Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 1.501
Filtrar
1.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 1: CD001507, 2021 01 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33427303

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Phenylketonuria is an inherited disease for which the main treatment is the dietary restriction of the amino acid phenylalanine. The diet has to be initiated in the neonatal period to prevent or reduce mental handicap. However, the diet is very restrictive and unpalatable and can be difficult to follow. A deficiency of the amino acid tyrosine has been suggested as a cause of some of the neuropsychological problems exhibited in phenylketonuria. Therefore, this review aims to assess the efficacy of tyrosine supplementation for phenylketonuria. This is an update of previously published versions of this review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of tyrosine supplementation alongside or instead of a phenylalanine-restricted diet for people with phenylketonuria, who commenced on diet at diagnosis and either continued on the diet or relaxed the diet later in life. To assess the evidence that tyrosine supplementation alongside, or instead of a phenylalanine-restricted diet improves intelligence, neuropsychological performance, growth and nutritional status, mortality rate and quality of life. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Register which is comprised of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Additional studies were identified from handsearches of the Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease (from inception in 1978 to 1998). The manufacturers of prescribable dietary products used in the treatment of phenylketonuria were also contacted for further references. Date of the most recent search of the Group's Inborn Errors of Metabolism Trials Register: 07 December 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised trials investigating the use of tyrosine supplementation versus placebo in people with phenylketonuria in addition to, or instead of, a phenylalanine-restricted diet. People treated for maternal phenylketonuria were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the trial eligibility, methodological quality and extracted the data. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials were found, of which three trials reporting the results of a total of 56 participants, were suitable for inclusion in the review. The blood tyrosine concentrations were significantly higher in the participants receiving tyrosine supplements than those in the placebo group, mean difference 23.46 (95% confidence interval 12.87 to 34.05). No significant differences were found between any of the other outcomes measured. The trials were assessed as having a low to moderate risk of bias across several domains. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: From the available evidence no recommendations can be made about whether tyrosine supplementation should be introduced into routine clinical practice. Further randomised controlled studies are required to provide more evidence. However, given this is not an active area of research, we have no plans to update this review in the future.


Asunto(s)
Suplementos Dietéticos , Fenilcetonurias/tratamiento farmacológico , Tirosina/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Inteligencia/efectos de los fármacos , Pruebas Neuropsicológicas , Fenilalanina/sangre , Fenilcetonurias/sangre , Fenilcetonurias/dietoterapia , Placebos/uso terapéutico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Tirosina/sangre
2.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 1: CD009576, 2021 01 20.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33469915

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, pneumonia is the leading cause of death amongst children under five years of age, and accounts for approximately two million deaths annually. Pneumonia can be classified according to the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. Classification includes assessment of certain clinical signs and symptoms, and the severity of the disease. Treatment is then tailored according to the classification. For non-severe pneumonia, the WHO recommends treatment with oral antibiotics. We used the 2014 WHO definition of non-severe pneumonia for this review: an acute episode of cough, or difficulty in breathing, combined with fast breathing and chest indrawing. The WHO recommends treating non-severe pneumonia with oral antibiotics. Pneumonia is more commonly caused by viruses that do not require antibiotic treatment, but pneumonia caused by bacteria needs management with antibiotics to avoid complications. There is no clear way to quickly distinguish between viral and bacterial pneumonia. It is considered safe to give antibiotics, however, this may lead to the development of antibiotic resistance, and thus, limit their use in future infections. Therefore, it is essential to explore the efficacy of antibiotics for children with WHO-defined non-severe pneumonia and wheeze. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of antibiotic therapy versus no antibiotic therapy for children aged 2 to 59 months with WHO-defined non-severe pneumonia and wheeze. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, and two trial registers (December 2020). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of antibiotic therapy versus no antibiotic therapy for children, aged 2 to 59 months, with non-severe pneumonia and wheeze. We defined non-severe pneumonia as 'a cough or difficulty in breathing, with rapid breathing (a respiratory rate of 50 breaths per minute or more for children aged 2 to 12 months, or a respiratory rate of 40 breaths per minute or more for children aged 12 to 59 months), chest indrawing and wheeze'. We excluded trials involving children with severe or very severe pneumonia, and non-RCTs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Our primary outcomes were clinical cure and treatment failure; secondary outcomes were relapse, mortality, and treatment harms. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Two review authors independently assessed the search results, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence. We contacted the authors of two included trials and the author of the trial awaiting classification to obtain missing numerical outcome data. MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials involving 3256 children aged between 2 to 59 months, who exhibited features of non-severe pneumonia with wheeze. The included trials were multi-centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials carried out in Malawi, Pakistan, and India. The children were treated with a three-day course of amoxicillin or placebo, and were followed up for a total of two weeks. We assessed the included trials at overall low risk of bias for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, attrition bias, and selective reporting. Only one trial was assessed to be at high risk for blinding of outcome assessors. One trial is awaiting classification Antibiotic therapy may result in a reduction of treatment failure by 20% (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 0.94; three trials; 3222 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antibiotic therapy probably results in little or no difference to clinical cure (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; one trial; 456 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and in little or no difference to relapse (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.34; three trials; 2795 participants; low-certainty evidence), and treatment harms (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.09; three trials, 3253 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two trials (2112 participants ) reported on mortality; no deaths occurred in either group. One trial reported cases of hospitalisation, diarrhoea (with and without dehydration), rash (without itch), tremors, mild nausea and vomiting. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We do not currently have enough evidence to support or challenge the continued use of antibiotics for the treatment of non-severe pneumonia. There is a clear need for RCTs to address this question in children aged 2 to 59 months with 2014 WHO-defined non-severe pneumonia and wheeze.


Asunto(s)
Amoxicilina/uso terapéutico , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Neumonía/tratamiento farmacológico , Ruidos Respiratorios , Amoxicilina/efectos adversos , Antibacterianos/efectos adversos , Preescolar , Esquema de Medicación , Humanos , Lactante , Placebos/uso terapéutico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Recurrencia , Resultado del Tratamiento , Organización Mundial de la Salud
3.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 1: CD013133, 2021 01 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33448032

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) is associated with mortality and morbidity in preterm infants. In these infants, prophylactic use of indomethacin, a non-selective cyclooxygenase inhibitor, has demonstrated short-term clinical benefits. The effect of indomethacin in preterm infants with a symptomatic PDA remains unexplored. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of indomethacin (given by any route) compared to placebo or no treatment in reducing mortality and morbidity in preterm infants with a symptomatic PDA. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 7), in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions(R); and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), on 31 July 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs that compared indomethacin (any dose, any route) versus placebo or no treatment in preterm infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by at least two review authors. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: failure of PDA closure within one week of administration of the first dose of indomethacin; bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) at 28 days' postnatal age and at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age; proportion of infants requiring surgical ligation or transcatheter occlusion; all-cause neonatal mortality; necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) (≥ Bell stage 2); and mucocutaneous or gastrointestinal bleeding. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 RCTs (880 preterm infants). Four out of the 14 included studies were judged to have high risk of bias in one or more domains. Indomethacin administration was associated with a large reduction in failure of PDA closure within one week of administration of the first dose (risk ratio (RR) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.38; risk difference (RD) -0.52, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.45; 10 studies, 654 infants; high-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in the incidence of BPD (BPD defined as supplemental oxygen need at 28 days' postnatal age: RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.51; 1 study, 55 infants; low-certainty evidence; BPD defined as supplemental oxygen need at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age: RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.55; 1 study, 92 infants; low-certainty evidence) and probably little to no difference in mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.33; 8 studies, 314 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) with use of indomethacin for symptomatic PDA. No differences were demonstrated in the need for surgical PDA ligation (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.29; 7 studies, 275 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), in NEC (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.36 to 4.55; 2 studies, 147 infants; low-certainty evidence), or in mucocutaneous or gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.58; 2 studies, 119 infants; low-certainty evidence) with use of indomethacin compared to placebo or no treatment. Certainty of evidence for BPD, surgical PDA ligation, NEC, and mucocutaneous or gastrointestinal bleeding was downgraded for very serious or serious imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High-certainty evidence shows that indomethacin is effective in closing a symptomatic PDA compared to placebo or no treatment in preterm infants. Evidence is insufficient regarding effects of indomethacin on other clinically relevant outcomes and medication-related adverse effects.


Asunto(s)
Inhibidores de la Ciclooxigenasa/uso terapéutico , Conducto Arterioso Permeable/tratamiento farmacológico , Indometacina/uso terapéutico , Sesgo , Displasia Broncopulmonar/epidemiología , Causas de Muerte , Inhibidores de la Ciclooxigenasa/administración & dosificación , Inhibidores de la Ciclooxigenasa/efectos adversos , Conducto Arterioso Permeable/mortalidad , Conducto Arterioso Permeable/cirugía , Enterocolitis Necrotizante/inducido químicamente , Hemorragia Gastrointestinal/inducido químicamente , Humanos , Incidencia , Indometacina/administración & dosificación , Indometacina/efectos adversos , Recién Nacido de Bajo Peso , Recién Nacido , Recien Nacido Prematuro , Ligadura/estadística & datos numéricos , Terapia por Inhalación de Oxígeno/estadística & datos numéricos , Placebos/uso terapéutico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto/estadística & datos numéricos
4.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 1: CD011973, 2021 Jan 26.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33498095

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Portal hypertension commonly accompanies advanced liver disease and often gives rise to life-threatening complications, including haemorrhage from oesophageal and gastrointestinal varices. Variceal haemorrhage commonly occurs in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis. Therefore, prevention is important. Band ligation, beta-blockers, and sclerotherapy have been proposed as alternatives for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children. However, primary prophylaxis is not the current standard of care in paediatric patients because it is unknown whether those treatments are of benefit or harm when used for primary prophylaxis in children and adolescents. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index Expanded (April 2020). We screened the reference lists of the retrieved publications and manually searched the main paediatric gastroenterology and hepatology conference (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN) abstract books from 2008 to December 2019. We searched clinicaltrials.gov, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the World Health Organization (WHO) for ongoing clinical trials. We imposed no language or document type restrictions on our search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised clinical trials, irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status to assess benefits and harms. We included observational studies, retrieved with the searches for randomised clinical trials, for a narrative report of harm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We planned to summarise data from randomised clinical trials by standard Cochrane methodologies. We planned to asses risk of bias and use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and liver-related morbidity, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were oesophageal variceal bleeding and adverse events not considered serious. We planned to use intention-to-treat principle. We planned to analyse data with RevMan Analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We found no randomised clinical trials that assessed beta-blockers compared with sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis. We found four observational studies that reported on harms. As a systematic search for observational studies was not planned, we only listed the reported harms in a table. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Randomised clinical trials assessing the benefits or harms of beta-blockers versus placebo or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis are lacking. Therefore, trials with adequate power and proper design, assessing the benefits and harms of beta-blockers versus placebo on patient-relevant clinical outcomes, such as mortality, quality of life, failure to control variceal bleeding, and adverse events are needed. Unless such trials are conducted and the results become published, we cannot make any conclusions regarding the benefits or harms of the two interventions.


