The effectiveness of parenteral agents for pain reduction in patients with migraine presenting to emergency settings: A systematic review and network analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of parenteral agents for pain reduction in patients with acute migraine. BACKGROUND: Parenteral agents have been shown to be effective in treating acute migraine pain; however, the comparative effectiveness of different approaches is unclear. METHODS: Nine electronic databases and gray literature sources were searched to identify randomized clinical trials assessing parenteral agents to treat acute migraine pain in emergency settings. Two independent reviewers completed study screening, data extraction, and Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment, with differences being resolved by adjudication. The protocol of the review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42018100096). RESULTS: A total of 97 unique studies were included, with most studies reporting a high or unclear risk of bias. Monotherapy, as well as combination therapy, successfully reduced pain scores prior to discharge. They also increased the proportion of patients reporting pain relief and being pain free. Across the pain outcomes assessed, combination therapy was one of the higher ranked approaches and provided robust improvements in pain outcomes, including lowering pain scores (mean difference -3.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.64 to -2.08) and increasing the proportion of patients reporting pain relief (risk ratio [RR] 2.83, 95% CI 1.74-4.61). Neuroleptics and metoclopramide also ranked high in terms of the proportion of patients reporting pain relief (neuroleptics RR 2.76, 95% CI 2.12-3.60; metoclopramide RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.90-3.49) and being pain free before emergency department discharge (neuroleptics RR 4.8, 95% CI 3.61-6.49; metoclopramide RR 4.1, 95% CI 3.02-5.44). Most parenteral agents were associated with increased adverse events, particularly combination therapy and neuroleptics. CONCLUSIONS: Various parenteral agents were found to provide effective pain relief. Considering the consistent improvements across various outcomes, combination therapy, as well as monotherapy of either metoclopramide or neuroleptics are recommended as first-line options for managing acute migraine pain. There are risks of adverse events, especially akathisia, following treatment with these agents. We recommend that a shared decision-making model be considered to effectively identify the best treatment option based on the patient's needs.

Risk of Venous Thromboembolism by Cancer Type: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Patients with cancer have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Comparing tumor-specific VTE risk is complicated by factors such as surgery, disease stage, and chemotherapy. Network meta-analysis (NMA) using cancer types as network nodes enabled us to estimate VTE rates by leveraging comparisons across cancer types while adjusting for baseline VTE risk in individual studies. This study was conducted to estimate the risk of VTE by cancer type and factors influencing VTE risk. The Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library repositories were systematically searched to identify clinical trials and observational studies published from 2005 to 2022 that assessed the risk of primary cancer-related VTE among two or more distinct cancer types. Studies with similar cancer populations and study methods reporting VTE occurring within 1 year of diagnosis were included in the NMA. Relative VTE rates across cancer types were estimated with random-effects Bayesian NMAs. Absolute VTE rates were calculated from these estimates using the average VTE incidence in lung cancer (the most frequently reported type) as the "anchor." From 2,603 records reviewed, 30 studies were included in this NMA. The general network described 3,948,752 patients and 18 cancer types: 3.1% experienced VTE within 1 year of diagnosis, with cancer-specific rates ranging from 0.7 to 7.4%. Consistent with existing VTE risk prediction tools, pancreatic cancer was associated with higher-than-average VTE risk. Other cancer types with high VTE risk were brain and ovarian cancers. The relative rankings of VTE risk for certain cancers changed based on disease stage and/or receipt of chemotherapy or surgery.

CONSORT Harms 2022 statement, explanation, and elaboration: updated guideline for the reporting of harms in randomized trials.

