Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 1.514
Filtrar
1.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 2: CD013306, 2021 02 22.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33704781

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) describes a broad spectrum of cognitive impairments caused by cerebrovascular disease, ranging from mild cognitive impairment to dementia. There are currently no pharmacological treatments recommended for improving either cognition or function in people with VCI. Three cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine) are licenced for the treatment of dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. They are thought to work by compensating for reduced cholinergic neurotransmission, which is also a feature of VCI. Through pairwise comparisons with placebo and a network meta-analysis, we sought to determine whether these medications are effective in VCI and whether there are differences between them with regard to efficacy or adverse events. OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess the efficacy and safety of cholinesterase inhibitors in the treatment of adults with vascular dementia and other VCI. (2) To compare the effects of different cholinesterase inhibitors on cognition and adverse events, using network meta-analysis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), LILACS (BIREME), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 19 August 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials in which donepezil, galantamine, or rivastigmine was compared with placebo or in which the drugs were compared with each other in adults with vascular dementia or other VCI (excluding cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL)). We included all drug doses and routes of administration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified eligible trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. The primary outcomes were cognition, clinical global impression, function (performance of activities of daily living), and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were serious adverse events, incidence of development of new dementia, behavioural disturbance, carer burden, institutionalisation, quality of life and death. For the pairwise analyses, we pooled outcome data at similar time points using random-effects methods. We also performed a network meta-analysis using Bayesian methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight trials (4373 participants) in the review. Three trials studied donepezil 5 mg or 10 mg daily (n= 2193); three trials studied rivastigmine at a maximum daily dose of 3 to 12 mg (n= 800); and two trials studied galantamine at a maximum daily dose of 16 to 24 mg (n= 1380). The trials included participants with possible or probable vascular dementia or cognitive impairment following stroke. Mean ages were between 72.2 and 73.9 years. All of the trials were at low or unclear risk of bias in all domains, and the evidence ranged from very low to high level of certainty. For cognition, the results showed that donepezil 5 mg improves cognition slightly, although the size of the effect is unlikely to be clinically important (mean difference (MD) -0.92 Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) points (range 0 to 70), 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.44 to -0.40; high-certainty evidence). Donepezil 10 mg (MD -2.21 ADAS-Cog points, 95% CI -3.07 to -1.35; moderate-certainty evidence) and galantamine 16 to 24 mg (MD -2.01 ADAS-Cog point, 95%CI -3.18 to -0.85; moderate-certainty evidence) probably also improve cognition, although the larger effect estimates still may not be clinically important. With low certainty, there may be little to no effect of rivastigmine 3 to 12 mg daily on cognition (MD 0.03 ADAS-Cog points, 95% CI -3.04 to 3.10; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events reported in the studies included nausea and/or vomiting, diarrhoea, dizziness, headache, and hypertension. The results showed that there was probably little to no difference between donepezil 5 mg and placebo in the number of adverse events (odds ratio (OR) 1.22, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.58; moderate-certainty evidence), but there were slightly more adverse events with donepezil 10 mg than with placebo (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.15; high-certainty evidence). The effect of rivastigmine 3 to 12 mg on adverse events was very uncertain (OR 3.21, 95% CI 0.36 to 28.88; very low-certainty evidence). Galantamine 16 to 24 mg is probably associated with a slight excess of adverse events over placebo (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.43; moderate-certainty evidence). In the network meta-analysis (NMA), we included cognition to represent benefit, and adverse events to represent harm. All drugs ranked above placebo for cognition and below placebo for adverse events. We found donepezil 10 mg to rank first in terms of benefit, but third in terms of harms, when considering the network estimates and quality of evidence. Galantamine was ranked second in terms of both benefit and harm. Rivastigmine had the lowest ranking of the cholinesterase inhibitors in both benefit and harm NMA estimates, but this may reflect possibly inadequate doses received by some trial participants and small trial sample sizes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate- to high-certainty evidence that donepezil 5 mg, donepezil 10 mg, and galantamine have a slight beneficial effect on cognition in people with VCI, although the size of the change is unlikely to be clinically important. Donepezil 10 mg and galantamine 16 to 24 mg are probably associated with more adverse events than placebo. The evidence for rivastigmine was less certain. The data suggest that donepezil 10 mg has the greatest effect on cognition, but at the cost of adverse effects. The effect is modest, but in the absence of any other treatments, people living with VCI may still wish to consider the use of these agents. Further research into rivastigmine is needed, including the use of transdermal patches.