Asunto(s)
Antagonistas Adrenérgicos beta/efectos adversos , Várices Esofágicas y Gástricas/complicaciones , Hemorragia Gastrointestinal/prevención & control , Hepatopatías/complicaciones , Vena Porta , Trombosis de la Vena/complicaciones , Antagonistas Adrenérgicos beta/uso terapéutico , Niño , Enfermedad Crónica , Hemorragia Gastrointestinal/etiología , Humanos , Hipertensión Portal/complicaciones , Placebos/uso terapéutico , Prevención Primaria/métodos
6.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 99(51): e23785, 2020 Dec 18.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33371148

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effectiveness of non-invasive neuro-adaptive electrostimulation (NAE) therapy for treating chronic pain and disability in patients with fibromyalgia. METHOD/DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, sham-controlled study was conducted in 37 women with fibromyalgia. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either active NAE (n = 20) or stimulation with a sham device (n = 17). Participants in the experimental arm received eight 30-minute sessions over 4 weeks (2 sessions per week). The sham group received eight 30-minute sessions of sham stimulation. Therapeutic effects on pain relief, disability, and quality of life were evaluated using outcome measures at baseline, at 4 weeks, and after 3 months' follow-up. RESULTS: The findings indicated a significant reduction of pain in the active NAE group compared with the sham group immediately post-intervention, with a difference on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) of 3 points (P = .001), and at 3 months' follow-up (P = .02). There were significant intragroup differences between the groups (P < .05) at post-intervention. After the intervention, both groups presented significant reductions on the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) with respect to baseline (P = .004), but not at the 3-month follow-up. In the conditioned pain modulation (CPM) in thumb variable we found significant differences between the groups at the 3-month follow-up (P = .02). No additional benefits for conditioned pain modulation and disability were observed between groups at the 3-month follow-up. Furthermore, anxiety/depression and catastrophizing improved in both groups, but no differences between groups were found. CONCLUSIONS: In this fibromyalgia cohort, NAE therapy significantly improved pain and quality of life at 4 weeks, but not at 3-month follow-up, compared with the sham stimulation group. Future investigations are needed in larger populations to confirm these findings.


Asunto(s)
Terapia por Estimulación Eléctrica/métodos , Fibromialgia/terapia , Adulto , Análisis de Varianza , Estudios de Cohortes , Personas con Discapacidad/psicología , Método Doble Ciego , Terapia por Estimulación Eléctrica/normas , Terapia por Estimulación Eléctrica/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Fibromialgia/complicaciones , Fibromialgia/fisiopatología , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Dolor/etiología , Manejo del Dolor/métodos , Dimensión del Dolor/métodos , Placebos/uso terapéutico , Estudios Prospectivos , España/epidemiología , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Resultado del Tratamiento
7.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 12: CD012965, 2020 12 14.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33316083

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Acute bronchiolitis is a significant burden on children, their families and healthcare facilities. It mostly affects children younger than two years of age. Treatment involves adequate hydration, humidified oxygen supplementation, and nebulisation of medications, such as salbutamol, epinephrine, and hypertonic saline. The effectiveness of magnesium sulphate for acute bronchiolitis is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of magnesium sulphate in acute bronchiolitis in children up to two years of age. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, and two trials registries to 30 April 2020. We contacted trial authors to identify additional studies. We searched conference proceedings and reference lists of retrieved articles. Unpublished and published studies were eligible for inclusion. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, comparing magnesium sulphate, alone or with another treatment, with placebo or another treatment, in children up to two years old with acute bronchiolitis. Primary outcomes were time to recovery, mortality, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were duration of hospital stay, clinical severity score at 0 to 24 hours and 25 to 48 hours after treatment, pulmonary function test, hospital readmission within 30 days, duration of mechanical ventilation, and duration of intensive care unit stay. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE methods to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs (564 children). One study received funding from a hospital and one from a university; two studies did not report funding sources. Comparator interventions differed among all four trials. Studies were conducted in Qatar, Turkey, Iran, and India. We assessed two studies to be at an overall low risk of bias, and two to be at unclear risk of bias, overall. The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes and comparisons was very low except for one: hospital re-admission rate within 30 days of discharge for magnesium sulphate versus placebo. None of the studies measured time to recovery, duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of intensive care unit stay, or pulmonary function. There were no events of mortality or adverse effects for magnesium sulphate compared with placebo (1 RCT, 160 children). The effects of magnesium sulphate on clinical severity are uncertain (at 0 to 24 hours: mean difference (MD) on the Wang score 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.28 to 0.54; and at 25 to 48 hours: MD on the Wang score -0.42, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.00). Magnesium sulphate may increase hospital re-admission rate within 30 days of discharge (risk ratio (RR) 3.16, 95% CI 1.20 to 8.27; 158 children; low-certainty evidence). None of our primary outcomes were measured for magnesium sulphate compared with hypertonic saline (1 RCT, 220 children). Effects were uncertain on the duration of hospital stay in days (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.28), and on clinical severity on the Respiratory Distress Assessment Instrument (RDAI) score at 25 to 48 hours (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.59). There were no events of mortality or adverse effects for magnesium sulphate, with or without salbutamol, compared with salbutamol (1 RCT, 57 children). Effects on the duration of hospital stay were uncertain (magnesium sulphate: 24 hours (95% CI 25.8 to 47.4), magnesium sulphate + salbutamol: 20 hours (95% CI 15.3 to 39.0), and salbutamol: 24 hours (95% CI 23.4 to 76.9)). None of our primary outcomes were measured for magnesium sulphate + epinephrine compared with no treatment or normal saline + epinephrine (1 RCT,120 children). Effects were uncertain for the duration of hospital stay in hours (MD -0.40, 95% CI -3.94 to 3.14), and for RDAI scores (0 to 24 hours: MD -0.20, 95% CI -1.06 to 0.66; and 25 to 48 hours: MD -0.90, 95% CI -1.75 to -0.05). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to establish the efficacy and safety of magnesium sulphate for treating children up to two years of age with acute bronchiolitis. No evidence was available for time to recovery, duration of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit stay, or pulmonary function. There was no information about adverse events for some comparisons. Well-designed RCTs to assess the effects of magnesium sulphate for children with acute bronchiolitis are needed. Important outcomes, such as time to recovery and adverse events should be measured.


Asunto(s)
Bronquiolitis/tratamiento farmacológico , Broncodilatadores/uso terapéutico , Sulfato de Magnesio/uso terapéutico , Enfermedad Aguda , Albuterol/uso terapéutico , Sesgo , Broncodilatadores/administración & dosificación , Quimioterapia Combinada/métodos , Epinefrina/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Lactante , Recién Nacido , Tiempo de Internación , Sulfato de Magnesio/administración & dosificación , Readmisión del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Placebos/uso terapéutico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Solución Salina/uso terapéutico , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad
8.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 12: CD011679, 2020 12 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33320335

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Souvenaid is a dietary supplement with a patented composition (Fortasyn Connect™)which is intended to be used by people with Alzheimer's disease (AD). It has been designed to support the formation and function of synapses in the brain, which are thought to be strongly correlated with cognitive function. If effective, it might improve symptoms of Alzheimer's disease and also prevent the progression from prodromal Alzheimer's disease to dementia. We sought in this review to examine the evidence for this proposition. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of Souvenaid on incidence of dementia, cognition, functional performance, and safety in people with Alzheimer's disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, i.e. the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), Web of Science (ISI Web of Science), Cinahl (EBSCOhost), Lilacs (BIREME), and clinical trials registries up to 24 June 2020. We also reviewed citations of reference lists of landmark papers, reviews, and included studies for additional studies and assessed their suitability for inclusion in the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, placebo-controlled trials which evaluated Souvenaid in people diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD (also termed prodromal AD) or with dementia due to AD, and with a treatment duration of at least 16 weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Our primary outcome measures were incidence of dementia, global and specific cognitive function, functional performance, combined cognitive-functional outcomes and adverse events. We selected studies, extracted data, assessed the quality of trials and intended to conduct meta-analyses according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We rated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We present all outcomes grouped by stage of AD. MAIN RESULTS: We included three randomised, placebo-controlled trials investigating Souvenaid in 1097 community-dwelling participants with Alzheimer's disease. One study each included participants with prodromal AD, mild AD dementia and mild-to-moderate AD dementia. We rated the risks of bias of all trials as low. One study (in prodromal AD) was funded by European grants. The other two studies were funded by the manufacturer of Souvenaid. One trial investigated the incidence of dementia in people with prodromal AD at baseline, and found little to no difference between the Souvenaid group and the placebo group after 24 months (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.43; 1 trial, 311 participants; moderate quality of evidence). In prodromal AD, and in mild and mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease dementia, Souvenaid probably results in little or no difference in global or specific cognitive functions (moderate quality of evidence). Everyday function, or the ability to perform activities of daily living, were measured in mild and mild-to-moderate AD dementia. Neither study found evidence of a difference between the groups after 24 weeks of treatment (moderate quality of evidence). Two studies investigated combined cognitive-functional outcomes with the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes and observed conflicting results. Souvenaid probably results in slight improvement, which is below estimates of meaningful change, in participants with prodromal Alzheimer's disease after 24 months (moderate quality of evidence), but probably has little to no effect in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease dementia after 24 weeks (moderate quality of evidence). Adverse effects observed were low in all trials, and the available data were insufficient to determine any connection with Souvenaid. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Two years of treatment with Souvenaid probably does not reduce the risk of progression to dementia in people with prodromal AD. There is no convincing evidence that Souvenaid affects other outcomes important to people with AD in the prodromal stage or mild-to-moderate stages of dementia. Conflicting evidence on combined cognitive-functional outcomes in prodromal AD and mild AD dementia warrants further investigation. Adverse effects of Souvenaid seem to be uncommon, but the evidence synthesised in this review does not permit us to make a definitive statement on the long-term tolerability of Souvenaid. The effects of Souvenaid in more severe AD dementia or in people with AD at risk of nutritional deficiencies remain unclear.