Randomized controlled trials remain the reference standard for healthcare research on effects of interventions, and the need to report both benefits and harms is essential. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (the main CONSORT) statement includes one item on reporting harms (i.e., all important harms or unintended effects in each group). In 2004, the CONSORT group developed the CONSORT Harms extension; however, it has not been consistently applied and needs to be updated. Here, we describe CONSORT Harms 2022, which replaces the CONSORT Harms 2004 checklist, and shows how CONSORT Harms 2022 items could be incorporated into the main CONSORT checklist. Thirteen items from the main CONSORT were modified to improve harms reporting. Three new items were added. In this article, we describe CONSORT Harms 2022 and how it was integrated into the main CONSORT checklist and elaborate on each item relevant to complete reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials. Until future work from the CONSORT group produces an updated checklist, authors, journal reviewers, and editors of randomized controlled trials should use the integrated checklist presented in this paper.

Risk of Adverse Events Associated with Domperidone and Metoclopramide in Gastroparesis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dopamine antagonists are the main pharmacological options to treat gastroparesis. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) to evaluate the profile of adverse events (AEs) of dopamine antagonists used in the treatment of children and adults with gastroparesis. METHODS: We searched EMBASE and MEDLINE up to March 25, 2021, for relevant clinical trials and observational studies. We conducted a proportional meta-analysis to estimate the pooled occurrence of AEs (%), with 95% confidence interval (CI), from arm-level data across studies and the comparative occurrence of AEs from placebo-controlled clinical trials (odds ratio [OR] with 95% CI). RESULTS: We identified 28 studies assessing AEs experienced by patients treated for gastroparesis with domperidone and metoclopramide; 22 studies contributed data to the meta-analyses. Cardiovascular, neurological, and endocrine AEs were commonly observed, with point incidences varying from 1 to > 50%. Clinically important AEs, such as QTc prolongation, occurred in 5% of patients treated with domperidone (95% CI: 3.32-8.62). Restlessness, an extrapyramidal AE, occurred in 15% of patients (95% CI: 7.48-26.61) treated with metoclopramide, with a 7-fold increase compared with patients receiving placebo (OR: 7.72; 95% CI: 1.27-47.05). Variation in terminology to describe extrapyramidal events precluded further pooled analyses. Additional meta-analyses were not feasible due to discrepancies in the assessment and reporting of the AEs. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence confirms concerns of cardiovascular, extrapyramidal, and endocrine AEs in patients with gastroparesis treated with domperidone and metoclopramide. Imprecise AE reporting limits firm interpretation and conclusions. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (registration number: CRD42021248888).

Clinical Presentations of Drug-Induced Hyperprolactinaemia: A Literature Review.

Screening for drug-induced hyperprolactinaemia, a condition characterised by higher-than-normal levels of serum prolactin induced by drug treatments, requires a comprehensive understanding of the clinical presentations and long-term complications of the condition. Using two databases, Embase and MEDLINE, we summarised the available evidence on the clinical presentations and long-term complications of drug-induced hyperprolactinaemia. Clinical and observational studies reporting on drug treatments known or suspected to induce hyperprolactinaemia were included. Database searches were limited to the English language; no date or geographic restrictions were applied. Fifty studies were identified for inclusion, comprising a variety of study designs and patient populations. Most data were reported in patients treated with antipsychotics, but symptoms were also described among patients receiving other drugs, such as prokinetic drugs and antidepressants. Notably, the diagnosis of drug-induced hyperprolactinaemia varied across studies since a standard definition of elevated prolactin levels was not consistently applied. Frequent clinical presentations of hyperprolactinaemia were menstrual cycle bleeding, breast or lactation disorders, and sexual dysfunctions, described in 80% (40/50), 74% (37/50), and 42% (21/50) of the included studies, respectively. In the few studies reporting such symptoms, the prevalence of vaginal dryness impacted up to 53% of females, and infertility in both sexes ranged from 15 to 31%. Clinicians should be aware of these symptoms related to drug-induced hyperprolactinaemia when treating patients with drugs that can alter prolactin levels. Future research should explore the long-term complications of drug-induced hyperprolactinaemia and apply accepted thresholds of elevated prolactin levels (i.e., 20 ng/mL for males and 25 ng/mL for females) to diagnose hyperprolactinaemia as a drug-induced adverse event.Trial Registration PROSPERO International Prospective Register Of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021245259).

