The effectiveness of interventions to treat severe acute malnutrition in young children: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute malnutrition (SAM) arises as a consequence of a sudden period of food shortage and is associated with loss of a person's body fat and wasting of their skeletal muscle. Many of those affected are already undernourished and are often susceptible to disease. Infants and young children are the most vulnerable as they require extra nutrition for growth and development, have comparatively limited energy reserves and depend on others. Undernutrition can have drastic and wide-ranging consequences for the child's development and survival in the short and long term. Despite efforts made to treat SAM through different interventions and programmes, it continues to cause unacceptably high levels of mortality and morbidity. Uncertainty remains as to the most effective methods to treat severe acute malnutrition in young children. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to treat infants and children aged < 5 years who have SAM. DATA SOURCES: Eight databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, CAB Abstracts Ovid, Bioline, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, EconLit EBSCO and The Cochrane Library) were searched to 2010. Bibliographies of included articles and grey literature sources were also searched. The project expert advisory group was asked to identify additional published and unpublished references. REVIEW METHODS: Prior to the systematic review, a Delphi process involving international experts prioritised the research questions. Searches were conducted and two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were applied to the full texts of retrieved papers by one reviewer and checked independently by a second. Included studies were mapped to the research questions. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Differences in opinion were resolved through discussion at each stage. Studies were synthesised through a narrative review with tabulation of the results. RESULTS: A total of 8954 records were screened, 224 full-text articles were retrieved, and 74 articles (describing 68 studies) met the inclusion criteria and were mapped. No evidence focused on treatment of children with SAM who were human immunodeficiency virus sero-positive, and no good-quality or adequately reported studies assessed treatments for SAM among infants < 6 months old. One randomised controlled trial investigated fluid resuscitation solutions for shock, with none adequately treating shock. Children with acute diarrhoea benefited from the use of hypo-osmolar oral rehydration solution (H-ORS) compared with the standard World Health Organization-oral rehydration solution (WHO-ORS). WHO-ORS was not significantly different from rehydration solution for malnutrition (ReSoMal), but the safety of ReSoMal was uncertain. A rice-based ORS was more beneficial than glucose-based ORSs, and provision of zinc plus a WHO-ORS had a favourable impact on diarrhoea and need for ORS. Comparisons of different diets in children with persistent diarrhoea produced conflicting findings. For treating infection, comparison of amoxicillin with ceftriaxone during inpatient therapy, and routine provision of antibiotics for 7 days versus no antibiotics during outpatient therapy of uncomplicated SAM, found that neither had a significant effect on recovery at the end of follow-up. No evidence mapped to the next three questions on factors that affect sustainability of programmes, long-term survival and readmission rates, the clinical effectiveness of management strategies for treating children with comorbidities such as tuberculosis and Helicobacter pylori infection and the factors that limit the full implementation of treatment programmes. Comparison of treatment for SAM in different settings showed that children receiving inpatient care appear to do as well as those in ambulatory or home settings on anthropometric measures and response time to treatment. Longer-term follow-up showed limited differences between the different settings. The majority of evidence on methods for correcting micronutrient deficiencies considered zinc supplements; however, trials were heterogeneous and a firm conclusion about zinc was not reached. There was limited evidence on either supplementary potassium or nicotinic acid (each produced some benefits), and nucleotides (not associated with benefits). Evidence was identified for four of the five remaining questions, but not assessed because of resource limitation. LIMITATIONS: The systematic review focused on key questions prioritised through a Delphi study and, as a consequence, did not encompass all elements in the management of SAM. In focusing on evidence from controlled studies with the most rigorous designs that were published in the English language, the systematic review may have excluded other forms of evidence. The systematic review identified several limitations in the evidence base for assessing the effectiveness of interventions for treating young children with severe acute malnutrition, including a lack of studies assessing the different interventions; limited details of study methods used; short follow-up post intervention or discharge; and heterogeneity in participants, interventions, settings, and outcome measures affecting generalisability. CONCLUSIONS: For many of the most highly ranked questions evidence was lacking or inconclusive. More research is needed on a range of topic areas concerning the treatment of infants and children with SAM. Further research is required on most aspects of the management of SAM in children < 5 years, including intravenous resuscitation regimens for shock, management of subgroups (e.g. infants < 6 months old, infants and children with SAM who are human immunodeficiency virus sero-positive) and on the use of antibiotics.