Asunto(s)
Enfermedad de Alzheimer/dietoterapia , Suplementos Dietéticos , Ácidos Docosahexaenoicos/uso terapéutico , Ácido Eicosapentaenoico/uso terapéutico , Fosfolípidos/uso terapéutico , Sesgo , Cognición , Demencia/prevención & control , Suplementos Dietéticos/efectos adversos , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Ácidos Docosahexaenoicos/efectos adversos , Ácidos Docosahexaenoicos/química , Ácido Eicosapentaenoico/efectos adversos , Ácido Eicosapentaenoico/química , Humanos , Fosfolípidos/efectos adversos , Fosfolípidos/química , Placebos/uso terapéutico , Síntomas Prodrómicos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Factores de Tiempo
9.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 12: CD013154, 2020 12 17.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33331670

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a highly prevalent condition in an ever-increasing elderly population. Although insidious in the early stages, advanced AMD (neovascular and atrophic forms) can cause significant visual disability and economic burden on health systems worldwide. The most common form, geographic atrophy, has no effective treatment to date, whereas neovascular AMD can be treated with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections. Geographic atrophy has a slow disease progression and patients tend to have preserved central vision until the final stages. This tendency, coupled with the use of modern imaging modalities, provides a large window of opportunity to intervene with validated methods to assess treatment efficacy. As geographic atrophy is an increasingly common condition with no effective intervention, many treatments are under investigation, one of which is visual cycle modulators. These medications have been shown to reduce lipofuscin accumulation in pre-clinical studies that have led to several clinical trials, reviewed herein. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of visual cycle modulators for the prevention and treatment of geographic atrophy secondary to AMD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2020, Issue 1); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; Web of Science Core Collection; Scopus; Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) website; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP to 11 January 2020 with no language restrictions. We also searched using the reference lists of reviews and existing studies and the Cited Reference Search function in Web of Science to identify further relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised clinical studies (if available) that compared visual cycle modulators to placebo or no treatment (observation) in people diagnosed with AMD (early, intermediate or geographic atrophy). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed risk of bias in the included studies and extracted data. Both authors entered data into RevMan 5. We resolved discrepancies through discussion. We graded the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs from the USA; one of these had clinical sites in Germany. Two studies compared emixustat to placebo while the other compared fenretinide to placebo. All assigned one study eye per participant and, combined, have a total of 821 participants with a majority white ethnicity (97.6%). All participants were diagnosed with geographic atrophy due to AMD based on validated imaging modalities. All three studies have high risk of attrition bias mainly due to ocular adverse effects of emixustat and fenretinide. We considered only one study to be adequately conducted and reported with high risk of bias in only one domain (attrition bias). We considered the other two studies to be poorly reported and to have high risk of attrition bias and reporting bias. People with geographic atrophy treated with emixustat may not experience a clinically important change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between baseline and 24 months compared to people treated with placebo (mean difference (MD) 1.9 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.34 to 6.14, low-certainty evidence). Emixustat may also result in little or no difference in loss of 15 ETDRS letters or more of BCVA compared with placebo at 24 months (16.4% versus 18%) (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.4, low-certainty evidence). In terms of disease progression, emixustat may result in little or no difference in the annual growth rate of geographic atrophy compared with placebo (mean difference MD 0.09 mm2/year (95% CI -0.26 to 0.44, low-certainty evidence). All three studies reported adverse events of both drugs (emixustat: moderate-certainty evidence; fenretinide: low-certainty evidence). The main adverse events were ocular in nature and associated with the mechanism of action of the drugs. Delayed dark adaptation (emixustat: 54.5%; fenretinide: 39.3%) and chromatopsia (emixustat: 22.6%; fenretinide: 25.2%) were the most common adverse events reported, and were the most prevalent reasons for study dropout in emixustat trials. These effects were dose-dependent and resolved after drug cessation. No specific systemic adverse events were considered related to emixustat; only pruritus and rash were considered to be due to fenretinide. One emixustat study reported six deaths, none deemed related to the drug. None of the included RCTs reported the other pre-specified outcomes, including proportion of participants losing 10 letters or more, and mean change in macular sensitivity. We planned to investigate progression to advanced AMD (geographic atrophy or neovascular AMD) in prevention studies, including participants with early or intermediate AMD, but we identified no such studies. Two of the included studies reported an additional outcome - incidence of choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) - that was not in our published protocol. CNV onset may be reduced in those treated with emixustat but the evidence was uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.65, low-certainty evidence), or fenretinide (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.98, low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. A dose-dependent relationship was observed with emixustat. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence to support the use of visual cycle modulators (emixustat and fenretinide) for the treatment of established geographic atrophy due to AMD. The possible reduction in the incidence of CNV observed with fenretinide, and to a lesser extent, emixustat, requires formal assessment in focused studies.


Asunto(s)
Fenretinida/uso terapéutico , Atrofia Geográfica/tratamiento farmacológico , Atrofia Geográfica/prevención & control , Degeneración Macular/complicaciones , Éteres Fenílicos/uso terapéutico , Propanolaminas/uso terapéutico , Espera Vigilante , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Neovascularización Coroidal/epidemiología , Ensayos Clínicos Fase II como Asunto , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Fenretinida/efectos adversos , Atrofia Geográfica/etiología , Humanos , Incidencia , Éteres Fenílicos/efectos adversos , Placebos/uso terapéutico , Propanolaminas/efectos adversos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Agudeza Visual/efectos de los fármacos
10.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 12: CD006105, 2020 12 21.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33347618

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The use of insulin-sensitising agents, such as metformin, in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) who are undergoing ovulation induction or in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles has been widely studied. Metformin reduces hyperinsulinaemia and suppresses the excessive ovarian production of androgens. It is suggested that as a consequence metformin could improve assisted reproductive techniques (ART) outcomes, such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), pregnancy, and live birth rates. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of metformin as a co-treatment during IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in achieving pregnancy or live birth in women with PCOS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, the trial registries for ongoing trials, and reference lists of articles (from inception to 13 February 2020). SELECTION CRITERIA: Types of studies: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing metformin treatment with placebo or no treatment in women with PCOS who underwent IVF or ICSI treatment. TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS: women of reproductive age with anovulation due to PCOS with or without co-existing infertility factors. Types of interventions: metformin administered before and during IVF or ICSI treatment. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: live birth rate, incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the studies, extracted the data according to the protocol, and assessed study quality. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This updated review includes 13 RCTs involving a total of 1132 women with PCOS undergoing IVF/ICSI treatments. We stratified the analysis by type of ovarian stimulation protocol used (long gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-agonist) or short gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-antagonist)) to determine whether the type of stimulation used influenced the outcomes. We did not perform meta-analysis on the overall (both ovarian stimulation protocols combined) data for the outcomes of live birth and clinical pregnancy rates per woman because of substantial heterogeneity. In the long protocol GnRH-agonist subgroup, the pooled evidence showed that we are uncertain of the effect of metformin on live birth rate per woman when compared with placebo/no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.79; 6 RCTs; 651 women; I2 = 47%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance for live birth following placebo/no treatment is 28%, the chance following metformin would be between 27% and 51%. Only one study used short protocol GnRH-antagonist and reported live birth rate. Metformin may reduce live birth rate compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.79; 1 RCT; 153 women; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance for live birth following placebo/no treatment is 43%, the chance following metformin would be between 13% and 34% (short GnRH-antagonist protocol). We found that metformin may reduce the incidence of OHSS (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.72; 11 RCTs; 1091 women; I2 = 38%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 20% risk of OHSS without metformin, the corresponding risk using metformin would be between 6% and 14%. Using long protocol GnRH-agonist stimulation, metformin may increase clinical pregnancy rate per woman compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.63; 10 RCTs; 915 women; I2 = 13%; low-quality evidence). Using short protocol GnRH-antagonist, we are uncertain of the effect of metformin on clinical pregnancy rate per woman compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 9.14; 2 RCTs; 177 women; I2 = 87%; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of metformin on miscarriage rate per woman when compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.32; 8 RCTs; 821 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Metformin may result in an increase in side effects compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 3.35, 95% CI 2.34 to 4.79; 8 RCTs; 748 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). The overall quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. The main limitations were inconsistency, risk of bias, and imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated review on metformin versus placebo/no treatment before or during IVF/ICSI treatment in women with PCOS found no conclusive evidence that metformin improves live birth rates. In a long GnRH-agonist protocol, we are uncertain whether metformin improves live birth rates, but metformin may increase the clinical pregnancy rate. In a short GnRH-antagonist protocol, metformin may reduce live birth rates, although we are uncertain about the effect of metformin on clinical pregnancy rate. Metformin may reduce the incidence of OHSS but may result in a higher incidence of side effects. We are uncertain of the effect of metformin on miscarriage rate per woman.


Asunto(s)
Fertilización In Vitro , Hiperandrogenismo/tratamiento farmacológico , Hiperinsulinismo/tratamiento farmacológico , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico , Nacimiento Vivo/epidemiología , Metformina/uso terapéutico , Síndrome del Ovario Poliquístico/complicaciones , Aborto Espontáneo/epidemiología , Aborto Espontáneo/prevención & control , Sesgo , Intervalos de Confianza , Femenino , Humanos , Hipoglucemiantes/efectos adversos , Metformina/efectos adversos , Síndrome de Hiperestimulación Ovárica/epidemiología , Síndrome de Hiperestimulación Ovárica/prevención & control , Inducción de la Ovulación/métodos , Placebos/uso terapéutico , Embarazo , Índice de Embarazo , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Inyecciones de Esperma Intracitoplasmáticas
11.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 10: CD012859, 2020 10 19.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33075160