Sex-based differences in outcomes for adult patients presenting to the emergency department with a concussion.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with concussion frequently present to the emergency department (ED). Studies of athletes and children indicate that concussion symptoms are often more severe and prolonged in females compared with males. Given infrequent study of concussion symptoms in the general adult population, the authors conducted a sex-based comparison of patients with concussion. METHODS: Adults (≥ 17 years of age) presenting with concussion to one of three urban Canadian EDs were recruited. Discharged patients were contacted by telephone 30 and 90 days later to capture the extent of persistent postconcussion symptoms using the Rivermead Post Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ). A multivariate logistic regression model for persistent symptoms that included biological sex was developed. RESULTS: Overall, 250 patients were included; 131 (52%) were women, and the median age of women was significantly higher than that of men (40 vs 32 years). Women had higher RPQ scores at baseline (p < 0.001) and the 30-day follow-up (p = 0.001); this difference resolved by 90 days. The multivariate logistic regression identified that women, patients having a history of sleep disorder, and those presenting to the ED with concussions after a motor vehicle collision were more likely to experience persistent symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: In a community concussion sample, inconsequential demographic differences existed between adult women and men on ED presentation. Based on self-reported and objective outcomes, work and daily activities may be more affected by concussion and persistent postconcussion symptoms for women than men. Further analysis of these differences is required to identify different treatment options and ensure adequate care and management of injury.

Systematic Review of Mind-Body Interventions to Treat Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

Background and Objectives: Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) is a chronic condition distinguished by disabling fatigue associated with post-exertional malaise, as well as changes to sleep, autonomic functioning, and cognition. Mind-body interventions (MBIs) utilize the ongoing interaction between the mind and body to improve health and wellbeing. Purpose: To systematically review studies using MBIs for the treatment of ME/CFS symptoms. Materials and Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched (inception to September 2020). Interventional studies on adults diagnosed with ME/CFS, using one of the MBIs in comparison with any placebo, standard of care treatment or waitlist control, and measuring outcomes relevant to the signs and symptoms of ME/CFS and quality of life were assessed for inclusion. Characteristics and findings of the included studies were summarized using a descriptive approach. Results: 12 out of 382 retrieved references were included. Seven studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with one including three reports (1 RCT, 2 single-arms); others were single-arm trials. Interventions included mindfulness-based stress reduction, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, relaxation, Qigong, cognitive-behavioral stress management, acceptance and commitment therapy and isometric yoga. The outcomes measured most often were fatigue severity, anxiety/depression, and quality of life. Fatigue severity and symptoms of anxiety/depression were improved in nine and eight studies respectively, and three studies found that MBIs improved quality of life. Conclusions: Fatigue severity, anxiety/depression and physical and mental functioning were shown to be improved in patients receiving MBIs. However, small sample sizes, heterogeneous diagnostic criteria, and a high risk of bias may challenge this result. Further research using standardized outcomes would help advance the field.

Immediate-release methylphenidate for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults.