Assuntos
Inibidores da Colinesterase/administração & dosagem , Demência Vascular/tratamento farmacológico , Donepezila/administração & dosagem , Galantamina/administração & dosagem , Metanálise em Rede , Rivastigmina/administração & dosagem , Atividades Cotidianas , Viés , Inibidores da Colinesterase/efeitos adversos , Cognição/efeitos dos fármacos , Donepezila/efeitos adversos , Galantamina/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Nootrópicos/administração & dosagem , Nootrópicos/efeitos adversos , Desempenho Físico Funcional , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Rivastigmina/efeitos adversos
2.
N Engl J Med ; 384(12): 1101-1112, 2021 03 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33761207

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The oral Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor abrocitinib, which reduces interleukin-4 and interleukin-13 signaling, is being investigated for the treatment of atopic dermatitis. Data from trials comparing JAK1 inhibitors with monoclonal antibodies, such as dupilumab, that block interleukin-4 receptors are limited. METHODS: In a phase 3, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned patients with atopic dermatitis that was unresponsive to topical agents or that warranted systemic therapy (in a 2:2:2:1 ratio) to receive 200 mg or 100 mg of abrocitinib orally once daily, 300 mg of dupilumab subcutaneously every other week (after a loading dose of 600 mg), or placebo; all the patients received topical therapy. The primary end points were an Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) response (defined as a score of 0 [clear] or 1 [almost clear] on the IGA [scores range from 0 to 4], with an improvement of ≥2 points from baseline) and an Eczema Area and Severity Index-75 (EASI-75) response (defined as ≥75% improvement from baseline in the score on the EASI [scores range from 0 to 72]) at week 12. The key secondary end points were itch response (defined as an improvement of ≥4 points in the score on the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale [scores range from 0 to 10]) at week 2 and IGA and EASI-75 responses at week 16. RESULTS: A total of 838 patients underwent randomization; 226 patients were assigned to the 200-mg abrocitinib group, 238 to the 100-mg abrocitinib group, 243 to the dupilumab group, and 131 to the placebo group. An IGA response at week 12 was observed in 48.4% of patients in the 200-mg abrocitinib group, 36.6% in the 100-mg abrocitinib group, 36.5% in the dupilumab group, and 14.0% in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both abrocitinib doses vs. placebo); an EASI-75 response at week 12 was observed in 70.3%, 58.7%, 58.1%, and 27.1%, respectively (P<0.001 for both abrocitinib doses vs. placebo). The 200-mg dose, but not the 100-mg dose, of abrocitinib was superior to dupilumab with respect to itch response at week 2. Neither abrocitinib dose differed significantly from dupilumab with respect to most other key secondary end-point comparisons at week 16. Nausea occurred in 11.1% of the patients in the 200-mg abrocitinib group and 4.2% of those in the 100-mg abrocitinib group, and acne occurred in 6.6% and 2.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, abrocitinib at a dose of either 200 mg or 100 mg once daily resulted in significantly greater reductions in signs and symptoms of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis than placebo at weeks 12 and 16. The 200-mg dose, but not the 100-mg dose, of abrocitinib was superior to dupilumab with respect to itch response at week 2. Neither abrocitinib dose differed significantly from dupilumab with respect to most other key secondary end-point comparisons at week 16. (Funded by Pfizer; JADE COMPARE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03720470.).


Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/uso terapêutico , Dermatite Atópica/tratamento farmacológico , Inibidores de Proteínas Quinases/administração & dosagem , Pirimidinas/administração & dosagem , Sulfonamidas/administração & dosagem , Administração Oral , Adulto , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/efeitos adversos , Relação Dose-Resposta a Droga , Método Duplo-Cego , Feminino , Humanos , Imunoglobulina A/sangue , Injeções Subcutâneas , Subunidade alfa de Receptor de Interleucina-4/antagonistas & inibidores , Janus Quinase 1/antagonistas & inibidores , Masculino , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Inibidores de Proteínas Quinases/efeitos adversos , Prurido/tratamento farmacológico , Pirimidinas/efeitos adversos , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Sulfonamidas/efeitos adversos
3.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 3: CD007478, 2021 03 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33687069

