Patient Preferences for the Management of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Kidney Transplantation: a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Introduction: Gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms in kidney transplant are common and debilitating. We aimed to ascertain patients' preferences for GI symptom management options to help future interventions align with treatment priorities. Methods: A discrete choice experiment was conducted with kidney transplant recipients in 3 Australian nephrology units. A multinomial logit model was used to quantify the preferences and trade-offs between 5 characteristics: cost, formulation, symptom burden, dietary changes, and medication quantities. Results: Seventy patients participated (mean age ± SD: 47 ± 15 years, 56% female), 57% had GI symptoms. Patients preferred interventions that will achieve complete resolution of GI symptoms compared to no improvement (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 15.3 [1.80, 129.50]), were delivered as a tablet rather than a sachet (1.6 [1.27, 2.08]), retained their current diet compared to eliminating food groups (6.0 [2.19, 16.27]), reduced medication burden (1.4 [1.06, 1.79]), and had lower costs (0.98 [0.96, 1.00]). Participants would be willing to pay AUD$142.20 [$83.90, $200.40] monthly to achieve complete resolution of GI symptoms or AUD$100.90 [$9.60, $192.10] to have moderate improvement in symptoms. Conclusions: Interventions that are highly effective in relieving all GI symptoms without the need for substantive dietary changes, and in tablet form, are most preferred by kidney transplant recipients.

Synbiotics, prebiotics and probiotics for people with chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major public health problem affecting 13% of the global population. Prior research has indicated that CKD is associated with gut dysbiosis. Gut dysbiosis may lead to the development and/or progression of CKD, which in turn may in turn lead to gut dysbiosis as a result of uraemic toxins, intestinal wall oedema, metabolic acidosis, prolonged intestinal transit times, polypharmacy (frequent antibiotic exposures) and dietary restrictions used to treat CKD. Interventions such as synbiotics, prebiotics, and probiotics may improve the balance of the gut flora by altering intestinal pH, improving gut microbiota balance and enhancing gut barrier function (i.e. reducing gut permeability). OBJECTIVES: This review aimed to evaluate the benefits and harms of synbiotics, prebiotics, and probiotics for people with CKD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 9 October 2023 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) measuring and reporting the effects of synbiotics, prebiotics, or probiotics in any combination and any formulation given to people with CKD (CKD stages 1 to 5, including dialysis and kidney transplant). Two authors independently assessed the retrieved titles and abstracts and, where necessary, the full text to determine which satisfied the inclusion criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction was independently carried out by two authors using a standard data extraction form. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data entry was carried out by one author and cross-checked by another. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-five studies (2266 randomised participants) were included in this review. Study participants were adults (two studies in children) with CKD ranging from stages 1 to 5, with patients receiving and not receiving dialysis, of whom half also had diabetes and hypertension. No studies investigated the same synbiotic, prebiotic or probiotic of similar strains, doses, or frequencies. Most studies were judged to be low risk for selection bias, performance bias and reporting bias, unclear risk for detection bias and for control of confounding factors, and high risk for attrition and other biases. Compared to prebiotics, it is uncertain whether synbiotics improve estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at four weeks (1 study, 34 participants: MD -3.80 mL/min/1.73 m², 95% CI -17.98 to 10.38), indoxyl sulfate at four weeks (1 study, 42 participants: MD 128.30 ng/mL, 95% CI -242.77 to 499.37), change in gastrointestinal (GI) upset (borborymgi) at four weeks (1 study, 34 participants: RR 15.26, 95% CI 0.99 to 236.23), or change in GI upset (Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale) at 12 months (1 study, 56 participants: MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.27), because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Compared to certain strains of prebiotics, it is uncertain whether a different strain of prebiotics improves eGFR at 12 weeks (1 study, 50 participants: MD 0.00 mL/min, 95% CI -1.73 to 1.73), indoxyl sulfate at six weeks (2 studies, 64 participants: MD -0.20 µg/mL, 95% CI -1.01 to 0.61; I² = 0%) or change in any GI upset, intolerance or microbiota composition, because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Compared to certain strains of probiotics, it is uncertain whether a different strain of probiotic improves eGFR at eight weeks (1 study, 30 participants: MD -0.64 mL/min, 95% CI -9.51 to 8.23; very low certainty evidence). Compared to placebo or no treatment, it is uncertain whether synbiotics improve eGFR at six or 12 weeks (2 studies, 98 participants: MD 1.42 mL/min, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.2) or change in any GI upset or intolerance at 12 weeks because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Compared to placebo or no treatment, it is uncertain whether prebiotics improves indoxyl sulfate at eight weeks (2 studies, 75 participants: SMD -0.14 mg/L, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.31; very low certainty evidence) or microbiota composition because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Compared to placebo or no treatment, it is uncertain whether probiotics improve eGFR at eight, 12 or 15 weeks (3 studies, 128 participants: MD 2.73 mL/min, 95% CI -2.28 to 7.75; I² = 78%), proteinuria at 12 or 24 weeks (1 study, 60 participants: MD -15.60 mg/dL, 95% CI -34.30 to 3.10), indoxyl sulfate at 12 or 24 weeks (2 studies, 83 participants: MD -4.42 mg/dL, 95% CI -9.83 to 1.35; I² = 0%), or any change in GI upset or intolerance because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Probiotics may have little or no effect on albuminuria at 12 or 24 weeks compared to placebo or no treatment (4 studies, 193 participants: MD 0.02 g/dL, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.13; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). For all comparisons, adverse events were poorly reported and were minimal (flatulence, nausea, diarrhoea, abdominal pain) and non-serious, and withdrawals were not related to the study treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very few studies that adequately test biotic supplementation as alternative treatments for improving kidney function, GI symptoms, dialysis outcomes, allograft function, patient-reported outcomes, CVD, cancer, reducing uraemic toxins, and adverse effects. We are not certain whether synbiotics, prebiotics, or probiotics are more or less effective compared to one another, antibiotics, or standard care for improving patient outcomes in people with CKD. Adverse events were uncommon and mild.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers for adults with early (stage 1 to 3) non-diabetic chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a long-term condition that occurs as a result of damage to the kidneys. Early recognition of CKD is becoming increasingly common due to widespread laboratory estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) reporting, raised clinical awareness, and international adoption of the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) classifications. Early recognition and management of CKD affords the opportunity to prepare for progressive kidney impairment and impending kidney replacement therapy and for intervention to reduce the risk of progression and cardiovascular disease. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) are two classes of antihypertensive drugs that act on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Beneficial effects of ACEi and ARB on kidney outcomes and survival in people with a wide range of severity of kidney impairment have been reported; however, their effectiveness in the subgroup of people with early CKD (stage 1 to 3) is less certain. This is an update of a review that was last published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of ACEi and ARB or both in the management of people with early (stage 1 to 3) CKD who do not have diabetes mellitus (DM). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 6 July 2023 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the effect of ACEi or ARB in people with early (stage 1 to 3) CKD who did not have DM were selected for inclusion. Only studies of at least four weeks duration were selected. Authors independently assessed the retrieved titles and abstracts and, where necessary, the full text to determine which satisfied the inclusion criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction was carried out by two authors independently, using a standard data extraction form. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data entry was carried out by one author and cross-checked by another. When more than one study reported similar outcomes, data were pooled using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was analysed using a Chi² test and the I² test. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach MAIN RESULTS: Six studies randomising 9379 participants with CKD stages 1 to 3 (without DM) met our inclusion criteria. Participants were adults with hypertension; 79% were male from China, Europe, Japan, and the USA. Treatment periods ranged from 12 weeks to three years. Overall, studies were judged to be at unclear or high risk of bias across all domains, and the quality of the evidence was poor, with GRADE rated as low or very low certainty. In low certainty evidence, ACEi (benazepril 10 mg or trandolapril 2 mg) compared to placebo may make little or no difference to death (any cause) (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.26 to 15.37; I² = 76%), total cardiovascular events (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.05; I² = 0%), cardiovascular-related death (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 1.73, 95% CI 0.26 to 11.66; I² = 54%), stroke (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.03; I² = 0%), myocardial infarction (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.20; I² = 0%), and adverse events (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.41; I² = 0%). It is uncertain whether ACEi (benazepril 10 mg or trandolapril 2 mg) compared to placebo reduces congestive heart failure (1 study, 8290 participants): RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.95) or transient ischaemic attack (1 study, 583 participants): RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.01; I² = 0%) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. It is uncertain whether ARB (losartan 50 mg) compared to placebo (1 study, 226 participants) reduces: death (any-cause) (no events), adverse events (RR 19.34, 95% CI 1.14 to 328.30), eGFR rate of decline (MD 5.00 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI 3.03 to 6.97), presence of proteinuria (MD -0.65 g/24 hours, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.52), systolic blood pressure (MD -0.80 mm Hg, 95% CI -3.89 to 2.29), or diastolic blood pressure (MD -1.10 mm Hg, 95% CI -3.29 to 1.09) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. It is uncertain whether ACEi (enalapril 20 mg, perindopril 2 mg or trandolapril 1 mg) compared to ARB (olmesartan 20 mg, losartan 25 mg or candesartan 4 mg) (1 study, 26 participants) reduces: proteinuria (MD -0.40, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.20), systolic blood pressure (MD -3.00 mm Hg, 95% CI -6.08 to 0.08) or diastolic blood pressure (MD -1.00 mm Hg, 95% CI -3.31 to 1.31) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of ACEi or ARB in patients with stage 1 to 3 CKD who do not have DM. The available evidence is overall of very low certainty and high risk of bias. We have identified an area of large uncertainty for a group of patients who account for most of those diagnosed as having CKD.