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is characterized by symptoms of inattention or impulsivity or both, and hyperactivity, which affect children, adolescents, and adults. In some countries, methylphenidate is the first option to treat adults with moderate or severe ADHD. However, evidence on the efficacy and adverse events of immediate-release (IR) methylphenidate in the treatment of ADHD in adults is limited and controversial. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and harms (adverse events) of IR methylphenidate for treating ADHD in adults. SEARCH METHODS: In January 2020, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, eight additional databases and three trial registers. We also searched internal reports on the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration websites. We checked citations of included trials to identify additional trials not captured by the electronic searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IR methylphenidate, at any dose, with placebo or other pharmacological interventions (including extended-release formulations of methylphenidate) for ADHD in adults. Primary outcomes comprised changes in the symptoms of ADHD (efficacy) and harms. Secondary outcomes included changes in the clinical impression of severity and improvement, level of functioning, depression, anxiety and quality of life. Outcomes could have been rated by investigators or participants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data independently on the characteristics of the trials, participants, interventions; outcomes and financial conflict of interests. We resolved disagreements by discussion or consulting a third review author. We obtained additional, unpublished information from the authors of one included trial that had reported efficacy data in a graph. We calculated mean differences (MDs) or standardized MDs (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data reported on the same or different scales, respectively. We summarized dichotomous variables as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CI. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 trials published between 2001 and 2016 involving 497 adults with ADHD. Three trials were conducted in Europe and one in Argentina; the remaining trials did not report their location. The RCTs compared IR methylphenidate with placebo, an osmotic-release oral system (OROS) of methylphenidate (an extended-release formulation), an extended-release formulation of bupropion, lithium, and Pycnogenol® (maritime pine bark extract). Participants comprised outpatients, inpatients in addiction treatment, and adults willing to attend an intensive outpatient program for cocaine dependence. The duration of the follow-up ranged from 6 to 18 weeks. IR methylphenidate versus placebo We found very low-certainty evidence that, compared with placebo, IR methylphenidate may reduce symptoms of ADHD when measured with investigator-rated scales (MD -20.70, 95% CI -23.97 to -17.43; 1 trial, 146 participants; end scores; Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Report Scale (AISRS), scored from 0 to 54), but the evidence is uncertain. The effect of IR methylphenidate on ADHD symptoms when measured with participant-rated scales was moderate, but the certainty of the evidence is very low (SMD -0.59, 95% CI -1.25 to 0.06; I2 = 69%; 2 trials, 138 participants; end scores). There is very low-certainty evidence that, compared with placebo, IR methylphenidate may reduce the clinical impression of the severity of ADHD symptoms (MD -0.57, 95% CI -0.85 to -0.28; 2 trials, 139 participants; I2 = 0%; change and end scores; Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Severity scale (scored from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse))). There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with placebo, IR methylphenidate may slightly impact the clinical impression of an improvement in symptoms of ADHD (MD -0.94, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.51; 1 trial, 49 participants; end scores; CGI-Improvement scale (scored from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse))). There is no clear evidence of an effect on anxiety (MD -0.20, 95% CI -4.84 to 4.44; 1 trial, 19 participants; change scores; Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A; scored from 0 to 56); very low-certainty evidence) or depression (MD 2.80, 95% CI -0.09 to 5.69; 1 trial, 19 participants; change scores; Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D; scored from 0 to 52); very low-certainty evidence) in analyses comparing IR methylphenidate with placebo. IR methylphenidate versus lithium Compared with lithium, it is uncertain whether IR methylphenidate increases or decreases symptoms of ADHD (MD 0.60, 95% CI -3.11 to 4.31; 1 trial, 46 participants; end scores; Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale (scored from 0 to 198); very low-certainty evidence); anxiety (MD -0.80, 95% CI -4.49 to 2.89; 1 trial, 46 participants; end scores; HAM-A; very low-certainty evidence); or depression (MD -1.20, 95% CI -3.81 to 1.41, 1 trial, 46 participants; end scores; HAM-D scale; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included trials assessed participant-rated changes in symptoms of ADHD, or clinical impression of severity or improvement in participants treated with IR methylphenidate compared with lithium. Adverse events were poorly assessed and reported. We rated all trials at high risk of bias due to selective outcome reporting of harms and masking of outcome assessors (failure to blind outcome assessor to measure adverse events). Overall, four trials with 203 participants who received IR methylphenidate and 141 participants who received placebo described the occurrence of harms. The use of IR methylphenidate in these trials increased the risk of gastrointestinal complications (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.95) and loss of appetite (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.96). Cardiovascular adverse events were reported inconsistently, preventing a comprehensive analysis. One trial comparing IR methylphenidate to lithium reported five and nine adverse events, respectively. We considered four trials to have notable concerns of vested interests influencing the evidence, and authors from two trials omitted information related to the sources of funding and conflicts of interest. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no certain evidence that IR methylphenidate compared with placebo or lithium can reduce symptoms of ADHD in adults (low- and very low-certainty evidence). Adults treated with IR methylphenidate are at increased risk of gastrointestinal and metabolic-related harms compared with placebo. Clinicians should consider whether it is appropriate to prescribe IR methylphenidate, given its limited efficacy and increased risk of harms. Future RCTs should explore the long-term efficacy and risks of IR methylphenidate, and the influence of conflicts of interest on reported effects.