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Lupus erythematosus is an autoimmune disease with significant morbidity and mortality. Cutaneous disease in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is common. Many interventions are used to treat SLE with varying efficacy, risks, and benefits. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for cutaneous disease in SLE. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to June 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Wiley Interscience Online Library, and Biblioteca Virtual em Saude (Virtual Health Library). We updated our search in September 2020, but these results have not yet been fully incorporated. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for cutaneous disease in SLE compared with placebo, another intervention, no treatment, or different doses of the same intervention. We did not evaluate trials of cutaneous lupus in people without a diagnosis of SLE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were complete and partial clinical response. Secondary outcomes included reduction (or change) in number of clinical flares; and severe and minor adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-one RCTs, involving 11,232 participants, reported 43 different interventions. Trials predominantly included women from outpatient clinics; the mean age range of participants was 20 to 40 years. Twenty-five studies reported baseline severity, and 22 studies included participants with moderate to severe cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE); duration of CLE was not well reported. Studies were conducted mainly in multi-centre settings. Most often treatment duration was 12 months. Risk of bias was highest for the domain of reporting bias, followed by performance/detection bias. We identified too few studies for meta-analysis for most comparisons. We limited this abstract to main comparisons (all administered orally) and outcomes. We did not identify clinical trials of other commonly used treatments, such as topical corticosteroids, that reported complete or partial clinical response or numbers of clinical flares. Complete clinical response Studies comparing oral hydroxychloroquine against placebo did not report complete clinical response. Chloroquine may increase complete clinical response at 12 months' follow-up compared with placebo (absence of skin lesions) (risk ratio (RR) 1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 2.61; 1 study, 24 participants; low-quality evidence). There may be little to no difference between methotrexate and chloroquine in complete clinical response (skin rash resolution) at 6 months' follow-up (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.50; 1 study, 25 participants; low-quality evidence). Methotrexate may be superior to placebo with regard to complete clinical response (absence of malar/discoid rash) at 6 months' follow-up (RR 3.57, 95% CI 1.63 to 7.84; 1 study, 41 participants; low-quality evidence). At 12 months' follow-up, there may be little to no difference between azathioprine and ciclosporin in complete clinical response (malar rash resolution) (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.52; 1 study, 89 participants; low-quality evidence). Partial clinical response Partial clinical response was reported for only one key comparison: hydroxychloroquine may increase partial clinical response at 12 months compared to placebo, but the 95% CI indicates that hydroxychloroquine may make no difference or may decrease response (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.41 to 120.16; 20 pregnant participants, 1 trial; low-quality evidence). Clinical flares Clinical flares were reported for only two key comparisons: hydroxychloroquine is probably superior to placebo at 6 months' follow-up for reducing clinical flares (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.89; 1 study, 47 participants; moderate-quality evidence). At 12 months' follow-up, there may be no difference between methotrexate and placebo, but the 95% CI indicates there may be more or fewer flares with methotrexate (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.83; 1 study, 86 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Adverse events Data for adverse events were limited and were inconsistently reported, but hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and methotrexate have well-documented adverse effects including gastrointestinal symptoms, liver problems, and retinopathy for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine and teratogenicity during pregnancy for methotrexate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence supports the commonly-used treatment hydroxychloroquine, and there is also evidence supporting chloroquine and methotrexate for treating cutaneous disease in SLE. Evidence is limited due to the small number of studies reporting key outcomes. Evidence for most key outcomes was low or moderate quality, meaning findings should be interpreted with caution. Head-to-head intervention trials designed to detect differences in efficacy between treatments for specific CLE subtypes are needed. Thirteen further trials are awaiting classification and have not yet been incorporated in this review; they may alter the review conclusions.


Assuntos
Fármacos Dermatológicos/uso terapêutico , Imunossupressores/uso terapêutico , Lúpus Eritematoso Sistêmico/terapia , Dermatopatias/terapia , Idade de Início , Azatioprina/uso terapêutico , Viés , Fatores Biológicos/uso terapêutico , Cloroquina/efeitos adversos , Cloroquina/uso terapêutico , Técnicas Cosméticas , Ciclosporina/uso terapêutico , Fármacos Dermatológicos/efeitos adversos , Exantema , Feminino , Humanos , Hidroxicloroquina/efeitos adversos , Hidroxicloroquina/uso terapêutico , Lúpus Eritematoso Cutâneo/classificação , Lúpus Eritematoso Cutâneo/diagnóstico , Lúpus Eritematoso Cutâneo/terapia , Lúpus Eritematoso Sistêmico/classificação , Lúpus Eritematoso Sistêmico/complicações , Masculino , Medicina Tradicional Chinesa , Metotrexato/efeitos adversos , Metotrexato/uso terapêutico , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Qualidade de Vida , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Dermatopatias/etiologia , Exacerbação dos Sintomas
4.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 3: CD001127, 2021 03 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33735508