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause of patient dissatisfaction and may lead to prolonged hospital stay and higher costs of care along with more severe complications. Many antiemetic drugs are available for prophylaxis. They have various mechanisms of action and side effects, but there is still uncertainty about which drugs are most effective with the fewest side effects. OBJECTIVES: • To compare the efficacy and safety of different prophylactic pharmacologic interventions (antiemetic drugs) against no treatment, against placebo, or against each other (as monotherapy or combination prophylaxis) for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia • To generate a clinically useful ranking of antiemetic drugs (monotherapy and combination prophylaxis) based on efficacy and safety • To identify the best dose or dose range of antiemetic drugs in terms of efficacy and safety SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. The first search was performed in November 2017 and was updated in April 2020. In the update of the search, 39 eligible studies were found that were not included in the analysis (listed as awaiting classification). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness or side effects of single antiemetic drugs in any dose or combination against each other or against an inactive control in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. All antiemetic drugs belonged to one of the following substance classes: 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, D2 receptor antagonists, NK1 receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics. No language restrictions were applied. Abstract publications were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A review team of 11 authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and subsequently extracted data. We performed pair-wise meta-analyses for drugs of direct interest (amisulpride, aprepitant, casopitant, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, dolasetron, droperidol, fosaprepitant, granisetron, haloperidol, meclizine, methylprednisolone, metoclopramide, ondansetron, palonosetron, perphenazine, promethazine, ramosetron, rolapitant, scopolamine, and tropisetron) compared to placebo (inactive control). We performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) to estimate the relative effects and ranking (with placebo as reference) of all available single drugs and combinations. Primary outcomes were vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively, serious adverse events (SAEs), and any adverse event (AE). Secondary outcomes were drug class-specific side effects (e.g. headache), mortality, early and late vomiting, nausea, and complete response. We performed subgroup network meta-analysis with dose of drugs as a moderator variable using dose ranges based on previous consensus recommendations. We assessed certainty of evidence of NMA treatment effects for all primary outcomes and drug class-specific side effects according to GRADE (CINeMA, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). We restricted GRADE assessment to single drugs of direct interest compared to placebo. MAIN RESULTS: We included 585 studies (97,516 randomized participants). Most of these studies were small (median sample size of 100); they were published between 1965 and 2017 and were primarily conducted in Asia (51%), Europe (25%), and North America (16%). Mean age of the overall population was 42 years. Most participants were women (83%), had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II (70%), received perioperative opioids (88%), and underwent gynaecologic (32%) or gastrointestinal surgery (19%) under general anaesthesia using volatile anaesthetics (88%). In this review, 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were compared. Most studies investigated only single drugs (72%) and included an inactive control arm (66%). The three most investigated single drugs in this review were ondansetron (246 studies), dexamethasone (120 studies), and droperidol (97 studies). Almost all studies (89%) reported at least one efficacy outcome relevant for this review. However, only 56% reported at least one relevant safety outcome. Altogether, 157 studies (27%) were assessed as having overall low risk of bias, 101 studies (17%) overall high risk of bias, and 327 studies (56%) overall unclear risk of bias. Vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively Relative effects from NMA for vomiting within 24 hours (282 RCTs, 50,812 participants, 28 single drugs, and 36 drug combinations) suggest that 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs showed a clinically important benefit (defined as the upper end of the 95% confidence interval (CI) below a risk ratio (RR) of 0.8) compared to placebo. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs in preventing vomiting. However, single NK1 receptor antagonists showed treatment effects similar to most of the drug combinations. High-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs reduce vomiting (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.38, high certainty, rank 3/28 of single drugs); ramosetron (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, high certainty, rank 5/28); granisetron (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.54, high certainty, rank 6/28); dexamethasone (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.57, high certainty, rank 8/28); and ondansetron (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.60, high certainty, rank 13/28). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs probably reduce vomiting: fosaprepitant (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, moderate certainty, rank 1/28) and droperidol (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69, moderate certainty, rank 20/28). Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol showed clinically important benefit, but low doses showed no clinically important benefit. Aprepitant was used mainly at high doses, ramosetron at recommended doses, and fosaprepitant at doses of 150 mg (with no dose recommendation available). Frequency of SAEs Twenty-eight RCTs were included in the NMA for SAEs (10,766 participants, 13 single drugs, and eight drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for SAEs when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to low. Droperidol (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.08 to 9.71, low certainty, rank 6/13) may reduce SAEs. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 7.36, very low certainty, rank 11/13), ramosetron (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.74, very low certainty, rank 7/13), granisetron (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 13.15, very low certainty, rank 10/13), dexamethasone (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.85, very low certainty, rank 9/13), and ondansetron (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.10, very low certainty, rank 12/13). No studies reporting SAEs were available for fosaprepitant. Frequency of any AE Sixty-one RCTs were included in the NMA for any AE (19,423 participants, 15 single drugs, and 11 drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for any AE when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to moderate. Granisetron (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, moderate certainty, rank 7/15) probably has no or little effect on any AE. Dexamethasone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.08, low certainty, rank 2/15) and droperidol (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98, low certainty, rank 6/15) may reduce any AE. Ondansetron (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, low certainty, rank 9/15) may have little or no effect on any AE. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, very low certainty, rank 3/15) and ramosetron (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54, very low certainty, rank 11/15) on any AE. No studies reporting any AE were available for fosaprepitant. Class-specific side effects For class-specific side effects (headache, constipation, wound infection, extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, arrhythmia, and QT prolongation) of relevant substances, the certainty of evidence for the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs mostly ranged from very low to low. Exceptions were that ondansetron probably increases headache (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, moderate certainty, rank 18/23) and probably reduces sedation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, moderate certainty, rank 5/24) compared to placebo. The latter effect is limited to recommended and high doses of ondansetron. Droperidol probably reduces headache (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, moderate certainty, rank 5/23) compared to placebo. We have high-certainty evidence that dexamethasone (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09, high certainty, rank 16/24) has no effect on sedation compared to placebo. No studies assessed substance class-specific side effects for fosaprepitant. Direction and magnitude of network effect estimates together with level of evidence certainty are graphically summarized for all pre-defined GRADE-relevant outcomes and all drugs of direct interest compared to placebo in http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4066353. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found high-certainty evidence that five single drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron) reduce vomiting, and moderate-certainty evidence that two other single drugs (fosaprepitant and droperidol) probably reducevomiting, compared to placebo. Four of the six substance classes (5-HT3 receptor antagonists, D2 receptor antagonists, NK1 receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids) were thus represented by at least one drug with important benefit for prevention of vomiting. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than the corresponding single drugs in preventing vomiting. NK1 receptor antagonists were the most effective drug class and had comparable efficacy to most of the drug combinations. 5-HT3 receptor antagonists were the best studied substance class. For most of the single drugs of direct interest, we found only very low to low certainty evidence for safety outcomes such as occurrence of SAEs, any AE, and substance class-specific side effects. Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol were more effective than low doses for prevention of vomiting. Dose dependency of side effects was rarely found due to the limited number of studies, except for the less sedating effect of recommended and high doses of ondansetron. The results of the review are transferable mainly to patients at higher risk of nausea and vomiting (i.e. healthy women undergoing inhalational anaesthesia and receiving perioperative opioids). Overall study quality was limited, but certainty assessments of effect estimates consider this limitation. No further efficacy studies are needed as there is evidence of moderate to high certainty for seven single drugs with relevant benefit for prevention of vomiting. However, additional studies are needed to investigate potential side effects of these drugs and to examine higher-risk patient populations (e.g. individuals with diabetes and heart disease).


Asunto(s)
Anestesia General/efectos adversos , Antieméticos/uso terapéutico , Metaanálisis en Red , Náusea y Vómito Posoperatorios/prevención & control , Adulto , Quimioterapia Combinada , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Placebos/uso terapéutico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto
12.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 10: CD013399, 2020 10 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33038027

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The risk of venous thromboembolism is increased in adults and enhanced by asparaginase-based chemotherapy, and venous thromboembolism introduces a secondary risk of treatment delay and premature discontinuation of key anti-leukaemic agents, potentially compromising survival. Yet, the trade-off between benefits and harms of primary thromboprophylaxis in adults with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) treated according to asparaginase-based regimens is uncertain.  OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives were to assess the benefits and harms of primary thromboprophylaxis for first-time symptomatic venous thromboembolism in adults with ALL receiving asparaginase-based therapy compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis. The secondary objectives were to compare the benefits and harms of different groups of primary systemic thromboprophylaxis by stratifying the main results per type of drug (heparins, vitamin K antagonists, synthetic pentasaccharides, parenteral direct thrombin inhibitors, direct oral anticoagulants, and blood-derived products for antithrombin substitution). SEARCH METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive literature search on 02 June 2020, with no language restrictions, including (1) electronic searches of Pubmed/MEDLINE; Embase/Ovid; Scopus/Elsevier; Web of Science Core Collection/Clarivate Analytics; and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and (2) handsearches of (i) reference lists of identified studies and related reviews; (ii) clinical trials registries (ClinicalTrials.gov registry; the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry; the World Health Organisation's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP); and pharmaceutical manufacturers of asparaginase including Servier, Takeda, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Ohara Pharmaceuticals, and Kyowa Pharmaceuticals), and (iii) conference proceedings (from the annual meetings of the American Society of Hematology (ASH); the European Haematology Association (EHA); the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO); and the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH)). We conducted all searches from 1970 (the time of introduction of asparaginase in ALL treatment). We contacted the authors of relevant studies to identify any unpublished material, missing data, or information regarding ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs); including quasi-randomised, controlled clinical, cross-over, and cluster-randomised trial designs) comparing any parenteral/oral preemptive anticoagulant or mechanical intervention with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis, or comparing two different pre-emptive anticoagulant interventions in adults aged at least 18 years with ALL treated according to asparaginase-based chemotherapy regimens. For the description of harms, non-randomised observational studies with a control group were eligible for inclusion.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using a standardised data collection form, two review authors independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias for each outcome using standardised tools (RoB 2.0 tool for RCTs and ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised studies) and the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. Primary outcomes included first-time symptomatic venous thromboembolism, all-cause mortality, and major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included asymptomatic venous thromboembolism, venous thromboembolism-related mortality, adverse events (i.e. clinically relevant non-major bleeding and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia for trials using heparins), and quality of life. Analyses were performed according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. For non-randomised studies, we evaluated all studies (including studies judged to be at critical risk of bias in at least one of the ROBINS-I domains) in a sensitivity analysis exploring confounding.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 23 non-randomised studies that met the inclusion criteria of this review, of which 10 studies provided no outcome data for adults with ALL. We included the remaining 13 studies in the 'Risk of bias' assessment, in which we identified invalid control group definition in two studies and judged outcomes of nine studies to be at critical risk of bias in at least one of the ROBINS-I domains and outcomes of two studies at serious risk of bias. We did not assess the benefits of thromboprophylaxis, as no RCTs were included. In the main descriptive analysis of harms, we included two retrospective non-randomised studies with outcomes judged to be at serious risk of bias. One study evaluated antithrombin concentrates compared to no antithrombin concentrates. We are uncertain whether antithrombin concentrates have an effect on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.19 (intention-to-treat analysis); one study, 40 participants; very low certainty of evidence). We are uncertain whether antithrombin concentrates have an effect on venous thromboembolism-related mortality (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.94 (intention-to-treat analysis); one study, 40 participants; very low certainty of evidence). We do not know whether antithrombin concentrates have an effect on major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, and quality of life in adults with ALL treated with asparaginase-based chemotherapy, as data were insufficient. The remaining study (224 participants) evaluated prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin versus no prophylaxis. However, this study reported insufficient data regarding harms including all-cause mortality, major bleeding, venous thromboembolism-related mortality, clinically relevant non-major bleeding, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, and quality of life. In the sensitivity analysis of harms, exploring the effect of confounding, we also included nine non-randomised studies with outcomes judged to be at critical risk of bias primarily due to uncontrolled confounding. Three studies (179 participants) evaluated the effect of antithrombin concentrates and six studies (1224 participants) evaluated the effect of prophylaxis with different types of heparins. When analysing all-cause mortality; venous thromboembolism-related mortality; and major bleeding (studies of heparin only) including all studies with extractable outcomes for each comparison (antithrombin and low-molecular-weight heparin), we observed small study sizes; few events; wide CIs crossing the line of no effect; and substantial heterogeneity by visual inspection of the forest plots. Although the observed heterogeneity could arise through the inclusion of a small number of studies with differences in participants; interventions; and outcome assessments, the likelihood that bias due to uncontrolled confounding was the cause of heterogeneity is inevitable. Subgroup analyses were not possible due to insufficient data.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We do not know from the currently available evidence, if thromboprophylaxis used for adults with ALL treated according to asparaginase-based regimens is associated with clinically appreciable benefits and acceptable harms. The existing research on this question is solely of non-randomised design, seriously to critically confounded, and underpowered with substantial imprecision. Any estimates of effect based on the existing insufficient evidence is very uncertain and is likely to change with future research.