Efficacy and safety outcomes of proposed randomized controlled trials investigating hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIMS: To assess whether randomized clinical trials (RCTs) proposed to evaluate the treatment of patients with COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine (HQ) or chloroquine early in the pandemic included plans to measure outcomes that would translate into meaningful efficacy/effectiveness and safety outcomes. METHODS: The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform database was searched for registers of RCTs evaluating HQ or chloroquine, alone or in combination, compared with other treatments for patients diagnosed with COVID-19. The final search was performed on 8 April 2020. RESULTS: Among 51 registered RCTs (median sample size 262; interquartile range: 100, 520), 34 (67%) reported a clinical outcome, 12 (24%) a surrogate outcome, and 5 (10%) a combination of clinical and surrogate outcomes as primary endpoints. Six (15%) trials included the World Health Organization scale for clinical improvement as a primary clinical outcome. Clinical improvement and mortality accounted for 45% of the unique domains among 18 clinical outcome domains of efficacy. Twenty-four (47%) RCTs did not describe plans to assess safety outcomes; when assessed, safety outcomes were determined in generic terms of total, severe or serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: The RCTs investigating HQ or chloroquine during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic included heterogeneous and insufficient approaches to measure efficacy/effectiveness and safety relevant to patients and clinical practice. These findings provide insights to inform clinical and regulatory decisions that can be drawn about the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of these agents in patients with COVID-19. Trialists need to adapt quickly to the research progress on COVID-19, ensuring that core outcome measures are assessed in ongoing RCTs.

Correction to: Preventing emergency department visits among patients with cancer: a scoping review.

Table 2 is incorrect in the original manuscript. The correct table 2 is shown below.

Preventing emergency department visits among patients with cancer: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: The objective of this scoping review was to examine the effectiveness of supportive care interventions designed to reduce ED visits among patients receiving active cancer treatment. METHODS: Literature search involving nine electronic databases and grey literature. Inclusion criteria considered studies assessing the impact of any intervention to reduce ED utilization among patients with active cancer. Dichotomous and continuous outcomes were summarized as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model, wherever appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 25 studies were included. Interventions identified in these studies comprised the following: routine and symptom-based patient follow-up, oncology outpatient clinics, early symptom detection, comprehensive inpatient management, hospital at home, and patient navigators. Six out of eight studies assessing oncology outpatient clinics reported a decrease in the proportion of patients presenting to the ED. A meta-analysis of three of these studies did not demonstrate reduction in ED utilization (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.08; I2 = 77%) when comparing oncology outpatient clinics with standard care; however, sensitivity analysis supported a decrease in ED visits (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.99; I2 = 47%). Three studies assessing patient follow-up interventions showed no difference in ED utilization (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.38 to 1.25; I2 = 86%). CONCLUSION: A variety of supportive care interventions designed to mitigate ED presentations by patients receiving active cancer treatment have been developed and evaluated. Limited evidence suggests that an oncology outpatient clinic may be an effective strategy to reduce ED utilization; however, additional high-quality studies are needed.