The safety and effectiveness of different methods of earwax removal: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Build-up of earwax is a common reason for attendance in primary care. Current practice for earwax removal generally involves the use of a softening agent, followed by irrigation of the ear if required. However, the safety and benefits of the different methods of removal are not known for certain. OBJECTIVES: To conduct evidence synthesis of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions currently available for softening and/or removing earwax and any adverse events (AEs) associated with the interventions. DATA SOURCES: Eleven electronic resources were searched from inception to November 2008, including: The Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (OVID), PREMEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (OVID), EMBASE (OVID); and CINAHL. METHODS: Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were applied to the full text or retrieved papers and data were extracted by two reviewers using data extraction forms developed a priori. Any differences were resolved by discussion or by a third reviewer. Study criteria included: interventions - all methods of earwax removal available and combinations of these methods; participants - adults/children presenting requiring earwax removal; outcomes - measures of hearing, adequacy of clearance of wax, quality of life, time to recurrence or further treatment, AEs and measures of cost-effectiveness; design - randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) for clinical effectiveness, cohort studies for AEs and cost-effectiveness, and costing studies for cost-effectiveness. For the economic evaluation, a deterministic decision tree model was developed to evaluate three options: (1) the use of softeners followed by irrigation in primary care; (2) softeners followed by self-irrigation; and (3) a 'no treatment' option. Outcomes were assessed in terms of benefits to patients and costs incurred, with costs presented by exploratory cost-utility analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-six clinical trials conducted in primary care (14 studies), secondary care (8 studies) or other care settings (4 studies), met the inclusion criteria for the review - 22 RCTs and 4 CCTs. The range of interventions included 16 different softeners, with or without irrigation, and in various different comparisons. Participants, outcomes, timing of intervention, follow-up and methodological quality varied between studies. On measures of wax clearance Cerumol, sodium bicarbonate, olive oil and water are all more effective than no treatment; triethanolamine polypeptide (TP) is better than olive oil; wet irrigation is better than dry irrigation; sodium bicarbonate drops followed by irrigation by nurse is more effective than sodium bicarbonate drops followed by self-irrigation; softening with TP and self-irrigation is more effective than self-irrigation only; and endoscopic de-waxing is better than microscopic de-waxing. AEs appeared to be minor and of limited extent. Resuts of the exploratory economic model found that softeners followed by self-irrigation were more likely to be cost-effective [24,433 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)] than softeners followed by irrigation at primary care (32,130 pounds per QALY) when compared with no treatment. Comparison of the two active treatments showed that the additional gain associated with softeners followed by irrigation at primary care over softeners followed by self-irrigation was at a cost of 340,000 pounds per QALY. When compared over a lifetime horizon to the 'no treatment' option, the ICERs for softeners followed by self-irrigation and of softeners followed by irrigation at primary care were 24,450 pounds per QALY and 32,136 pounds per QALY, respectively. LIMITATIONS: The systematic review found limited good-quality evidence of the safety, benefits and costs of the different strategies, making it difficult to differentiate between the various methods for removing earwax and rendering the economic evaluation as speculative. CONCLUSIONS: Although softeners are effective, which specific softeners are most effective remains uncertain. Evidence on the effectiveness of methods of irrigation or mechanical removal was equivocal. Further research is required to improve the evidence base, such as a RCT incorporating an economic evaluation to assess the different ways of providing the service, the effectiveness of the different methods of removal and the acceptability of the different approaches to patients and practitioners.