Altered dietary salt intake for preventing diabetic kidney disease and its progression.

BACKGROUND: There is strong evidence that our current consumption of salt is a major factor in the development of increased blood pressure (BP) and that a reduction in our salt intake lowers BP, whether BP levels are normal or raised initially. Effective control of BP in people with diabetes lowers the risk of strokes, heart attacks and heart failure and slows the progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in people with diabetes. This is an update of a review first published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of altered salt intake on BP and markers of cardiovascular disease and of CKD in people with diabetes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 31 March 2022 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of altered salt intake in individuals with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Studies were included when there was a difference between low and high sodium intakes of at least 34 mmol/day. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed studies and resolved differences by discussion. We calculated mean effect sizes as mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the random-effects model. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs (313 participants), including 21 comparisons (studies), met our inclusion criteria. One RCT (two studies) was added to this review update. Participants included 99 individuals with type 1 diabetes and 214 individuals with type 2 diabetes. Two RCTs (four studies) included some participants with reduced overall kidney function. The remaining studies either reported that participants with reduced glomerular filtration rate (GFR) were excluded from the study or only included participants with microalbuminuria and normal GFR. Five studies used a parallel study design, and 16 used a cross-over design. Studies were at high risk of bias for most criteria. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were adequate in only three and two studies, respectively. One study was at low risk of bias for blinding of participants and outcome assessment, but no studies were at low risk for selective reporting. Twelve studies reported non-commercial funding sources, three reported conflicts of interest, and eight reported adequate washout between interventions in cross-over studies. The median net reduction in 24-hour urine sodium excretion (24-hour UNa) in seven long-term studies (treatment duration four to 12 weeks) was 76 mmol (range 51 to 124 mmol), and in 10 short-term studies (treatment duration five to seven days) was 187 mmol (range 86 to 337 mmol). Data were only available graphically in four studies. In long-term studies, reduced sodium intake may lower systolic BP (SBP) by 6.15 mm Hg (7 studies: 95% CI -9.27 to -3.03; I² = 12%), diastolic BP (DBP) by 3.41 mm Hg (7 studies: 95% CI -5.56 to -1.27; I² = 41%) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) by 4.60 mm Hg (4 studies: 95% CI -7.26 to -1.94; I² = 28%). In short-term studies, low sodium intake may reduce SBP by 8.43 mm Hg (5 studies: 95% CI -14.37 to -2.48; I² = 88%), DBP by 2.95 mm Hg (5 studies: 95% CI -4.96 to -0.94; I² = 70%) and MAP by 2.37 mm Hg (9 studies: 95% CI -4.75 to -0.01; I² = 65%). There was considerable heterogeneity in most analyses but particularly among short-term studies. All analyses were considered to be of low certainty evidence. SBP, DBP and MAP reductions may not differ between hypertensive and normotensive participants or between individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. In hypertensive participants, SBP, DBP and MAP may be reduced by 6.45, 3.15 and 4.88 mm Hg, respectively, while in normotensive participants, they may be reduced by 8.43, 2.95 and 2.15 mm Hg, respectively (all low certainty evidence). SBP, DBP and MAP may be reduced by 7.35, 3.04 and 4.30 mm Hg, respectively, in participants with type 2 diabetes and by 7.35, 3.20, and 0.08 mm Hg, respectively, in participants with type 1 diabetes (all low certainty evidence). Eight studies provided measures of urinary protein excretion before and after salt restriction; four reported a reduction in urinary albumin excretion with salt restriction. Pooled analyses showed no changes in GFR (12 studies: MD -1.87 mL/min/1.73 m², 95% CI -5.05 to 1.31; I² = 32%) or HbA1c (6 studies: MD -0.62, 95% CI -1.49 to 0.26; I² = 95%) with salt restriction (low certainty evidence). Body weight was reduced in studies lasting one to two weeks but not in studies lasting for longer periods (low certainty evidence). Adverse effects were reported in only one study; 11% and 21% developed postural hypotension on the low-salt diet and the low-salt diet combined with hydrochlorothiazide, respectively. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review shows an important reduction in SBP and DBP in people with diabetes with normal GFR during short periods of salt restriction, similar to that obtained with single drug therapy for hypertension. These data support the international recommendations that people with diabetes with or without hypertension or evidence of kidney disease should reduce salt intake to less than 5 g/day (2 g sodium).