Asunto(s)
Anticoagulantes/uso terapéutico , Antineoplásicos/efectos adversos , Asparaginasa/efectos adversos , Leucemia-Linfoma Linfoblástico de Células Precursoras/tratamiento farmacológico , Tromboembolia Venosa/prevención & control , Adulto , Anticoagulantes/efectos adversos , Antitrombinas/efectos adversos , Antitrombinas/uso terapéutico , Sesgo , Causas de Muerte , Humanos , Placebos/uso terapéutico , Tromboembolia Venosa/inducido químicamente , Tromboembolia Venosa/mortalidad
13.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 10: CD004908, 2020 10 20.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33078388

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Women may experience differing types of pain and discomfort following birth, including cramping pain (often called after-birth pain) associated with uterine involution, where the uterus contracts to reduce blood loss and return the uterus to its non-pregnant size. This is an update of a review first published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological pain relief/analgesia for the relief of after-birth pains following vaginal birth. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (31 October 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing two different types of analgesia or analgesia versus placebo or analgesia versus no treatment, for the relief of after-birth pains following vaginal birth. Types of analgesia included pharmacological and non-pharmacological. Quasi-randomised trials were not eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, conducted 'Risk of bias' assessment, extracted data and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: In this update, we include 28 studies (involving 2749 women). The evidence identified in this review comes from middle- to high-income countries. Generally the trials were at low risk of selection bias, performance bias and attrition bias, but some trials were at high risk of bias due to selective reporting and lack of blinding. Our GRADE certainty of evidence assessments ranged from moderate to very low certainty, with downgrading decisions based on study limitations, imprecision, and (for one comparison) indirectness. Most studies reported our primary outcome of adequate pain relief as reported by the women. No studies reported data relating to neonatal adverse events, duration of hospital stay, or breastfeeding rates. Almost half of the included studies (11/28) excluded breastfeeding women from participating, making the evidence less generalisable to a broader group of women. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) compared to placebo NSAIDs are probably better than placebo for adequate pain relief as reported by the women (risk ratio (RR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.45 to 1.91; 11 studies, 946 women; moderate-certainty evidence). NSAIDs may reduce the need for additional pain relief compared to placebo (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.33; 4 studies, 375 women; low-certainty evidence). There may be a similar risk of maternal adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.41; 9 studies, 598 women; low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs compared to opioids NSAIDs are probably better than opioids for adequate pain relief as reported by the women (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.57; 5 studies, 560 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce the risk of maternal adverse events (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.89; 3 studies, 255 women; low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs may be better than opioids for the need for additional pain relief, but the wide CIs include the possibility that the two classes of drugs are similarly effective or that opioids are better (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.12; 2 studies, 232 women; low-certainty evidence). Opioids compared to placebo Opioids may be better than placebo for adequate pain relief as reported by the women (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.61; 5 studies, 299 women; low-certainty evidence). Opioids may reduce the need for additional pain relief compared to placebo (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.82; 3 studies, 273 women; low-certainty evidence). Opioids may increase the risk of maternal adverse events compared with placebo, although the certainty of evidence is low (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.55; 3 studies, 188 women; low-certainty evidence). Paracetamol compared to placebo Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if paracetamol is better than placebo for adequate pain relief as reported by the women, the need for additional pain relief, or risk of maternal adverse events (2 studies, 123 women). Paracetamol compared to NSAIDs Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if there are any differences between paracetamol and NSAIDs for adequate pain relief as reported by the women, or the risk of maternal adverse events. No data were reported about the need for additional pain relief comparing paracetamol and NSAIDs (2 studies, 112 women). NSAIDs compared to herbal analgesia We are uncertain if there are any differences between NSAIDs and herbal analgesia for adequate pain relief as reported by the women, the need for additional pain relief, or risk of maternal adverse events, because the certainty of evidence is very low (4 studies, 394 women). Transcutaneous nerve stimulation (TENS) compared to no TENS Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if TENS is better than no TENS for adequate pain relief as reported by the women. No other data were reported comparing TENS with no TENS (1 study, 32 women). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: NSAIDs may be better than placebo and are probably better than opioids at relieving pain from uterine cramping/involution following vaginal birth. NSAIDs and paracetamol may be as effective as each other, whereas opioids may be more effective than placebo. Due to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the effectiveness of other forms of pain relief. Future trials should recruit adequate numbers of women and ensure greater generalisability by including breastfeeding women. In addition, further research is required, including a survey of postpartum women to describe appropriately their experience of uterine cramping and involution. We identified nine ongoing studies, which may help to increase the level of certainty of the evidence around pain relief due to uterine cramping in future updates of this review.


Asunto(s)
Analgesia Obstétrica/métodos , Calambre Muscular/complicaciones , Dolor/tratamiento farmacológico , Contracción Uterina/fisiología , Enfermedades Uterinas/tratamiento farmacológico , Acetaminofén/uso terapéutico , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapéutico , Antiinflamatorios no Esteroideos/uso terapéutico , Sesgo , Femenino , Humanos , Miometrio , Placebos/uso terapéutico , Periodo Posparto , Embarazo , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Estimulación Eléctrica Transcutánea del Nervio , Útero/fisiología
14.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD011216, 2020 Sep 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32871021

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Pain after caesarean sections (CS) can affect the well-being of the mother and her ability with her newborn. Conventional pain-relieving strategies are often underused because of concerns about the adverse maternal and neonatal effects. Complementary alternative therapies (CAM) may offer an alternative for post-CS pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of CAM for post-caesarean pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, LILACS, PEDro, CAMbase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (6 September 2019), and checked the reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including quasi-RCTs and cluster-RCTs, comparing CAM, alone or associated with other forms of pain relief, versus other treatments or placebo or no treatment, for the treatment of post-CS pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 37 studies (3076 women) which investigated eight different CAM therapies for post-CS pain relief. There is substantial heterogeneity among the trials. We downgraded the certainty of evidence due to small numbers of women participating in the trials and to risk of bias related to lack of blinding and inadequate reporting of randomisation processes. None of the trials reported pain at six weeks after discharge. Primary outcomes were pain and adverse effects, reported per intervention below. Secondary outcomes included vital signs, rescue analgesic requirement at six weeks after discharge; all of which were poorly reported, not reported, or we are uncertain as to the effect Acupuncture or acupressure We are very uncertain if acupuncture or acupressure (versus no treatment) or acupuncture or acupressure plus analgesia (versus placebo plus analgesia) has any effect on pain because the quality of evidence is very low. Acupuncture or acupressure plus analgesia (versus analgesia) may reduce pain at 12 hours (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.64 to 0.07; 130 women; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) and 24 hours (SMD -0.63, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.26; 2 studies; 130 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether acupuncture or acupressure (versus no treatment) or acupuncture or acupressure plus analgesia (versus analgesia) has any effect on the risk of adverse effects because the quality of evidence is very low. Aromatherapy Aromatherapy plus analgesia may reduce pain when compared with placebo plus analgesia at 12 hours (mean difference (MD) -2.63 visual analogue scale (VAS), 95% CI -3.48 to -1.77; 3 studies; 360 women; low-certainty evidence) and 24 hours (MD -3.38 VAS, 95% CI -3.85 to -2.91; 1 study; 200 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if aromatherapy plus analgesia has any effect on adverse effects (anxiety) compared with placebo plus analgesia. Electromagnetic therapy Electromagnetic therapy may reduce pain compared with placebo plus analgesia at 12 hours (MD -8.00, 95% CI -11.65 to -4.35; 1 study; 72 women; low-certainty evidence) and 24 hours (MD -13.00 VAS, 95% CI -17.13 to -8.87; 1 study; 72 women; low-certainty evidence). Massage We identified six studies (651 women), five of which were quasi-RCTs, comparing massage (foot and hand) plus analgesia versus analgesia. All the evidence relating to pain, adverse effects (anxiety), vital signs and rescue analgesic requirement was very low-certainty. Music Music plus analgesia may reduce pain when compared with placebo plus analgesia at one hour (SMD -0.84, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.46; participants = 115; studies = 2; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence), 24 hours (MD -1.79, 95% CI -2.67 to -0.91; 1 study; 38 women; low-certainty evidence), and also when compared with analgesia at one hour (MD -2.11, 95% CI -3.11 to -1.10; 1 study; 38 women; low-certainty evidence) and at 24 hours (MD -2.69, 95% CI -3.67 to -1.70; 1 study; 38 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether music plus analgesia has any effect on adverse effects (anxiety), when compared with placebo plus analgesia because the quality of evidence is very low. Reiki We are uncertain if Reiki plus analgesia compared with analgesia alone has any effect on pain, adverse effects, vital signs or rescue analgesic requirement because the quality of evidence is very low (one study, 90 women). Relaxation Relaxation may reduce pain compared with standard care at 24 hours (MD -0.53 VAS, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.01; 1 study; 60 women; low-certainty evidence). Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation TENS (versus no treatment) may reduce pain at one hour (MD -2.26, 95% CI -3.35 to -1.17; 1 study; 40 women; low-certainty evidence). TENS plus analgesia (versus placebo plus analgesia) may reduce pain compared with placebo plus analgesia at one hour (SMD -1.10 VAS, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.82; 3 studies; 238 women; low-certainty evidence) and at 24 hours (MD -0.70 VAS, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.53; 108 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). TENS plus analgesia (versus placebo plus analgesia) may reduce heart rate (MD -7.00 bpm, 95% CI -7.63 to -6.37; 108 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) and respiratory rate (MD -1.10 brpm, 95% CI -1.26 to -0.94; 108 women; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if TENS plus analgesia (versus analgesia) has any effect on pain at six hours or 24 hours, or vital signs because the quality of evidence is very low (two studies, 92 women). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Some CAM therapies may help reduce post-CS pain for up to 24 hours. The evidence on adverse events is too uncertain to make any judgements on safety and we have no evidence about the longer-term effects on pain. Since pain control is the most relevant outcome for post-CS women and their clinicians, it is important that future studies of CAM for post-CS pain measure pain as a primary outcome, preferably as the proportion of participants with at least moderate (30%) or substantial (50%) pain relief. Measuring pain as a dichotomous variable would improve the certainty of evidence and it is easy to understand for non-specialists. Future trials also need to be large enough to detect effects on clinical outcomes; measure other important outcomes as listed lin this review, and use validated scales.