Anticoagulantes orais diretos para o tratamento da trombose venosa profunda: revisão de revisões sistemáticas / Direct oral anticoagulants for treatment of deep vein thrombosis: overview of systematic reviews

A number of limitations of standard therapy with warfarin for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) have been established. This overview of systematic reviews presents the baseline results for efficacy and safety of the new direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) thrombin inhibitors, and activated factor X (Xa) inhibitors in patients with DVT. Searches were run on PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Twenty-three studies were retrieved, and one systematic review was judged eligible. This review scored maximum according to AMSTAR criteria and included 7,596 patients for analysis of thrombin inhibitors and 16,356 patients for analysis of factor Xa inhibitors. The results of the meta-analysis indicate that DOACs are similar for DVT treatment when compared to standard treatment with warfarin. The incidence of major bleeding is somewhat lower in patients treated with factor Xa inhibitors and similar to standard therapy when treated with direct thrombin inhibitors

A terapia padrão com varfarina para a trombose venosa profunda (TVP) tem uma série de limitações já estabelecidas. Essa revisão de revisões sistemáticas elenca os principais resultados de eficácia e segurança dos anticoagulantes orais diretos (DOACs), inibidores da trombina e do fator X ativado (Xa), em pacientes com TVP. A pesquisa foi realizada nas bases PubMed e Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Foram recuperados 23 estudos, e uma revisão sistemática foi considerada elegível. Essa revisão atingiu escore máximo no AMSTAR e incluiu 7.596 pacientes para análise dos inibidores da trombina e 16.356 pacientes para a análise dos inibidores do fator Xa. Os resultados da metanálise indicam que os DOACs apresentam eficácia similar à terapia padrão no tratamento da TVP. A incidência de sangramento maior é um pouco menor nos pacientes tratados com os inibidores do fator Xa e similar à terapia padrão no tratamento com inibidores diretos da trombina

Direct oral anticoagulants for treatment of deep vein thrombosis: overview of systematic reviews.

A number of limitations of standard therapy with warfarin for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) have been established. This overview of systematic reviews presents the baseline results for efficacy and safety of the new direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) thrombin inhibitors, and activated factor X (Xa) inhibitors in patients with DVT. Searches were run on PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Twenty-three studies were retrieved, and one systematic review was judged eligible. This review scored maximum according to AMSTAR criteria and included 7,596 patients for analysis of thrombin inhibitors and 16,356 patients for analysis of factor Xa inhibitors. The results of the meta-analysis indicate that DOACs are similar for DVT treatment when compared to standard treatment with warfarin. The incidence of major bleeding is somewhat lower in patients treated with factor Xa inhibitors and similar to standard therapy when treated with direct thrombin inhibitors.