Synbiotics, prebiotics and probiotics for solid organ transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Solid organ transplantation has seen improvements in both surgical techniques and immunosuppression, achieving prolonged survival. Essential to graft acceptance and post-transplant recovery, immunosuppressive medications are often accompanied by a high prevalence of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and side effects. Apart from GI side effects, long-term exposure to immunosuppressive medications has seen an increase in drug-related morbidities such as diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidaemia, hypertension, and malignancy. Non-adherence to immunosuppression can lead to an increased risk of graft failure. Recent research has indicated that any microbial imbalances (otherwise known as gut dysbiosis or leaky gut) may be associated with cardiometabolic diseases in the long term. Current evidence suggests a link between the gut microbiome and the production of putative uraemic toxins, increased gut permeability, and transmural movement of bacteria and endotoxins and inflammation. Early observational and intervention studies have been investigating food-intake patterns, various synbiotic interventions (antibiotics, prebiotics, or probiotics), and faecal transplants to measure their effects on microbiota in treating cardiometabolic diseases. It is believed high doses of synbiotics, prebiotics and probiotics are able to modify and improve dysbiosis of gut micro-organisms by altering the population of the micro-organisms. With the right balance in the gut flora, a primary benefit is believed to be the suppression of pathogens through immunostimulation and gut barrier enhancement (less permeability of the gut). OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of synbiotics, prebiotics, and probiotics for recipients of solid organ transplantation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register up to 9 March 2022 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials measuring and reporting the effects of synbiotics, prebiotics, or probiotics, in any combination and any formulation given to solid organ transplant recipients (any age and setting). Two authors independently assessed the retrieved titles and abstracts and, where necessary, the full text to determine which satisfied the inclusion criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction was independently carried out by two authors using a standard data extraction form. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data entry was carried out by one author and cross-checked by another. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: Five studies (250 participants) were included in this review. Study participants were adults with a kidney (one study) or liver (four studies) transplant. One study compared a synbiotic to placebo, two studies compared a probiotic to placebo, and two studies compared a synbiotic to a prebiotic. Overall, the quality of the evidence is poor. Most studies were judged to have unclear (or high) risk of bias across most domains. Of the available evidence, meta-analyses undertaken were of limited data from small studies. Across all comparisons, GRADE evaluations for all outcomes were judged to be very low certainty evidence. Very low certainty evidence implies that we are very uncertain about results (not estimable due to lack of data or poor quality). Synbiotics had uncertain effects on the change in microbiota composition (total plasma p-cresol), faecal characteristics, adverse events, kidney function or albumin concentration (1 study, 34 participants) compared to placebo. Probiotics had uncertain effects on GI side effects, infection rates immediately post-transplant, liver function, blood pressure, change in fatty liver, and lipids (1 study, 30 participants) compared to placebo. Synbiotics had uncertain effects on graft health (acute liver rejection) (2 studies, 129 participants: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.25; 2 studies, 129 participants; I² = 0%), the use of immunosuppression, infection (2 studies, 129 participants: RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.17; I² = 66%), GI function (time to first bowel movement), adverse events (2 studies, 129 participants: RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.59; I² = 20%), serious adverse events (2 studies, 129 participants: RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.36; I² = 81%), death (2 studies, 129 participants), and organ function measures (2 studies; 129 participants) compared to prebiotics. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the severe lack of high-quality RCTs testing the efficacy of synbiotics, prebiotics or probiotics in solid organ transplant recipients. We have identified significant gaps in the evidence. Despite GI symptoms and postoperative infection being the most common reasons for high antibiotic use in this patient population, along with increased morbidity and the growing antimicrobial resistance, we found very few studies that adequately tested these as alternative treatments. There is currently no evidence to support or refute the use of synbiotics, prebiotics, or probiotics in solid organ transplant recipients, and findings should be viewed with caution. We have identified an area of significant uncertainty about the efficacy of synbiotics, prebiotics, or probiotics in solid organ transplant recipients. Future research in this field requires adequately powered RCTs comparing synbiotics, prebiotics, and probiotics separately and with placebo measuring a standard set of core transplant outcomes. Six studies are currently ongoing (822 proposed participants); therefore, it is possible that findings may change with their inclusion in future updates.

Hypoxia-inducible factor stabilisers for the anaemia of chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Anaemia occurs in chronic kidney disease (CKD) and is more prevalent with lower levels of kidney function. Anaemia in CKD is associated with death related to cardiovascular (CV) disease and infection. Established treatments include erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), iron supplementation and blood transfusions. Oral hypoxia-inducible factors (HIF) stabilisers are now available to manage anaemia in people with CKD. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the benefits and potential harms of HIF stabilisers for the management of anaemia in people with CKD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 22 November 2021 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to our review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised studies evaluating hypoxia-inducible factors stabilisers compared to placebo, standard care, ESAs or iron supplementation in people with CKD were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Five authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Treatment estimates were summarised using random effects pair-wise meta-analysis and expressed as a relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD), with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Evidence certainty was assessed using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 51 studies randomising 30,994 adults. These studies compared HIF stabilisers to either placebo or an ESA. Compared to placebo, HIF stabiliser therapy had uncertain effects on CV death (10 studies, 1114 participants): RR 3.68, 95% CI 0.19 to 70.21; very low certainty evidence), and nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) (3 studies, 822 participants): RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.31 to 5.36; I² = 0%; very low certainty evidence), probably decreases the proportion of patients requiring blood transfusion (8 studies, 4329 participants): RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.60; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence), and increases the proportion of patients reaching the target haemoglobin (Hb) (10 studies, 5102 participants): RR 8.36, 95% CI 6.42 to 10.89; I² = 37%; moderate certainty evidence). Compared to ESAs, HIF stabiliser therapy may make little or no difference to CV death (17 studies, 10,340 participants): RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.26; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence), nonfatal MI (7 studies, 7765 participants): RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.10; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence), and nonfatal stroke (5 studies, 7285 participants): RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.56; I² = 8%; low certainty evidence), and had uncertain effects on fatigue (2 studies, 3471 participants): RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.16; I² = 0%; very low certainty evidence). HIF stabiliser therapy probably decreased the proportion of patients requiring blood transfusion (11 studies, 10,786 participants): RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.00; I² = 25%; moderate certainty evidence), but may make little or no difference on the proportion of patients reaching the target Hb (14 studies, 4601 participants): RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.07; I² = 70%; low certainty evidence), compared to ESA. The effect of HIF stabilisers on hospitalisation for heart failure, peripheral arterial events, loss of unassisted dialysis vascular access patency, access intervention, cancer, infection, pulmonary hypertension and diabetic nephropathy was uncertain. None of the included studies reported life participation. Adverse events were rarely and inconsistently reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: HIF stabiliser management of anaemia had uncertain effects on CV death, fatigue, death (any cause), CV outcomes, and kidney failure compared to placebo or ESAs. Compared to placebo or ESAs, HIF stabiliser management of anaemia probably decreased the proportion of patients requiring blood transfusions, and probably increased the proportion of patients reaching the target Hb when compared to placebo.

D-mannose for preventing and treating urinary tract infections.

BACKGROUND: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are very common, affecting more than 7 million people worldwide. Whilst many people may only experience a single episode in their lifetime and are generally responsive to standard antibiotics, a significant proportion of adults and children (approximately 15% to 25%) are chronic symptomatic UTI sufferers. Certain population groups are at greater risk than others, such as immunosuppressed and people with chronic kidney disease. D-mannose is a sugar part of normal human metabolism found within most diets. The mechanism of action is to prevent bacterial adherence to the uroepithelial cells. The D-mannose-based inhibitors can block uropathogenic Escherichia coli adhesion and invasion of the uroepithelial cells. The bacteria are then understood to essentially be eliminated by urination. Early pilot studies on animals and humans have trialled concentrated forms of D-mannose (tablets or sachets) in doses ranging from 200 mg up to 2 to 3 g and found possible efficacy in reducing UTI symptoms or recurrence. Although the anti-adhesive effects of D-mannose have been well-established, only recently have we seen a small number of pilot studies and small clinical trials conducted. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of D-mannose for preventing and treating UTIs in adults and children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 22 February 2022 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs measuring and reporting the effect of D-mannose, in any combination and any formulation, to prevent or treat UTIs in adults and children, females and males, in any setting (including perioperative). Authors independently assessed the retrieved titles and abstracts and, where necessary, the full text to determine which satisfied the inclusion criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction was independently carried out by two authors using a standard data extraction form. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data entry was carried out by one author and cross-checked by another author. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTs (719 participants) in adult females and males who had either acute cystitis or a history of recurrent (at least two episodes in six months or three episodes in 12 months) UTIs (symptomatic or asymptomatic). Two were prevention studies, four were prevention and treatment studies (two perioperative and one in people with multiple sclerosis), and one was a treatment study. Time periods ranged from 15 days to six months. No two studies were comparable (by dose or treatments), and we could not undertake meta-analyses. Individual studies reported no clear evidence to determine whether D-mannose is more or less effective in preventing or treating UTIs. D-mannose (2 g) had uncertain effects on symptomatic and bacteriuria-confirmed UTIs when compared to no treatment (1 study, 205 participants; very low certainty evidence) and antibiotics (nitrofurantoin 50 mg) (1 study, 206 participants; very low certainty evidence). D-mannose, in combination with herbal supplements, had uncertain effects on symptomatic and bacteria-confirmed UTI and pain when compared to no treatment (1 study, 40 participants; very low certainty evidence). D-mannose 500 mg plus supplements (N-acetylcysteine and Morinda citrifolia fruit extract) had uncertain effects on symptomatic and bacteriuria-confirmed UTIs when compared to an antibiotic (prulifloxacin 400 mg) (1 study, 75 participants; very low certainty evidence). Adverse events were very few and poorly reported; none were serious (mostly diarrhoea and vaginal burning). Overall, the quality of the evidence is poor. Most studies were judged to have unclear or high risk of bias across most domains. Data was sparse and addressed very few outcomes. The GRADE evaluation was rated as very low certainty evidence due to very serious limitations in the study design or execution (high risk of bias across all studies) and sparse data (single study data and small sample sizes). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently little to no evidence to support or refute the use of D-mannose to prevent or treat UTIs in all populations. This review highlights the severe lack of high-quality RCTs testing the efficacy of D-mannose for UTIs in any population. Despite UTIs being one of the most common adult infections (affecting 50% of women at least once in their lifetime) and the growing global antimicrobial resistance, we found very few studies that adequately test this alternative treatment. Future research in this field requires, in the first instance, a single adequately powered RCT comparing D-mannose with placebo.