Asunto(s)
Cesárea/efectos adversos , Terapias Complementarias/métodos , Dolor Postoperatorio/terapia , Acupresión , Analgesia por Acupuntura , Adolescente , Adulto , Analgesia Obstétrica/métodos , Analgésicos/administración & dosificación , Aromaterapia , Sesgo , Terapia Combinada/métodos , Femenino , Humanos , Masaje , Musicoterapia , Placebos/uso terapéutico , Embarazo , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Terapia por Relajación , Tacto Terapéutico , Estimulación Eléctrica Transcutánea del Nervio , Adulto Joven
15.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD008652, 2020 09 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32877573

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: This is the second update of this systematic review. High blood pressure represents a major public health problem. Worldwide, approximately one-fourth of the adult population has hypertension. Epidemiological and experimental studies suggest a link between hyperuricaemia and hypertension. Hyperuricaemia affects 25% to 40% of those with untreated hypertension; a much lower prevalence has been reported in those with normotension or in the general population. However, whether lowering serum uric acid (UA) might lower blood pressure (BP), is an unanswered question. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether UA-lowering agents reduce BP in people with primary hypertension or prehypertension, compared with placebo. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to May 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL 2018, Issue 12, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched LILACS (1982 to May 2020), and contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language or date restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: To be included in this updated review, the studies had to meet the following criteria: 1) randomised or quasi-randomised, with a group assigned to receive a UA-lowering agent and another group assigned to receive placebo; 2) double-blind, single-blind, or open-label; 3) parallel or cross-over trial design; 4) cross-over trials had to have a washout period of at least two weeks; 5) minimum treatment duration of four weeks; 6) participants had to have a diagnosis of essential hypertension or prehypertension plus hyperuricaemia (serum UA greater than 6 mg/dL in women, 7 mg/dL in men, and 5.5 mg/dL in children or adolescents); 7) outcome measures included change in 24-hour ambulatory systolic or diastolic BP, or both; or clinic-measured systolic or diastolic BP, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The two review authors independently collected the data using a data extraction form, and resolved any disagreements via discussion. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: In this review update, we screened 722 records, selected 26 full-text reports for evaluation. We identified no ongoing studies and did not add any new studies. We included three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), enrolling 211 people with hypertension or prehypertension, plus hyperuricaemia. Low-certainty evidence from three RCTs found inconclusive results between those who received UA-lowering drugs and placebo, in 24-hour ambulatory systolic (MD -6.2 mmHg, 95% CI -12.8 to 0.5) or diastolic BP (-3.9 mmHg, 95% CI -9.2 to 1.4). Low-certainty evidence from two RCTs found that UA-lowering drugs reduced clinic-measured systolic BP (-8.43 mmHg, 95% CI -15.24 to -1.62) but results for clinic-measured diastolic BP were inconclusive (-6.45 mmHg, 95% CI -13.60 to 0.70). High-certainty evidence from three RCTs found that serum UA levels were reduced by 3.1 mg/dL (95% CI 2.4 to 3.8) in the participants that received UA-lowering drugs. Low-certainty evidence from three RCTs found inconclusive results regarding the occurrence of adverse events between those who received UA-lowering drugs and placebo (RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.43 to 8.10). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this updated Cochrane Review, the current RCT data are insufficient to know whether UA-lowering therapy lowers BP. More studies are needed.


Asunto(s)
Alopurinol/uso terapéutico , Hipertensión/tratamiento farmacológico , Hiperuricemia/tratamiento farmacológico , Uricosúricos/uso terapéutico , Adolescente , Adulto , Presión Sanguínea/efectos de los fármacos , Niño , Humanos , Hipertensión/complicaciones , Hiperuricemia/complicaciones , Pacientes Desistentes del Tratamiento/estadística & datos numéricos , Placebos/uso terapéutico , Prehipertensión/tratamiento farmacológico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto
16.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD007667, 2020 09 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32880105

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Antisocial personality disorder (AsPD) is associated with rule-breaking, criminality, substance use, unemployment, relationship difficulties, and premature death. Certain types of medication (drugs) may help people with AsPD. This review updates a previous Cochrane review, published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and adverse effects of pharmacological interventions for adults with AsPD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 13 other databases and two trials registers up to 5 September 2019. We also checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in which adults (age 18 years and over) with a diagnosis of AsPD or dissocial personality disorder were allocated to a pharmacological intervention or placebo control condition. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias and created 'Summary of findings tables' and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE framework. The primary outcomes were: aggression; reconviction; global state/global functioning; social functioning; and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 studies (three new to this update), involving 416 participants with AsPD. Most studies (10/11) were conducted in North America. Seven studies were conducted exclusively in an outpatient setting, one in an inpatient setting, and one in prison; two studies used multiple settings. The average age of participants ranged from 28.6 years to 45.1 years (overall mean age 39.6 years). Participants were predominantly (90%) male. Study duration ranged from 6 to 24 weeks, with no follow-up period. Data were available from only four studies involving 274 participants with AsPD. All the available data came from unreplicated, single reports, and did not allow independent statistical analysis to be conducted. Many review findings were limited to descriptive summaries based on analyses carried out and reported by the trial investigators. No study set out to recruit participants on the basis of having AsPD; many participants presented primarily with substance abuse problems. The studies reported on four primary outcomes and six secondary outcomes. Primary outcomes were aggression (six studies) global/state functioning (three studies), social functioning (one study), and adverse events (seven studies). Secondary outcomes were leaving the study early (eight studies), substance misuse (five studies), employment status (one study), impulsivity (one study), anger (three studies), and mental state (three studies). No study reported data on the primary outcome of reconviction or the secondary outcomes of quality of life, engagement with services, satisfaction with treatment, housing/accommodation status, economic outcomes or prison/service outcomes.   Eleven different drugs were compared with placebo, but data for AsPD participants were only available for five comparisons. Three classes of drug were represented: antiepileptic; antidepressant; and dopamine agonist (anti-Parkinsonian) drugs. We considered selection bias to be unclear in 8/11 studies, attrition bias to be high in 7/11 studies, and performance bias to be low in 7/11 studies. Using GRADE, we rated the certainty of evidence for each outcome in this review as very low, meaning that we have very little confidence in the effect estimates reported. Phenytoin (antiepileptic) versus placebo One study (60 participants) reported very low-certainty evidence that phenytoin (300 mg/day), compared to placebo, may reduce the mean frequency of aggressive acts per week (phenytoin mean = 0.33, no standard deviation (SD) reported; placebo mean = 0.51, no SD reported) in male prisoners with aggression (skewed data) at endpoint (six weeks). The same study (60 participants) reported no evidence of difference between phenytoin and placebo in the number of participants reporting the adverse event of nausea during week one (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 16.76; very low-certainty evidence). The study authors also reported that no important side effects were detectable via blood cell counts or liver enzyme tests (very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure reconviction, global/state functioning or social functioning. Desipramine (antidepressant) versus placebo One study (29 participants) reported no evidence of a difference between desipramine (250 to 300 mg/day) and placebo on mean social functioning scores (desipramine = 0.19; placebo = 0.21), assessed with the family-social domain of the Addiction Severity Index (scores range from zero to one, with higher values indicating worse social functioning), at endpoint (12 weeks) (very low-certainty evidence). Neither of the studies included in this comparison measured the other primary outcomes: aggression; reconviction; global/state functioning; or adverse events. Nortriptyline (antidepressant) versus placebo One study (20 participants) reported no evidence of a difference between nortriptyline (25 to 75 mg/day) and placebo on mean global state/functioning scores (nortriptyline = 0.3; placebo = 0.7), assessed with the Symptom Check List-90 (SCL-90) Global Severity Index (GSI; mean of subscale scores, ranging from zero to four, with higher scores indicating greater severity of symptoms), at endpoint (six months) in men with alcohol dependency (very low-certainty evidence). The study measured side effects but did not report data on adverse events for the AsPD subgroup. The study did not measure aggression, reconviction or social functioning. Bromocriptine (dopamine agonist) versus placebo One study (18 participants) reported no evidence of difference between bromocriptine (15 mg/day) and placebo on mean global state/functioning scores (bromocriptine = 0.4; placebo = 0.7), measured with the GSI of the SCL-90 at endpoint (six months) (very low-certainty evidence). The study did not provide data on adverse effects, but reported that 12 patients randomised to the bromocriptine group experienced severe side effects, five of whom dropped out of the study in the first two days due to nausea and severe flu-like symptoms (very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure aggression, reconviction and social functioning. Amantadine (dopamine agonist) versus placebo The study in this comparison did not measure any of the primary outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence summarised in this review is insufficient to draw any conclusion about the use of pharmacological interventions in the treatment of antisocial personality disorder. The evidence comes from single, unreplicated studies of mostly older medications. The studies also have methodological issues that severely limit the confidence we can draw from their results. Future studies should recruit participants on the basis of having AsPD, and use relevant outcome measures, including reconviction.