Pentasaccharides for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: Standard treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is based on antithrombotic therapy, initially with parenteral administration of unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) for five to seven days, then subsequent long-term therapy with oral vitamin K antagonists (e.g. warfarin). Pentasaccharides are novel anticoagulants that may be favourable over standard therapy due to their predictable effect, no need for frequent monitoring or re-dosing, and few known drug interactions. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, a harmful effect of heparins, appears to be rare during treatment with pentasaccharides. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and harms of pentasaccharides for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (22 March 2017) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2017, Issue 2) (searched 22 March 2017). We searched clinical trials databases for details of ongoing or unpublished studies and the reference lists of relevant articles for additional citations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials in which people 18 years of age or older with a DVT confirmed by standard imaging techniques were allocated to receive a pentasaccharide (fondaparinux, idraparinux, or idrabiotaparinux) for the treatment of DVT in comparison with standard therapy or other treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data characterising the included trials according to the methods, participants, interventions, and outcomes. We assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool and employed the GRADE methodology to evaluate the quality of the evidence.The main primary outcome for efficacy was recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), and the main primary outcome for harm was major and clinically relevant bleeding. Since our outcomes were dichotomous, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We combined the effects of different comparisons through a meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: We included five randomised controlled trials of 6981 participants comparing pentasaccharides with standard therapy or other pentasaccharides. The quality of the evidence varied depending on the outcome and was judged as of moderate to very low quality. We downgraded the quality of the evidence due to risk of bias or imprecision, or both.Two studies evaluated fondaparinux, at doses of 5.0 mg, 7.5 mg, and 10.0 mg, plus vitamin K antagonist in comparison with standard therapy. A meta-analysis of these two studies showed no clear difference in the risk of recurrent VTE (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.47; 2658 participants); moderate-quality evidence. The frequencies of major bleeding were similar between interventions in the initial period of treatment (approximately five days) (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.44; 2645 participants) and at three months' follow-up (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.71; 2645 participants). We judged the quality of the evidence as moderate.One study (757 participants) compared idrabiotaparinux (3.0 mg) with idraparinux (2.5 mg) and demonstrated no clear difference in the risk of recurrent VTE at six months' follow-up (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.69); low-quality evidence. Major bleeding during the initial treatment period was not reported. Major bleeding at six-month follow-up was less frequent in participants receiving idrabiotaparinux versus participants treated with idraparinux (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.71); low-quality evidence.The effect of an initial treatment with LMWH followed by three months of idraparinux (10 mg) showed no clear difference from standard therapy for risk of recurrent VTE (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.26 to 8.90; 263 participants); very low-quality evidence; one study. Major bleeding during the initial treatment period was not reported. The frequency of major and other clinically relevant bleeding at three months' follow-up ranged from 2% to 15% in participants receiving LMWH and increasing doses of idraparinux of 2.5 mg, 5 mg, 7.5 mg, or 10 mg. When dosage groups were combined, there was no clear difference in major plus other clinically relevant bleeding or in major bleeding alone between the idraparinux treatment group and the standard therapy group (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.40; 659 participants; RR 3.76, 95% CI 0.50 to 28.19; 659 participants, respectively); very low-quality evidence.One study (2904 participants) compared idraparinux (2.5 mg) to standard therapy. There was no clear difference in the risk of recurrent VTE at three months' follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.48); low-quality evidence. Major bleeding during the initial treatment period was not reported. Major bleeding at three months of follow-up appeared to be similar in the idraparinux group and the standard therapy group (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.47); very low-quality evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate-quality evidence that the effects of fondaparinux at doses of 5.0 mg, 7.5 mg, and 10.0 mg plus vitamin K antagonist are similar in terms of recurrent VTE and risk of major bleeding compared with standard treatment for DVT.Low-quality evidence suggests equal efficacy of idraparinux at 2.5 mg and the equimolar dose of 3.0 mg of idrabiotaparinux with regard to recurrent VTE, but a higher frequency of major bleeding was observed in participants treated with idraparinux.We judged evidence on the effectiveness of idraparinux compared with standard therapy, with or without initial treatment with LMWH, and on associated bleeding risk to be low to very low quality, therefore we have very limited confidence in the estimated effects.The observed similar effectiveness in terms of recurrent DVT and harmful effects in terms of bleeding risk with fondaparinux plus vitamin K antagonist compared to standard treatment for DVT suggest that it may be an alternative to conventional anticoagulants for the treatment of DVT in certain circumstances.

Unfractionated heparin versus low molecular weight heparins for avoiding heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in postoperative patients.