Interventions for focal segmental glomerulosclerosis in adults.

BACKGROUND: Focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) can be separated into primary, genetic or secondary causes. Primary disease results in nephrotic syndrome while genetic and secondary forms may be associated with asymptomatic proteinuria or with nephrotic syndrome. Overall only about 20% of patients with FSGS experience a partial or complete remission of nephrotic syndrome with treatment. FSGS progresses to kidney failure in about half of the cases. This is an update of a review first published in 2008. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of immunosuppressive and non-immunosuppressive treatment regimens in adults with FSGS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies to 21 June 2021 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of any intervention for FSGS in adults were included. Studies comparing different types, routes, frequencies, and duration of immunosuppressive agents and non-immunosuppressive agents were assessed. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model and results were expressed as a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, or mean difference (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen studies (560 participants) were included. No studies specifically evaluating corticosteroids compared with placebo or supportive therapy were identified. Studies evaluated participants with steroid-resistant FSGS. Five studies (240 participants) compared cyclosporin with or without prednisone with different comparators (no specific treatment, prednisone, methylprednisolone, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), dexamethasone). Three small studies compared monoclonal antibodies (adalimumab, fresolimumab) with other agents or placebo. Six single small studies compared rituximab with tacrolimus, cyclosporin plus valsartan with cyclosporin alone, MMF with prednisone, chlorambucil plus methylprednisolone and prednisone with no specific treatment, different regimens of dexamethasone and CCX140-B (an antagonist of the chemokine receptor CCR2) with placebo. The final study (109 participants) compared sparsentan, a dual inhibitor of endothelin Type A receptor and of the angiotensin II Type 1 receptor, with irbesartan. In the risk of bias assessment, seven and five studies were at low risk of bias for sequence generation and allocation concealment, respectively. Four studies were at low risk of performance bias and 14 studies were at low risk of detection bias. Thirteen, six and five studies were at low risk of attrition bias, reporting bias and other bias, respectively. Of five studies evaluating cyclosporin, four could be included in our meta-analyses (231 participants). Cyclosporin with or without prednisone compared with different comparators may increase the likelihood of complete remission (RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.73; I² = 1%; low certainty evidence) and of complete or partial remission (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.44; I² = 19%) but not of partial remission (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.39, I² = 22%). In Individual studies, cyclosporin with prednisone versus prednisone may increase the likelihood of partial (49 participants: RR 7.96, 95% CI 1.09 to 58.15) or complete or partial remission (49 participants: RR 8.85, 95% CI 1.22 to 63.92) but not of complete remission. The remaining individual comparisons may make little or no difference to the likelihood of complete remission, partial remission or complete or partial remission compared with no treatment, methylprednisolone, MMF, or dexamethasone. Individual study data and combined data showed that cyclosporin may make little or no difference to the outcomes of chronic kidney disease or kidney failure. It is uncertain whether cyclosporin compared with these comparators in individual or combined analyses makes any difference to the outcomes of hypertension or infection. MMF compared with prednisone may make little or no difference to the likelihood of complete remission (33 participants: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.88; low certainty evidence), partial remission, complete or partial remission, glomerular filtration rate, or infection. It is uncertain whether other interventions make any difference to outcomes as the certainty of the evidence is very low. It is uncertain whether sparsentan reduces proteinuria to a greater extent than irbesartan. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No RCTs, which evaluated corticosteroids, were identified although the KDIGO guidelines recommend corticosteroids as the first treatment for adults with FSGS. The studies identified included participants with steroid-resistant FSGS. Treatment with cyclosporin for at least six months was more likely to achieve complete remission of proteinuria compared with other treatments but there was considerable imprecision due to few studies and small participant numbers. In future studies of existing or new interventions, the investigators must clearly define the populations included in the study to provide appropriate recommendations for patients with primary, genetic or secondary FSGS.

Efficacy and safety of pharmacological, physical, and psychological interventions for the management of chronic pain in children: a WHO systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Chronic pain in childhood is an international public health problem. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide a summary of the published evidence of pharmacological, physical, and psychological therapies for children with chronic pain conditions. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO from inception to April 2020; clinical trial registries; and other sources for randomised controlled trials or comparative observational trials. We extracted critical outcomes of pain intensity, quality of life, physical functioning, role functioning, emotional functioning, sleep, and adverse events. We assessed studies for risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We included 34 pharmacological (4091 participants), 25 physical therapy (1470 participants), and 63 psychological trials (5025 participants). Participants reported a range of chronic pain conditions. Most studies were assessed to have unclear or high risk of bias across multiple domains. Pharmacological, physical, and psychological therapies showed some benefit for reducing pain, posttreatment, but only physical and psychological therapies improved physical functioning. We found no benefit of any treatment modality for health-related quality of life, role functioning, emotional functioning, or sleep. Adverse events were poorly reported, particularly for psychological and physical interventions. The largest evidence base for the management of chronic pain in children supports the use of psychological therapies, followed by pharmacological and physical therapies. However, we rated most outcomes as low or very low certainty, meaning further evidence is likely to change our confidence in the estimates of effects. This protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020172451).

The COVID-19 pandemic and access to health care in people with chronic kidney disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: This systematic review aims to evaluate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on access to health care for patients with CKD. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched up to July 2021 (PROSPERO CRD42021230831). Data relevant to access to health care before and during the COVID-19 pandemic were extracted, including outcomes related to access to general nephrology consultations, telehealth, dialysis services and kidney transplantations. Relative and absolute effects were pooled using a random effects model to account for between-study heterogeneity. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Quality in Prognostic Studies tool. The certainty of the evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies across five WHO regions were identified. Reductions in transplantation surgeries were observed during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the pre-COVID-19 era (risk ratio = 2.15, 95%CI = 1.51-3.06, I2  = 90%, p < .001). Additionally, six studies reported increased use of telehealth services compared with pre-COVID-19 times. Four studies found reduced access to in-person general nephrology services and six studies reported interruptions to dialysis services during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest COVID-19 pandemic may have led to reductions in access to kidney transplantation, dialysis and in-person nephrology care. Meanwhile, whilst the use of telehealth has emerged as a promising alternate mode of health care delivery, its utility during the pandemic warrants further investigation. This study has highlighted major barriers to accessing care in a highly vulnerable chronic disease group.

The CKD bowel health study: understanding the bowel health and gastrointestinal symptom management in patients with chronic kidney disease: a mixed-methods observational longitudinal study (protocol).