Asunto(s)
Trastorno de Personalidad Antisocial/tratamiento farmacológico , Psicotrópicos/uso terapéutico , Adulto , Agresión/efectos de los fármacos , Trastornos Relacionados con Alcohol/tratamiento farmacológico , Amantadina/uso terapéutico , Ansiedad/tratamiento farmacológico , Bromocriptina/uso terapéutico , Desipramina/uso terapéutico , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Nortriptilina/uso terapéutico , Fenitoína/uso terapéutico , Placebos/uso terapéutico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto
17.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD007239, 2020 09 29.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32987448

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Despite the health benefits of breastfeeding, initiation and duration rates continue to fall short of international guidelines. Many factors influence a woman's decision to wean; the main reason cited for weaning is associated with lactation complications, such as mastitis. Mastitis is an inflammation of the breast, with or without infection. It can be viewed as a continuum of disease, from non-infective inflammation of the breast to infection that may lead to abscess formation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of preventive strategies (for example, breastfeeding education, pharmacological treatments and alternative therapies) on the occurrence or recurrence of non-infective or infective mastitis in breastfeeding women post-childbirth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (3 October 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of interventions for preventing mastitis in postpartum breastfeeding women. Quasi-randomised controlled trials and trials reported only in abstract form were eligible. We attempted to contact the authors to obtain any unpublished results, wherever possible.  Interventions for preventing mastitis may include: probiotics, specialist breastfeeding advice and holistic approaches.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 trials (3034 women). Nine trials (2395 women) contributed data. Generally, the trials were at low risk of bias in most domains but some were high risk for blinding, attrition bias, and selective reporting. Selection bias (allocation concealment) was generally unclear. The certainty of evidence was downgraded due to risk of bias and to imprecision (low numbers of women participating in the trials). Conflicts of interest on the part of trial authors, and the involvement of industry funders may also have had an impact on the certainty of the evidence. Most trials reported our primary outcome of incidence of mastitis but there were almost no data relating to adverse effects, breast pain, duration of breastfeeding, nipple damage, breast abscess or recurrence of mastitis. Probiotics versus placebo Probiotics may reduce the risk of mastitis more than placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 0.75; 2 trials; 399 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if probiotics reduce the risk of breast pain or nipple damage because the certainty of evidence is very low. Results for the biggest of these trials (639 women) are currently unavailable due to a contractual agreement between the probiotics supplier and the trialists. Adverse effects were reported in one trial, where no woman in either group experienced any adverse effects. Antibiotics versus placebo or usual care The risk of mastitis may be similar between antibiotics and usual care or placebo (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.34; 3 trials; 429 women; low-certainty evidence). The risk of mastitis may be similar between antibiotics and fusidic acid ointment (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.81; 1 trial; 36 women; low-certainty evidence) or mupirocin ointment (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.05 to 3.89; 1 trial; 44 women; low-certainty evidence) but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. None of the trials reported adverse effects. Topical treatments versus breastfeeding advice The risk of mastitis may be similar between fusidic acid ointment and breastfeeding advice (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.22; 1 trial; 40 women; low-certainty evidence) and mupirocin ointment and breastfeeding advice (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.35; 1 trial; 48 women; low-certainty evidence) but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. One trial (42 women) compared topical treatments to each other. The risk of mastitis may be similar between fusidic acid and mupirocin (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.00; low-certainty evidence) but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. Adverse events were not reported. Specialist breastfeeding education versus usual care The risk of mastitis (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.17 to 4.95; 1 trial; 203 women; low-certainty evidence) and breast pain (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.37; 1 trial; 203 women; low-certainty evidence) may be similar but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. Adverse events were not reported. Anti-secretory factor-inducing cereal versus standard cereal The risk of mastitis (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.72; 1 trial; 29 women; low-certainty evidence) and recurrence of mastitis (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.03 to 4.57; 1 trial; 7 women; low-certainty evidence) may be similar but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. Adverse events were not reported. Acupoint massage versus routine care Acupoint massage probably reduces the risk of mastitis compared to routine care (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.78;1 trial; 400 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and breast pain (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.23; 1 trial; 400 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported. Breast massage and low frequency pulse treatment versus routine care Breast massage and low frequency pulse treatment may reduce risk of mastitis (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.21; 1 trial; 300 women; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that acupoint massage is probably better than routine care, probiotics may be better than placebo, and breast massage and low frequency pulse treatment may be better than routine care for preventing mastitis. However, it is important to note that we are aware of at least one large trial investigating probiotics whose results have not been made public, therefore, the evidence presented here is incomplete. The available evidence regarding other interventions, including breastfeeding education, pharmacological treatments and alternative therapies, suggests these may be little better than routine care for preventing mastitis but our conclusions are uncertain due to the low certainty of the evidence. Future trials should recruit sufficiently large numbers of women in order to detect clinically important differences between interventions and results of future trials should be made publicly available.


Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos/administración & dosificación , Lactancia Materna/efectos adversos , Mastitis/prevención & control , Educación del Paciente como Asunto , Sesgo , Grano Comestible/química , Femenino , Ácido Fusídico/administración & dosificación , Humanos , Masaje/métodos , Mupirocina/administración & dosificación , Neuropéptidos/administración & dosificación , Pomadas/administración & dosificación , Placebos/uso terapéutico , Probióticos/uso terapéutico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto
18.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD008333, 2020 09 29.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32990324

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Anti-neutrophilic cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) are a group of rare auto-inflammatory diseases that affects mainly small vessels. AAV includes: granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA). Anti-cytokine targeted therapy uses biological agents capable of specifically targeting and neutralising cytokine mediators of the inflammatory response. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of anti-cytokine targeted therapy for adults with AAV. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2019, Issue 7), MEDLINE and Embase up to 16 August 2019. We also examined reference lists of articles, clinical trial registries, websites of regulatory agencies and contacted manufacturers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials of targeted anti-cytokine therapy in adults (18 years or older) with AAV compared with placebo, standard therapy or another modality and anti-cytokine therapy of different type or dose. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs with a total of 440 participants (mean age 48 to 56 years). We analysed the studies in three groups: 1) mepolizumab (300 mg; three separate injections every four weeks for 52 weeks) versus placebo in participants with relapsing or refractory EGPA; 2) belimumab (10 mg/kg on days 0, 14, 28 and every 28 days thereafter until 12 months after the last participant was randomised) or etanercept (25 mg twice a week) with standard therapy (median 25 months) versus placebo with standard therapy (median 19 months) in participants with GPA/MPA; and 3) infliximab (3 mg/kg on days 1 and 14, before the response assessment on day 42) versus rituximab (0.375g/m2 on days 1, 8, 15 and 22) in participants with refractory GPA for up to 12 months. None of the studies were assessed as low risk of bias in all domains: one study did not report randomisation or blinding methods clearly. Three studies were at high risk and one study was at unclear risk of bias for selective outcome reporting. One trial with 136 participants with relapsing or refractory EGPA compared mepolizumab with placebo during 52 weeks of follow-up and observed one death in the mepolizumab group (1/68, 1.5%) and none in the placebo group (0/68, 0%) (Peto odds ratio (OR) 7.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 372.38; low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence suggests that more participants in the mepolizumab group had ≥ 24 weeks of accrued remission over 52 weeks compared to placebo (27.9% versus 2.9%; risk ratio (RR) 9.5, 95% CI 2.30 to 39.21), and durable remission within the first 24 weeks sustained until week 52 (19.1% mepolizumab versus 1.5% placebo; RR 13.0, 95% CI 1.75 to 96.63; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 6, 95% Cl 4 to 13). Mepolizumab probably decreases risk of relapse (55.8% versus 82.4%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.86; NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 9; moderate-certainty evidence). There was low-certainty evidence regarding similar frequency of adverse events (AEs): total AEs (96.9% versus 94.1%; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.11), serious AEs (17.7% versus 26.5%; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.28) and withdrawals due to AEs (2.9% versus 1.5%; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.54). Disease flares were not measured. Based on two trials with different follow-up periods (mean of 27 months for etanercept study; up to four years for belimumab study) including people with GPA (n = 263) and a small group of participants with MPA (n = 22) analysed together, we found low-certainty evidence suggesting that adding an active drug (etanercept or belimumab) to standard therapy does not increase or reduce mortality (3.4% versus 1.4%; Peto OR 2.45, 95% CI 0.55 to 10.97). Etanercept may have little or no effect on remission (92.3% versus 89.5%; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.07), durable remission (70% versus 75.3%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; low-certainty evidence) and disease flares (56% versus 57.1%; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.27; moderate-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence suggests that belimumab does not increase or reduce major relapse (1.9% versus 0%; RR 2.94, 95% CI 0.12 to 70.67) or any AE (92.5% versus 82.7%; RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.29). Low-certainty evidence suggests a similar frequency of serious or severe AEs (47.6% versus 47.6%; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.27), but more frequent withdrawals due to AEs in the active drug group (11.2%) compared to the placebo group (4.2%), RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.07 to 6.59). One trial involving 17 participants with refractory GPA compared infliximab versus rituximab added to steroids and cytotoxic agents for 12 months. One participant died in each group (Peto OR 0.88, 95% CI, 0.05 to 15.51; 11% versus 12.5%). We have very low-certainty evidence for remission (22% versus 50%, RR 0.44, 95% Cl 0.11 to 1.81) and durable remission (11% versus 50%, RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.60), any severe AE (22.3% versus 12.5%; RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.2 to 16.1) and withdrawals due to AEs (0% versus 0%; RR 2.70, 95% CI 0.13 to 58.24). Disease flare/relapse and the frequency of any AE were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found four studies but concerns about risk of bias and small sample sizes preclude firm conclusions. We found moderate-certainty evidence that in patients with relapsing or refractory EGPA, mepolizumab compared to placebo probably decreases disease relapse and low-certainty evidence that mepolizumab may increase the probability of accruing at least 24 weeks of disease remission. There were similar frequencies of total and serious AEs in both groups, but the study was too small to reliably assess these outcomes. Mepolizumab may result in little to no difference in mortality. However, there were very few events. In participants with GPA (and a small subgroup of participants with MPA), etanercept or belimumab may increase the probability of withdrawal due to AEs and may have little to no impact on serious AEs. Etanercept may have little or no impact on durable remission and probably does not reduce disease flare.