BACKGROUND: Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an adverse drug reaction presenting as a prothrombotic disorder related to antibody-mediated platelet activation. It is a paradoxical immune reaction resulting in thrombin generation in vivo, which leads to a hypercoagulable state and the potential to initiate venous or arterial thrombosis. A number of factors are thought to influence the incidence of HIT including the type and preparation of heparin (unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH)) and the heparin-exposed patient population, with the postoperative patient population at higher risk.Although LMWH has largely replaced UFH as a front-line therapy, there is evidence supporting a lack of superiority of LMWH compared with UFH regarding prevention of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism following surgery, and similar frequencies of bleeding have been described with LMWH and UFH. The decision as to which of these two preparations of heparin to use may thus be influenced by harmful effects such as HIT. We therefore sought to determine the relative impact of UFH and LMWH on HIT in postoperative patients receiving thromboembolism prophylaxis. This is an update of a review first published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to compare the incidence of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and HIT complicated by venous thromboembolism in postoperative patients exposed to unfractionated heparin (UFH) versus low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). SEARCH METHODS: For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Specialised Register (May 2016), CENTRAL (2016, Issue 4) and trials registries. The authors searched Lilacs (June 2016) and additional trials were sought from reference lists of relevant publications. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which participants were postoperative patients allocated to receive prophylaxis with UFH or LMWH, in a blinded or unblinded fashion. Studies were excluded if they did not use the accepted definition of HIT. This was defined as a relative reduction in the platelet count of 50% or greater from the postoperative peak (even if the platelet count at its lowest remained greater than 150 x 109/L) occurring within five to 14 days after the surgery, with or without a thrombotic event occurring in this timeframe. Additionally, we required circulating antibodies associated with the syndrome to have been investigated through laboratory assays. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Disagreements were resolved by consensus with participation of a third author. MAIN RESULTS: In this update, we included three trials involving 1398 postoperative participants. Participants were submitted to general surgical procedures, minor and major, and the minimum mean age was 49 years. Pooled analysis showed a significant reduction in the risk of HIT with LMWH compared with UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.73); low-quality evidence. The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 59. The risk of HIT was consistently reduced comparing participants undergoing major surgical procedures exposed to LMWH or UFH (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.75); low-quality evidence. The occurrence of HIT complicated by venous thromboembolism was significantly lower in participants receiving LMWH compared with UFH (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.84); low-quality evidence. The NNTB was 75. Arterial thrombosis occurred in only one participant who received UFH. There were no amputations or deaths documented. Although limited evidence is available, it appears that HIT induced by both types of heparins is common in people undergoing major surgical procedures (incidence greater than 1% and less than 10%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated review demonstrated low-quality evidence of a lower incidence of HIT, and HIT complicated by venous thromboembolism, in postoperative patients undergoing thromboprophylaxis with LMWH compared with UFH. Similarily, the risk of HIT in people undergoing major surgical procedures was lower when treated with LMWH compared to UFH (low-quality evidence). The quality of the evidence was downgraded due to concerns about the risk of bias in the included studies and imprecision of the study results. These findings may support current clinical use of LMWH over UFH as front-line heparin therapy. However, our conclusions are limited and there was an unexpected paucity of RCTs including HIT as an outcome. To address the scarcity of clinically-relevant information on HIT, HIT must be included as a core harmful outcome in future RCTs of heparin.

The Brazilian Twin Registry.

The Brazilian Twin Registry (BTR) was established in 2013 and has impelled twin research in South America. The main aim of the initiative was to create a resource that would be accessible to the Brazilian scientific community as well as international researchers interested in the investigation of the contribution of genetic and environmental factors in the development of common diseases, phenotypes, and human behavior traits. The BTR is a joint effort between academic and governmental institutions from Brazil and Australia. The collaboration includes the Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG) in Brazil, the University of Sydney and University of Melbourne in Australia, the Australian Twin Registry, as well as the research foundations CNPq and CAPES in Brazil. The BTR is a member of the International Network of Twin Registries. Recruitment strategies used to register twins have been through participation in a longitudinal study investigating genetic and environmental factors for low back pain occurrence, and from a variety of sources including media campaigns and social networking. Currently, 291 twins are registered in the BTR, with data on demographics, zygosity, anthropometrics, and health history having been collected from 151 twins using a standardized self-reported questionnaire. Future BTR plans include the registration of thousands of Brazilian twins identified from different sources and collaborate nationally and internationally with other research groups interested on twin studies.