BACKGROUND: Gastro-intestinal (GI) intolerance is a frequently reported outcome in patients with kidney failure receiving maintenance dialysis and those who have received kidney transplants. Symptoms of GI intolerance (diarrhoea, constipation, bloating, abdominal pain, heart burn, and reflux) are associated with significant reduction in quality of life, morbidity, and increased used of healthcare resources. Having chronic kidney disease (CKD), together with related changes in diet and medication, may alter the gut microbiota and the microbial-derived uraemic metabolites that accumulate in kidney failure, and contribute to various complications including chronic diarrhoea, opportunistic infections, and drug-related colitis. Despite the high disease burden among patients with kidney replacement therapies, GI symptoms are often under-recognised and, consequently limited resources and strategies are devoted to the management of gastrointestinal complications in patients with CKD. METHODS: The CKD Bowel Health Study is a multi-centre mixed-methods observational longitudinal study to better understand the bowel health and GI symptom management in patients with CKD. The program comprises of a longitudinal study that will assess the burden and risk factors of GI intolerance in patients treated with maintenance dialysis; a semi-structured interview study that will describe experiences of GI intolerance (including symptoms, treatment, self-management) in transplant candidates and recipients; and a discrete choice experience to elicit patient preferences regarding their experiences and perspectives of various intervention strategies for the management of GI symptoms after kidney transplantation. DISCUSSION: This proposed program of work aims to define the burden the GI intolerance in patients with kidney failure and generate evidence on the patients' experiences of GI intolerance and their perspectives on their clinical and own management strategies of these symptoms, ensuring a patient-centred approach to guide clinical decision making and to inform the best study design for intervention trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12621000548831 . This study has been approved by the Western Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee of New South Wales Health (HREC ETH03007). This study is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Australia Investigator Grant (APP1195414), and an NHMRC Australia Postgraduate Scholarship (APP2005244).

Incidence and Outcomes of COVID-19 in People With CKD: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disproportionately affects people with chronic diseases such as chronic kidney disease (CKD). We assessed the incidence and outcomes of COVID-19 in people with CKD. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed through February 2021. SETTING & STUDY POPULATIONS: People with CKD with or without COVID-19. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: Cohort and case-control studies. DATA EXTRACTION: Incidences of COVID-19, death, respiratory failure, dyspnea, recovery, intensive care admission, hospital admission, need for supplemental oxygen, hospital discharge, sepsis, short-term dialysis, acute kidney injury, and fatigue. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Random-effects meta-analysis and evidence certainty adjudicated using an adapted version of GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). RESULTS: 348 studies (382,407 participants with COVID-19 and CKD; 1,139,979 total participants with CKD) were included. Based on low-certainty evidence, the incidence of COVID-19 was higher in people with CKD treated with dialysis (105 per 10,000 person-weeks; 95% CI, 91-120; 95% prediction interval [PrI], 25-235; 59 studies; 468,233 participants) than in those with CKD not requiring kidney replacement therapy (16 per 10,000 person-weeks; 95% CI, 4-33; 95% PrI, 0-92; 5 studies; 70,683 participants) or in kidney or pancreas/kidney transplant recipients (23 per 10,000 person-weeks; 95% CI, 18-30; 95% PrI, 2-67; 29 studies; 120,281 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, the incidence of death in people with CKD and COVID-19 was 32 per 1,000 person-weeks (95% CI, 30-35; 95% PrI, 4-81; 229 studies; 70,922 participants), which may be higher than in people with CKD without COVID-19 (incidence rate ratio, 10.26; 95% CI, 6.78-15.53; 95% PrI, 2.62-40.15; 4 studies; 18,347 participants). LIMITATIONS: Analyses were generally based on low-certainty evidence. Few studies reported outcomes in people with CKD without COVID-19 to calculate the excess risk attributable to COVID-19, and potential confounders were not adjusted for in most studies. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of COVID-19 may be higher in people receiving maintenance dialysis than in those with CKD not requiring kidney replacement therapy or those who are kidney or pancreas/kidney transplant recipients. People with CKD and COVID-19 may have a higher incidence of death than people with CKD without COVID-19.

Interventions for renal vasculitis in adults.

BACKGROUND: Renal vasculitis presents as rapidly progressive glomerulonephritis and comprises of a group of conditions characterised by acute kidney injury (AKI), haematuria and proteinuria. Treatment of these conditions involve the use of steroid and non-steroid agents in combination with plasma exchange. Although immunosuppression overall has been very successful in treatment of these conditions, many questions remain unanswered in terms of dose and duration of therapy, the use of plasma exchange and the role of new therapies. This 2019 publication is an update of a review first published in 2008 and updated in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of any intervention used for the treatment of renal vasculitis in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 21 November 2019 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials investigating any intervention for the treatment of renal vasculitis in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using a random effects model and results expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes or mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Forty studies (3764 patients) were included. Studies conducted earlier tended to have a higher risk of bias due to poor (or poorly reported) study design, broad inclusion criteria, less well developed disease definitions and low patient numbers. Later studies tend to have improved in all areas of quality, aided by the development of large international study groups. Induction therapy: Plasma exchange as adjunctive therapy may reduce the need for dialysis at three (2 studies: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.78; I2 = 0%) and 12 months (6 studies: RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.72; I2 = 0%) (low certainty evidence). Plasma exchange may make little or no difference to death, serum creatinine (SCr), sustained remission or to serious or the total number of adverse events. Plasma exchange may increase the number of serious infections (5 studies: RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.54; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). Remission rates for pulse versus continuous cyclophosphamide (CPA) were equivalent but pulse treatment may increase the risk of relapse (4 studies: RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.87; I2 = 0%) (low certainty evidence) compared with continuous cyclophosphamide. Pulse CPA may make little or no difference to death at final follow-up, or SCr at any time point. More patients required dialysis in the pulse CPA group. Leukopenia was less common with pulse treatment; however, nausea was more common. Rituximab compared to CPA probably makes little or no difference to death, remission, relapse, severe adverse events, serious infections, or severe adverse events. Kidney function and dialysis were not reported. A single study reported no difference in the number of deaths, need for dialysis, or adverse events between mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and CPA. Remission was reported to improve with MMF however more patients relapsed. A lower dose of steroids was probably as effective as high dose and may be safer, causing fewer infections; kidney function and relapse were not reported. There was little of no difference in death or remission between six and 12 pulses of CPA. There is low certainty evidence that there were less relapses with 12 pulses (2 studies: RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.56; I2 = 0%), but more infections (2 studies: RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.72; I2 = 45%). One study reported severe adverse events were less in patients receiving six compared to 12 pulses of CPA. Kidney function and dialysis were not reported. There is limited evidence from single studies about the effectiveness of intravenous immunoglobulin, avacopan, methotrexate, immunoadsorption, lymphocytapheresis, or etanercept. Maintenance therapy: Azathioprine (AZA) has equivalent efficacy as a maintenance agent to CPA with fewer episodes of leucopenia. MMF resulted in a higher relapse rate when tested against azathioprine in remission maintenance. Rituximab is an effective remission induction and maintenance agent. Oral co-trimoxazole did not reduce relapses in granulomatosis with polyangiitis. There were fewer relapses but more serious adverse events with leflunomide compared to methotrexate. There is limited evidence from single studies about the effectiveness of methotrexate versus CPA or AZA, cyclosporin versus CPA, extended versus standard AZA, and belimumab. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Plasma exchange was effective in patients with severe AKI secondary to vasculitis. Pulse cyclophosphamide may result in an increased risk of relapse when compared to continuous oral use but a reduced total dose. Whilst CPA is standard induction treatment, rituximab and MMF were also effective. AZA, methotrexate and leflunomide were effective as maintenance therapy. Further studies are required to more clearly delineate the appropriate place of newer agents within an evidence-based therapeutic strategy.

