regarding potential adverse events from the use of these treatments, or from potential delays in definitive endoscopic management. Caution should be exercised when using any conservative management strategies in these patients.
Topics: Conservative Treatment; Deglutition Disorders; Diazepam; Food; Gastrointestinal Agents; Glucagon; Humans; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Muscle Relaxants, Central; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32391954
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007352.pub3 -
Frontiers in Physiology 2019Despite great advances in mechanical ventilation and surfactant administration for the newborn infant with life-threatening respiratory failure no specific therapies are...
Despite great advances in mechanical ventilation and surfactant administration for the newborn infant with life-threatening respiratory failure no specific therapies are currently established to tackle major pro-inflammatory pathways. The susceptibility of the newborn infant with neonatal acute respiratory distress syndrome (NARDS) to exogenous surfactant is linked with a suppression of most of the immunologic responses by the innate immune system, however, additional corticosteroids applied in any severe pediatric lung disease with inflammatory background do not reduce morbidity or mortality and may even cause harm. Thus, the neonatal piglet model of acute lung injury serves as an excellent model to study respiratory failure and is the preferred animal model for reasons of availability, body size, similarities of porcine and human lung, robustness, and costs. In addition, similarities to the human toll-like receptor 4, the existence of intraalveolar macrophages, the sensitivity to lipopolysaccharide, and the production of nitric oxide make the piglet indispensable in anti-inflammatory research. Here we present the physiologic and immunologic data of newborn piglets from three trials involving acute lung injury secondary to repeated airway lavage (and others), mechanical ventilation, and a specific anti-inflammatory intervention via the intratracheal route using surfactant as a carrier substance. The physiologic data from many organ systems of the newborn piglet-but with preference on the lung-are presented here differentiating between baseline data from the uninjured piglet, the impact of acute lung injury on various parameters (24 h), and the follow up data after 72 h of mechanical ventilation. Data from the control group and the intervention groups are listed separately or combined. A systematic review of the newborn piglet meconium aspiration model and the repeated airway lavage model is finally presented. While many studies assessed lung injury scores, leukocyte infiltration, and protein/cytokine concentrations in bronchoalveolar fluid, a systematic approach to tackle major upstream pro-inflammatory pathways of the innate immune system is still in the fledgling stages. For the sake of newborn infants with life-threatening NARDS the newborn piglet model still is an unsettled promise offering many options to conquer neonatal physiology/immunology and to establish potent treatment modalities.
PubMed: 31736777
DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2019.01345 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2019Routine monitoring of gastric residuals in preterm infants on gavage feeds is a common practice in many neonatal intensive care units and is used to guide the initiation...
BACKGROUND
Routine monitoring of gastric residuals in preterm infants on gavage feeds is a common practice in many neonatal intensive care units and is used to guide the initiation and advancement of feeds. No guidelines or consensus is available on whether to re-feed or discard the aspirated gastric residuals. Although re-feeding gastric residuals may replace partially digested milk, gastrointestinal enzymes, hormones, and trophic substances that aid in digestion and promote gastrointestinal motility and maturation, re-feeding abnormal residuals may result in emesis, necrotising enterocolitis, or sepsis.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of re-feeding compared to discarding gastric residuals in preterm infants. The allocation should have been started in the first week of life and should have been continued at least until the baby reached full enteral feeds. The investigator could have chosen to discard the gastric residual in the re-feeding group, if the gastric residual quality was not satisfactory. However, the criteria for discarding gastric residual should have been predefined.To conduct subgroup analysis based on gestational age (≤ 27 weeks, 28 weeks to 31 weeks, ≥ 32 weeks), birth weight (< 1000 g, 1000 g to 1499 g, ≥ 1500 g), type of milk (human milk or formula milk), quality of the gastric residual (fresh milk, curded milk, or bile-stained gastric residual), volume of gastric residual replaced (total volume, 50% of the volume, volume of the next feed, or prespecified volume, irrespective of the volume of the aspirate, e.g. 2 mL, 3 mL), and whether the volume of gastric residual that is re-fed is included in or excluded from the volume of the next feed (see "Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity").