Asunto(s)
Vasculitis Asociada a Anticuerpos Citoplasmáticos Antineutrófilos/tratamiento farmacológico , Inmunosupresores/administración & dosificación , Vasculitis Asociada a Anticuerpos Citoplasmáticos Antineutrófilos/mortalidad , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/administración & dosificación , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/efectos adversos , Síndrome de Churg-Strauss/tratamiento farmacológico , Etanercept/administración & dosificación , Etanercept/efectos adversos , Granulomatosis con Poliangitis/tratamiento farmacológico , Humanos , Inmunosupresores/efectos adversos , Infliximab/administración & dosificación , Infliximab/efectos adversos , Poliangitis Microscópica/tratamiento farmacológico , Persona de Mediana Edad , Números Necesarios a Tratar , Placebos/uso terapéutico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Rituximab/administración & dosificación , Rituximab/efectos adversos , Prevención Secundaria , Esteroides/administración & dosificación
19.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD009402, 2020 09 21.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32956536

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Skeletal muscle cramps are common and often occur in association with pregnancy, advanced age, exercise or motor neuron disorders (such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis). Typically, such cramps have no obvious underlying pathology, and so are termed idiopathic. Magnesium supplements are marketed for the prophylaxis of cramps but the efficacy of magnesium for this purpose remains unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2012, and performed to identify and incorporate more recent studies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of magnesium supplementation compared to no treatment, placebo control or other cramp therapies in people with skeletal muscle cramps.   SEARCH METHODS: On 9 September 2019, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, CINAHL Plus, AMED, and SPORTDiscus. We also searched WHO-ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov for registered trials that might be ongoing or unpublished, and ISI Web of Science for studies citing the studies included in this review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of magnesium supplementation (in any form) to prevent skeletal muscle cramps in any patient group (i.e. all clinical presentations of cramp). We considered comparisons of magnesium with no treatment, placebo control, or other therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. Two review authors assessed risk of bias. We attempted to contact all study authors when questions arose and obtained participant-level data for four of the included trials, one of which was unpublished. We collected all data on adverse effects from the included RCTs. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 11 trials (nine parallel-group, two cross-over) enrolling a total of 735 individuals, amongst whom 118 cross-over participants additionally served as their own controls. Five trials enrolled women with pregnancy-associated leg cramps (408 participants) and five trials enrolled people with idiopathic cramps (271 participants, with 118 additionally crossed over to control). Another study enrolled 29 people with liver cirrhosis, only some of whom suffered muscle cramps. All trials provided magnesium as an oral supplement, except for one trial which provided magnesium as a series of slow intravenous infusions. Nine trials compared magnesium to placebo, one trial compared magnesium to no treatment, calcium carbonate or vitamin B, and another trial compared magnesium to vitamin E or calcium. We judged the single trial in people with liver cirrhosis and all five trials in participants with pregnancy-associated leg cramps to be at high risk of bias. In contrast, we rated the risk of bias high in only one of five trials in participants with idiopathic rest cramps. For idiopathic cramps, largely in older adults (mean age 61.6 to 69.3 years) presumed to have nocturnal leg cramps (the commonest presentation), differences in measures of cramp frequency when comparing magnesium to placebo were small, not statistically significant, and showed minimal heterogeneity (I² = 0% to 12%). This includes the primary endpoint, percentage change from baseline in the number of cramps per week at four weeks (mean difference (MD) -9.59%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -23.14% to 3.97%; 3 studies, 177 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and the difference in the number of cramps per week at four weeks (MD -0.18 cramps/week, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.49; 5 studies, 307 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The percentage of individuals experiencing a 25% or better reduction in cramp rate from baseline was also no different (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.29; 3 studies, 177 participants; high-certainty evidence). Similarly, no statistically significant difference was found at four weeks in measures of cramp intensity or cramp duration. This includes the number of participants rating their cramps as moderate or severe at four weeks (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.21; 2 studies, 91 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and the percentage of participants with the majority of cramp durations of one minute or more at four weeks (RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.74 to 4.53, 1 study, 46 participants; low-certainty evidence). We were unable to perform meta-analysis for trials of pregnancy-associated leg cramps. The single study comparing magnesium to no treatment failed to find statistically significant benefit on a three-point ordinal scale of overall treatment efficacy. Of the three trials comparing magnesium to placebo, one found no benefit on frequency or intensity measures, another found benefit for both, and a third reported inconsistent results for frequency that could not be reconciled. The single study in people with liver cirrhosis was small and had limited reporting of cramps, but found no difference in terms of cramp frequency or cramp intensity. Our analysis of adverse events pooled all studies, regardless of the setting in which cramps occurred. Major adverse events (occurring in 2 out of 72 magnesium recipients and 3 out of 68 placebo recipients), and withdrawals due to adverse events, were not significantly different from placebo. However, in the four studies for which it could be determined, more participants experienced minor adverse events in the magnesium group than in the placebo group (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.33; 4 studies, 254 participants; low-certainty evidence). Overall, oral magnesium was associated with mostly gastrointestinal adverse events (e.g. diarrhoea), experienced by 11% (10% in control) to 37% (14% in control) of participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is unlikely that magnesium supplementation provides clinically meaningful cramp prophylaxis to older adults experiencing skeletal muscle cramps. In contrast, for those experiencing pregnancy-associated rest cramps the literature is conflicting and further research in this population is needed. We found no RCTs evaluating magnesium for exercise-associated muscle cramps or disease-state-associated muscle cramps (for example amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease) other than a single small (inconclusive) study in people with liver cirrhosis, only some of whom suffered cramps.


Asunto(s)
Magnesio/uso terapéutico , Calambre Muscular/tratamiento farmacológico , Músculo Esquelético , Complicaciones del Embarazo/tratamiento farmacológico , Adulto , Factores de Edad , Anciano , Estudios Cruzados , Femenino , Humanos , Magnesio/efectos adversos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Calambre Muscular/etiología , Placebos/uso terapéutico , Embarazo , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto
20.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 9: CD011293, 2020 09 14.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32926419

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a common long-term respiratory disease affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide. Approximately half of people with asthma have an important allergic component to their disease, which may provide an opportunity for targeted treatment. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) aims to reduce asthma symptoms by delivering increasing doses of an allergen (e.g. house dust mite, pollen extract) under the tongue to induce immune tolerance. Fifty-two studies were identified and synthesised in the original Cochrane Review in 2015, but questions remained about the safety and efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy for people with asthma. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy compared with placebo or standard care for adults and children with asthma. SEARCH METHODS: The original searches for trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and reference lists of all primary studies and review articles found trials up to 25 March 2015. The most recent search for trials for the current update was conducted on 29 October 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel randomised controlled trials, irrespective of blinding or duration, that evaluated sublingual immunotherapy versus placebo or as an add-on to standard asthma management. We included both adults and children with asthma of any severity and with any allergen-sensitisation pattern. We included studies that recruited participants with asthma, rhinitis, or both, providing at least 80% of trial participants had a diagnosis of asthma. We selected outcomes to reflect recommended outcomes for asthma clinical trials and those most important to people with asthma. Primary outcomes were asthma exacerbations requiring a visit to the emergency department (ED) or admission to hospital, validated measures of quality of life, and all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes were asthma symptom scores, exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids, response to provocation tests, and dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the search results for included trials, extracted numerical data, and assessed risk of bias, all of which were cross-checked for accuracy. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or risk differences (RDs) using study participants as the unit of analysis; we analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects models. We considered the strength of evidence for all primary and secondary outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-six studies met the inclusion criteria for this update, including 52 studies from the original review. Most studies were double-blind and placebo-controlled, varied in duration from one day to three years, and recruited participants with mild or intermittent asthma, often with comorbid allergic rhinitis. Twenty-three studies recruited adults and teenagers; 31 recruited only children; three recruited both; and nine did not specify. The pattern of reporting and results remained largely unchanged from the original review despite 14 further studies and a 50% increase in participants studied (5077 to 7944). Reporting of primary efficacy outcomes to measure the impact of SLIT on asthma exacerbations and quality of life was infrequent, and selective reporting may have had a serious effect on the completeness of the evidence; 16 studies did not contribute any data, and a further six studies could only be included in a post hoc analysis of all adverse events. Allocation procedures were generally not well described; about a quarter of the studies were at high risk of performance or detection bias (or both); and participant attrition was high or unknown in around half of the studies. The primary outcome in most studies did not align with those of interest to the review (mostly asthma or rhinitis symptoms), and only two small studies reported our primary outcome of exacerbations requiring an ED or hospital visit; the pooled estimate from these studies suggests SLIT may reduce exacerbations compared with placebo or usual care, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 1.20; n = 108; very low-certainty evidence). Nine studies reporting quality of life could not be combined in a meta-analysis and, whilst the direction of effect mostly favoured SLIT, the effects were often uncertain and small. SLIT likely does not increase SAEs compared with placebo or usual care, and analysis by risk difference suggests no more than 1 in 100 people taking SLIT will have a serious adverse event (RD -0.0004, 95% CI -0.0072 to 0.0064; participants = 4810; studies = 29; moderate-certainty evidence). Regarding secondary outcomes, asthma symptom and medication scores were mostly measured with non-validated scales, which precluded meaningful meta-analysis or interpretation, but there was a general trend of SLIT benefit over placebo. Changes in ICS use (MD -17.13 µg/d, 95% CI -61.19 to 26.93; low-certainty evidence), exacerbations requiring oral steroids (studies = 2; no events), and bronchial provocation (SMD 0.99, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.82; low-certainty evidence) were not often reported. Results were imprecise and included the possibility of important benefit or little effect and, in some cases, potential harm from SLIT. More people taking SLIT had adverse events of any kind compared with control (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.67; high-certainty evidence; participants = 4251; studies = 27), but events were usually reported to be transient and mild. Lack of data prevented most of the planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite continued study in the field, the evidence for important outcomes such as exacerbations and quality of life remains too limited to draw clinically useful conclusions about the efficacy of SLIT for people with asthma. Trials mostly recruited mixed populations with mild and intermittent asthma and/or rhinitis and focused on non-validated symptom and medication scores. The review findings suggest that SLIT may be a safe option for people with well-controlled mild-to-moderate asthma and rhinitis who are likely to be at low risk of serious harm, but the role of SLIT for people with uncontrolled asthma requires further evaluation.


Asunto(s)
Asma/terapia , Inmunoterapia Sublingual/métodos , Adolescente , Adulto , Animales , Niño , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Placebos/uso terapéutico , Polen , Pyroglyphidae , Calidad de Vida , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Rinitis Alérgica/terapia , Inmunoterapia Sublingual/efectos adversos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...