Pharmacological interventions for painful sickle cell vaso-occlusive crises in adults.

BACKGROUND: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a group of inherited disorders of haemoglobin (Hb) structure in a person who has inherited two mutant globin genes (one from each parent), at least one of which is always the sickle mutation. It is estimated that between 5% and 7% of the world's population are carriers of the mutant Hb gene, and SCD is the most commonly inherited blood disorder. SCD is characterized by distorted sickle-shaped red blood cells. Manifestations of the disease are attributed to either haemolysis (premature red cell destruction) or vaso-occlusion (obstruction of blood flow, the most common manifestation). Shortened lifespans are attributable to serious comorbidities associated with the disease, including renal failure, acute cholecystitis, pulmonary hypertension, aplastic crisis, pulmonary embolus, stroke, acute chest syndrome, and sepsis. Vaso-occlusion can lead to an acute, painful crisis (sickle cell crisis, vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC) or vaso-occlusive episode). Pain is most often reported in the joints, extremities, back or chest, but it can occur anywhere and can last for several days or weeks. The bone and muscle pain experienced during a sickle cell crisis is both acute and recurrent. Key pharmacological treatments for VOC include opioid analgesics, non-opioid analgesics, and combinations of drugs. Non-pharmacological approaches, such as relaxation, hypnosis, heat, ice and acupuncture, have been used in conjunction to rehydrating the patient and reduce the sickling process. OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of pharmacological interventions to treat acute painful sickle cell vaso-occlusive crises in adults, in any setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid and LILACS, from inception to September 2019. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized, controlled, double-blind trials of pharmacological interventions, of any dose and by any route, compared to placebo or any active comparator, for the treatment (not prevention) of painful sickle cell VOC in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. Our primary outcomes were participant-reported pain relief of 50%, or 30%, or greater; Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) very much improved, or much or very much improved. Our secondary outcomes included adverse events, serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events. We assessed GRADE and created three 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies with data for 638 VOC events and 594 participants aged 17 to 42 years with SCD presenting to a hospital emergency department in a painful VOC. Three studies investigated a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) compared to placebo. One study compared an opioid with a placebo, two studies compared an opioid with an active comparator, two studies compared an anticoagulant with a placebo, and one study compared a combination of three drugs with a combination of four drugs. Risk of bias across the nine studies varied. Studies were primarily at an unclear risk of selection, performance, and detection bias. Studies were primarily at a high risk of bias for size with fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm; two studies had 50 to 199 participants per treatment arm (unclear risk). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) compared with placebo No data were reported regarding participant-reported pain relief of 50% or 30% or greater. The efficacy was uncertain regarding PGIC very much improved, and PGIC much or very much improved (no difference; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-quality evidence). Very low-quality, uncertain results suggested similar rates of adverse events across both the NSAIDs group (16/45 adverse events, 1/56 serious adverse events, and 1/56 withdrawal due to adverse events) and the placebo group (19/45 adverse events, 2/56 serious adverse events, and 1/56 withdrawal due to adverse events). Opioids compared with placebo No data were reported regarding participant-reported pain relief of 50% or 30%, PGIC, or adverse events (any adverse event, serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events). Opioids compared with active comparator No data were reported regarding participant-reported pain relief of 50% or 30% or greater. The results were uncertain regarding PGIC very much improved (33% of the opioids group versus 19% of the placebo group). No data were reported regarding PGIC much or very much improved. Very low-quality, uncertain results suggested similar rates of adverse events across both the opioids group (9/66 adverse events, and 0/66 serious adverse events) and the placebo group (7/64 adverse events, 0/66 serious adverse events). No data were reported regarding withdrawal due to adverse events. Quality of the evidence We downgraded the quality of the evidence by three levels to very low-quality because there are too few data to have confidence in results (e.g. too few participants per treatment arm). Where no data were reported for an outcome, we had no evidence to support or refute (quality of the evidence is unknown). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identified only nine studies, with insufficient data for all pharmacological interventions for analysis. The available evidence is very uncertain regarding the efficacy or harm from pharmacological interventions used to treat pain related to sickle cell VOC in adults. This area could benefit most from more high quality, certain evidence, as well as the establishment of suitable registries which record interventions and outcomes for this group of people.

Genetic testing for prevention of severe drug-induced skin rash.

BACKGROUND: Drug-induced skin reactions present with a range of clinical symptoms, from mild maculopapular skin rashes to potentially fatal blistering skin rashes - such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) or toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) - which may result in death. Milder reactions may be troublesome and lead to low drug compliance. The pathogenesis of these drug reactions is not yet fully understood; however, there is evidence that pretreatment genetic testing may help to predict and prevent these reactions in some cases. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of prospective pharmacogenetic screening to reduce drug-associated skin reactions in a patient population. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to July 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers, and checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs of participants who had prospective pharmacogenetic screening to determine genetic variants associated with hypersensitivity reactions, compared with those who did not have prospective pharmacogenetic screening. We included participants in any setting, who were of any age, gender, and ethnicity, who had been prescribed drugs known to cause delayed type hypersensitivity reactions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. To assess studies for inclusion, two review authors independently screened all of the titles and abstracts of publications identified by the searches. Because there was only one included study, many of the planned data analyses were not applicable to the review. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the included study.The review's primary outcomes were the incidence of severe skin rashes with systemic symptoms (such as fever and multiple organ involvement), and long-term effects (such as scarring of eyelids or lung tissue). Secondary outcomes were hospitalisation for drug-induced skin reactions, blistering skin reactions (such as SJS, hypersensitivity (HSS) syndrome), and death. MAIN RESULTS: One study, which was a randomised, double-blind, controlled, multicentre trial, fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The trial included 1956 adult participants (74% men, with a mean age of 42 years) across 265 centres (medical centres, hospitals, outpatient clinics) in 19 countries around the world who were infected with HIV-type 1 and who had not received abacavir previously. The participants, who had a clinical need for treatment with an antiretroviral-drug regimen containing abacavir, were randomly assigned to undergo prospective human leukocyte antigen (HLA) Class I, locus B, allele 57:01 (HLA-B*57:01) screening (prospective-screening group) before this treatment, or to undergo a standard-care approach of abacavir use without prospective HLA-B*57:01 screening (control group). Participants who tested positive for HLA-B*57:01 were not given abacavir; instead, they received antiretroviral therapy that did not include abacavir. The control group did have retrospective HLA-B*57:01 pharmacogenetic testing. The trial duration was six months. Each participant was observed for six weeks. Assessments were performed at the time of study entry, at baseline (day one of abacavir treatment), and at weeks one, two and six. This study was funded by the manufacturer of abacavir, GlaxoSmithKline.The study did not assess any of our primary outcomes, and it measured none of our secondary outcomes in isolation. However, it did assess an outcome of (characteristically severe) hypersensitivity reaction which included (but was not limited to) our secondary outcomes of HSS and SJS/TEN.The study demonstrated that prospective HLA-B*57:01 screening probably reduces the incidence of hypersensitivity reaction to abacavir. The incidence of clinically diagnosed HSS reaction to abacavir was lower in the screening arm (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.67; 1650 participants; moderate-quality evidence), as was immunologically confirmed HSS reaction (RR 0.02, 95% 0.00 to 0.37; 1644 participants; moderate-quality evidence). A positive result from an epicutaneous patch test performed six to ten weeks after clinical diagnosis provided immunological confirmation.Overall, the study demonstrates a low risk of bias across five out of seven domains. There was a high risk of detection bias because hypersensitivity reactions were diagnosed by the principal investigator at the recruitment site without the use of predefined clinical criteria. Although there was also high risk of attrition bias due to excluding participants with incomplete follow-up from analyses, the authors did undertake a series of sensitivity analyses based on the intention-to-treat population, which demonstrated consistent results with the primary analysis. We rated the study quality as moderate-quality using GRADE criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Prospective screening for HLA-B*57:01 probably reduces severe hypersensitivity skin reactions to abacavir in patients positive for HIV-type 1. However, these results are only based on one study, which was at high risk of attrition and detection bias.Our primary outcomes (incidence of severe skin rashes with systemic symptoms, and long-term effects) were not assessed by the trial, and only one of the review's secondary outcomes was measured (hypersensitivity reaction); thus, we found no evidence relating to hospitalisation, death, or long-term conditions resulting from drug injury.We found no eligible evidence on genetic testing for severe drug-induced skin rash in relation to different drugs and classes of drugs. Further clinical trials based on other drugs, and in different patient populations, would be useful for advising policy changes for improving the prevention of adverse skin reactions to drug treatments.