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 19 February 2018), Embase (1980 to 19 February 2018), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 19 February 2018). We also searched clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared re-feeding versus discarding gastric residuals in preterm infants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and independently extracted data. We analysed treatment effects in individual trials and reported the risk ratio and risk difference for dichotomous data, and the mean difference for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We found one eligible trial that included 72 preterm infants. This trial was not blinded.We are uncertain as to the effect of re-feeding gastric residual on efficacy outcomes such as time to regain birth weight (mean difference (MD) 0.40 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.89 to 3.69 days; very low quality evidence), time to reach enteral feeds ≥ 120 mL/kg/d (MD -1.30 days, 95% CI -2.93 to 0.33 days; very low quality evidence), number of infants with extrauterine growth restriction at discharge (risk ratio (RR) 1.29, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.34; very low quality evidence), duration of total parenteral nutrition (MD -0.30 days, 95% CI -2.07 to 1.47 days; very low quality evidence), and length of hospital stay (MD -1.90 days, 95% CI -25.27 to 21.47 days; very low quality evidence).Similarly, we are uncertain as to the effect of re-feeding gastric residual on safety outcomes such as incidence of stage 2 or 3 necrotising enterocolitis and/or spontaneous intestinal perforation (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.04; very low quality evidence), number of episodes of feed interruption lasting ≥ 12 hours (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.52; very low quality evidence), or mortality before discharge (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.85; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain as to the effect of re-feeding gastric residual in the subgroups of human milk-fed and formula-fed infants. We found no data on other outcomes such as linear and head growth during hospital stay, postdischarge growth, number of infants with parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease, and neurodevelopmental outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found only limited data from one small unblinded trial on the efficacy and safety of re-feeding gastric residuals in preterm infants. The quality of evidence was low to very low. Hence, available evidence is insufficient to support or refute re-feeding of gastric residuals in preterm infants. A large, randomised controlled trial is needed to provide data of sufficient quality and precision to inform policy and practice.
Topics: Digestion; Gastrointestinal Contents; Humans; Infant Nutritional Physiological Phenomena; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31283000
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012940.pub2 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Polypharmacy is common in patients with dysphagia. Routinely used drugs may influence swallowing function either improving or worsening it. We aimed to explore the...
Polypharmacy is common in patients with dysphagia. Routinely used drugs may influence swallowing function either improving or worsening it. We aimed to explore the potential effects of three commonly used drug classes on dysphagia and aspiration pneumonia through a systematic review and a real-world data analysis to probe the possibility of drug repurposing for dysphagia treatment. Five electronic databases were searched. Studies on adults at risk for dysphagia, treated with Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors (DPP-4i), Adrenergic Beta-Antagonists (beta-blockers), or Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors (ACEi), and reporting outcomes on dysphagia or aspiration pneumonia were included. A nested case/non-case study was performed on adverse events recorded in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) on patients >64 years. Cases (dysphagia or aspiration pneumonia) were compared between patients only treated with Levodopa and patients who were concomitantly treated with the drugs of interest. Twenty studies were included in the review (17 on ACEi, 2 on beta-blockers, and 1 on DPP-4i). Contrasting findings on the effects of ACEi were found, with a protective effect mainly reported in Asian studies on neurological patients. Beta-blockers were associated with a reduced dysphagia rate. The study on DPP-4i suggested no effect on dysphagia and an increased risk of aspiration pneumonia. The FAERS analysis showed a reduction of the risk for dysphagia/aspiration pneumonia with ACEi, beta-blockers, and DPP-4i. Our study explores the potential drug repurposing of ACEi, beta-blockers and DPP-4i in neurological patients with dysphagia to improve swallowing function and reduce aspiration pneumonia risk. Future randomized controlled studies should confirm these results and clarify the underlying mechanisms of action.
PubMed: 36937893
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1057301