Pharmacological interventions for chronic pain in children: an overview of systematic reviews.

We know little about the safety or efficacy of pharmacological medicines for children and adolescents with chronic pain, despite their common use. Our aim was to conduct an overview review of systematic reviews of pharmacological interventions that purport to reduce pain in children with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) or chronic cancer-related pain (CCRP). We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Medline, EMBASE, and DARE for systematic reviews from inception to March 2018. We conducted reference and citation searches of included reviews. We included children (0-18 years of age) with CNCP or CCRP. We extracted the review characteristics and primary outcomes of ≥30% participant-reported pain relief and patient global impression of change. We sifted 704 abstracts and included 23 systematic reviews investigating children with CNCP or CCRP. Seven of those 23 reviews included 6 trials that involved children with CNCP. There were no randomised controlled trials in reviews relating to reducing pain in CCRP. We were unable to combine data in a meta-analysis. Overall, the quality of evidence was very low, and we have very little confidence in the effect estimates. The state of evidence of randomized controlled trials in this field is poor; we have no evidence from randomised controlled trials for pharmacological interventions in children with cancer-related pain, yet cannot deny individual children access to potential pain relief. Prospero ID: CRD42018086900.

Ear drops for the removal of ear wax.

BACKGROUND: Ear wax (cerumen) is a normal bodily secretion that can become a problem when it obstructs the ear canal. Symptoms attributed to wax (such as deafness and pain) are among the commonest reasons for patients to present to primary care with ear trouble.Wax is part of the ear's self-cleaning mechanism and is usually naturally expelled from the ear canal without causing problems. When this mechanism fails, wax is retained in the canal and may become impacted; interventions to encourage its removal may then be needed. Application of ear drops is one of these methods. Liquids used to remove and soften wax are of several kinds: oil-based compounds (e.g. olive or almond oil); water-based compounds (e.g. sodium bicarbonate or water itself); a combination of the above or non-water, non-oil-based solutions, such as carbamide peroxide (a hydrogen peroxide-urea compound) and glycerol. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of ear drops (or sprays) to remove or aid the removal of ear wax in adults and children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; Cochrane Register of Studies; PubMed; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 23 March 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which a 'cerumenolytic' was compared with no treatment, water or saline, an alternative liquid treatment (oil or almond oil) or another 'cerumenolytic' in adults or children with obstructing or impacted ear wax. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were 1) the proportion of patients (or ears) with complete clearance of ear wax and 2) adverse effects (discomfort, irritation or pain). Secondary outcomes were: extent of wax clearance; proportion of people (or ears) with relief of symptoms due to wax; proportion of people (or ears) requiring further intervention to remove wax; success of mechanical removal of residual wax following treatment; any other adverse effects recorded and cost. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies, with 623 participants (900 ears). Interventions included: oil-based treatments (triethanolamine polypeptide, almond oil, benzocaine, chlorobutanol), water-based treatments (docusate sodium, carbamide peroxide, phenazone, choline salicylate, urea peroxide, potassium carbonate), other active comparators (e.g. saline or water alone) and no treatment. Nine of the studies were more than 15 years old.The overall risk of bias across the 10 included studies was low or unclear. PRIMARY OUTCOME: proportion of patients (or ears) with complete clearance of ear waxSix studies (360 participants; 491 ears) contributed quantitative data and were included in our meta-analyses.Active treatment versus no treatmentOnly one study addressed this comparison. The proportion of ears with complete clearance of ear wax was higher in the active treatment group (22%) compared with the no treatment group (5%) after five days of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 4.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 16.80); one study; 117 ears; NNTB = 8) (low-quality evidence).Active treatment versus water or salineWe found no evidence of a difference in the proportion of patients (or ears) with complete clearance of ear wax when the active treatment group was compared to the water or saline group (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.75; three studies; 213 participants; 257 ears) (low-quality evidence). Two studies applied drops for five days, but one study only applied the drops for 15 minutes. When we excluded this study in a sensitivity analysis it did not change the result.Water or saline versus no treatmentThis comparison was only addressed in the single study cited above (active versus no treatment) and there was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of ears with complete wax clearance when comparing water or saline with no treatment after five days of treatment (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 17.62; one study; 76 ears) (low-quality evidence).Active treatment A versus active treatment BSeveral single studies evaluated 'head-to-head' comparisons between two active treatments. We found no evidence to show that one was superior to any other.Subgroup analysis of oil-based active treatments versus non-oil based active treatmentsWe found no evidence of a difference in this outcome when oil-based treatments were compared with non-oil-based active treatments. PRIMARY OUTCOME: adverse effects: discomfort, irritation or painOnly seven studies planned to measure and did report this outcome. Only two (141 participants;176 ears) provided useable data. There was no evidence of a significant difference in the number of adverse effects between the types of ear drops in these two studies. We summarised the remaining five studies narratively. All events were mild and reported in fewer than 30 participants across the seven studies (low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesThree studies reported 'other' adverse effects (how many studies planned to report these is unclear). The available information was limited and included occasional reports of dizziness, unpleasant smell, tinnitus and hearing loss. No significant differences between groups were reported. There were no emergencies or serious adverse effects reported in any of the 10 studies.There was very limited or no information available on our remaining secondary outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although a number of studies aimed to evaluate whether or not one type of cerumenolytic is more effective than another, there is no high-quality evidence to allow a firm conclusion to be drawn and the answer remains uncertain.A single study suggests that applying ear drops for five days may result in a greater likelihood of complete wax clearance than no treatment at all. However, we cannot conclude whether one type of active treatment is more effective than another and there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy between oil-based and water-based active treatments.There is no evidence to show that using saline or water alone is better or worse than commercially produced cerumenolytics. Equally, there is also no evidence to show that using saline or water alone is better than no treatment.

Ketorolac for postoperative pain in children.

BACKGROUND: Children who undergo surgical procedures in ambulatory and inpatient settings are at risk of experiencing acute pain. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can reduce moderate to severe pain without many of the side effects associated with opioids. However, NSAIDs may cause bleeding, renal and gastrointestinal toxicity, and potentially delay wound and bone healing. Intravenous administration of ketorolac for postoperative pain in children has not been approved in many countries, but is routinely administered in clinical practise. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of ketorolac for postoperative pain in children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases, without language restrictions, to November 2017: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2017, Issue 10); MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of reviews, and retrieved articles for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared the analgesic efficacy of ketorolac (in any dose, administered via any route) with placebo or another active treatment, in treating postoperative pain in participants zero to 18 years of age following any type of surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We analyzed trials in two groups; ketorolac versus placebo, and ketorolac versus opioid. However, we performed limited pooled analyses. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE, and created a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 studies, involving 920 randomised participants. There was considerable heterogeneity among study designs, including the comparator arms (placebo, opioid, another NSAID, or a different regimen of ketorolac), dosing regimens (routes and timing of administration, single versus multiple dose), outcome assessment methods, and types of surgery. Mean study population ages ranged from 356 days to 13.9 years. The majority of studies chose a dose of either 0.5 mg/kg (as a single or multiple dose regimen) or 1 mg/kg (single dose with 0.5 mg/kg for any subsequent doses). One study administered interventions intraoperatively; the remainder administered interventions postoperatively, often after the participant reported moderate to severe pain.There were insufficient data to perform meta-analysis for either of our primary outcomes: participants with at least 50% pain relief; or mean postoperative pain intensity. Four studies individually reported statistically significant reductions in pain intensity when comparing ketorolac with placebo, but the studies were small and had various risks of bias, primarily due to incomplete outcome data and small sample sizes.We found limited data available for the secondary outcomes of participants requiring rescue medication and opioid consumption. For the former, we saw no clear difference between ketorolac and placebo; 74 of 135 (55%) participants receiving ketorolac required rescue analgesia in the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) versus 81 of 127 (64%) receiving placebo (relative risk (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.00, P = 0.05; 4 studies, 262 participants). For opioid consumption in the PACU, we saw no clear difference between ketorolac and placebo (P = 0.61). For the time period zero to four hours after administration of the interventions, participants receiving ketorolac received 1.58 mg less intravenous morphine equivalents than those receiving placebo (95% CI -2.58 mg to -0.57 mg, P = 0.002; 2 studies, 129 participants). However, we are uncertain whether ketorolac has an important effect on opioid consumption, as the data were sparse and the results were inconsistent. Only one study reported data for opioid consumption when comparing ketorolac with an opioid. There were no clear differences between the ketorolac and opioid group at any time point. There were no data assessing this outcome for the comparison of ketorolac with another NSAID.There were insufficient data to allow us to analyze overall adverse event or serious adverse event rates. Although the majority of serious adverse events reported in those receiving ketorolac involved bleeding, the number of events was too low to conclude that bleeding risk was increased in those receiving ketorolac perioperatively. There was not a statistically significant increase in event rates for any specific adverse event, either in pooled analysis or in single studies, when comparing ketorolac and placebo. When comparing ketorolac with opioids or other NSAIDs, there were too few data to make any conclusions regarding event rates. Lastly, withdrawals due to adverse events were vary rare in all groups, reflecting the acute nature of such studies.We assessed the quality of evidence for all outcomes for each comparison (placebo or active) as very low, due to issues with risk of bias in individual studies, imprecision, heterogeneity between studies, and low overall numbers of participants and events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the lack of data for our primary outcomes, and the very low-quality evidence for secondary outcomes, the efficacy and safety of ketorolac in treating postoperative pain in children were both uncertain. The evidence was insufficient to support or reject its use.

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) for chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time, and relief of pain is now seen as important.We designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol as priority areas) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions in children and adolescents.As the leading cause of morbidity in children and adolescents in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (lasting three months or longer) can arise in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications: nociceptive, neuropathic, idiopathic, visceral, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, and other unknown reasons.Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is one of the most widely used analgesics in both adults and children. The recommended dosage in the UK, Europe, Australia, and the USA for children and adolescents is generally 10 to 15 mg/kg every four to six hours, with specific age ranges from 60 mg (6 to 12 months old) up to 500 to 1000 mg (over 12 years old). Paracetamol is the only recommended analgesic for children under 3 months of age. Paracetamol has been proven to be safe in appropriate and controlled dosages, however potential adverse effects of paracetamol if overdosed or overused in children include liver and kidney failure. OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of paracetamol (acetaminophen) used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, of any dose and any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing paracetamol with placebo or an active comparator. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and numbers needed to treat, using standard methods where data were available. We assessed GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and planned to create a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: No studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low. We downgraded the quality of evidence by three levels due to the lack of data reported for any outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence from randomised controlled trials to support or refute the use of paracetamol (acetaminophen) to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. We are unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of paracetamol to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.We know from adult randomised controlled trials that paracetamol, can be effective, in certain doses, and in certain pain conditions (not always chronic).This means that no conclusions could be made about efficacy or harm in the use of paracetamol (acetaminophen) to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time, and relief of pain is now seen as important.We designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions.As the leading cause of morbidity in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (that is pain lasting three months or longer) can arise in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications (nociceptive, neuropathic, or idiopathic) from genetic conditions, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, as well as for other unknown reasons.Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used to treat pain, reduce fever, and for their anti-inflammation properties. They are commonly used within paediatric pain management. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are currently licensed for use in Western countries, however they are not approved for infants under three months old. The main adverse effects include renal impairment and gastrointestinal issues. Common side effects in children include diarrhoea, headache, nausea, constipation, rash, dizziness, and abdominal pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of NSAIDs used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, as well as online clinical trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, of any dose and any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing any NSAID with placebo or an active comparator. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed GRADE and created three 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies with a total of 1074 participants (aged 2 to 18 years) with chronic juvenile polyarthritis or chronic juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. All seven studies compared an NSAID with an active comparator. None of the studies were placebo controlled. No two studies investigated the same type of NSAID compared with another. We were unable to perform a meta-analysis.Risk of bias varied. For randomisation and allocation concealment, one study was low risk and six studies were unclear risk. For blinding of participants and personnel, three studies were low risk and four studies were unclear to high risk. For blinding of outcome assessors, all studies were unclear risk. For attrition, four studies were low risk and three studies were unclear risk. For selective reporting, four studies were low risk, two studies were unclear risk, and one study was high risk. For size, three studies were unclear risk and four studies were high risk. For other potential sources of bias, seven studies were low risk. Primary outcomesThree studies reported participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater, showing no statistically significant difference in pain scores between meloxicam and naproxen, celecoxib and naproxen, or rofecoxib and naproxen (P > 0.05) (low-quality evidence).One study reported participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater, showing no statistically significant difference in pain scores between low-dose meloxicam (0.125 mg/kg) and high-dose meloxicam (0.25 mg/kg) when compared to naproxen 10 mg/kg (P > 0.05) (low-quality evidence).One study reported Patient Global Impression of Change, showing 'very much improved' in 85% of ibuprofen and 90% of aspirin participants (low-quality evidence). Secondary outcomesAll seven studies reported adverse events. Participants reporting an adverse event (one or more per person) by drug were: aspirin 85/202; fenoprofen 28/49; ibuprofen 40/45; indomethacin 9/30; ketoprofen 9/30; meloxicam 18/47; naproxen 44/202; and rofecoxib 47/209 (very low-quality evidence).All seven studies reported withdrawals due to adverse events. Participants withdrawn due to an adverse event by drug were: aspirin 16/120; celecoxib 10/159; fenoprofen 0/49; ibuprofen 0/45; indomethacin 0/30; ketoprofen 0/30; meloxicam 10/147; naproxen 17/285; and rofecoxib 3/209 (very low-quality evidence).All seven studies reported serious adverse events. Participants experiencing a serious adverse event by drug were: aspirin 13/120; celecoxib 5/159; fenoprofen 0/79; ketoprofen 0/30; ibuprofen 4/45; indomethacin 0/30; meloxicam 11/147; naproxen 10/285; and rofecoxib 0/209 (very low-quality evidence).There were few or no data for our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning as defined by validated scales; and quality of life as defined by validated scales (very low-quality evidence).We rated the overall quality of the evidence (GRADE rating) for our primary and secondary outcomes as very low because there were limited data from studies and no opportunity for a meta-analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified only a small number of studies, with insufficient data for analysis.As we could undertake no meta-analysis, we are unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of NSAIDs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. Similarly, we cannot comment on our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning; and quality of life.We know from adult randomised controlled trials that some NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, naproxen, and aspirin, can be effective in certain chronic pain conditions.