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Dornase alfa is currently used as a mucolytic to treat pulmonary disease (the major cause of morbidity and mortality) in cystic fibrosis. It reduces mucus viscosity in the lungs, promoting improved clearance of secretions. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the use of dornase alfa in cystic fibrosis is associated with improved mortality and morbidity compared to placebo or other medications that improve airway clearance, and to identify any adverse events associated with its use. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearching relevant journals and abstracts from conferences. Date of the most recent search of the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Register: 12 October 2020. Clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were also searched to identify unpublished or ongoing trials. Date of most recent search: 08 February 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing dornase alfa to placebo, standard therapy or other medications that improve airway clearance. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Authors independently assessed trials against the inclusion criteria; two authors carried out analysis of methodological quality and data extraction. GRADE was used to assess the level of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: The searches identified 74 trials, of which 19 (2565 participants) met our inclusion criteria. 15 trials compared dornase alfa to placebo or no dornase alfa (2447 participants); two compared daily dornase to hypertonic saline (32 participants); one compared daily dornase alfa to hypertonic saline and alternate day dornase alfa (48 participants); one compared dornase alfa to mannitol and the combination of both drugs (38 participants). Trial duration varied from six days to three years. Dornase alfa compared to placebo or no treatment Dornase alfa probably improved forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV1) at one month (four trials, 248 participants), three months (one trial, 320 participants; moderate-quality evidence), six months (one trial, 647 participants; high-quality evidence) and two years (one trial, 410 participants). Limited low-quality evidence showed treatment may make little or no difference  in quality of life. Dornase alfa probably reduced the number of pulmonary exacerbations in trials of up to two years (moderate-quality evidence). One trial that examined the cost of care, including the cost of dornase alfa, found that the cost savings from dornase alfa offset 18% to 38% of the medication costs. Dornase alfa: daily versus alternate day One cross-over trial (43 children) found little or no difference between treatment regimens for lung function, quality of life or pulmonary exacerbations (low-quality evidence). Dornase alfa compared to other medications that improve airway clearance Results for these comparisons were mixed. One trial (43 children) showed dornase alfa may lead to a greater improvement in FEV1 compared to hypertonic saline (low-quality evidence), and one trial (23 participants) reported little or no differences in lung function between dornase alfa and mannitol or dornase alfa and dornase alfa plus mannitol (low-quality evidence). One trial (23 participants) found dornase alfa may improve quality of life compared to dornase alfa plus mannitol (low-quality evidence); other comparisons found little or no difference in this outcome (low-quality evidence). No trials in any comparison reported any difference between groups in the number of pulmonary exacerbations (low-quality evidence). When all comparisons are assessed, dornase alfa did not cause significantly more adverse effects than other treatments, except voice alteration and rash. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to show that, compared with placebo, therapy with dornase alfa may improve lung function in people with cystic fibrosis in trials lasting from one month to two years. There was a decrease in pulmonary exacerbations in trials of six months or longer, probably due to treatment. Voice alteration and rash appear to be the only adverse events reported with increased frequency in randomised controlled trials. There is not enough evidence to firmly conclude if dornase alfa is superior to other hyperosmolar agents in improving lung function.


Assuntos
Fibrose Cística/tratamento farmacológico , Desoxirribonuclease I/uso terapêutico , Expectorantes/uso terapêutico , Adolescente , Adulto , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Desoxirribonuclease I/efeitos adversos , Progressão da Doença , Expectorantes/efeitos adversos , Volume Expiratório Forçado , Humanos , Lactente , Manitol/uso terapêutico , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Proteínas Recombinantes/efeitos adversos , Proteínas Recombinantes/uso terapêutico , Solução Salina Hipertônica/uso terapêutico , Capacidade Vital
5.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 2: CD013281, 2021 02 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33591592

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of type 2 diabetes is increased in individuals with mental disorders. Much of the burden of disease falls on the populations of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological, behaviour change, and organisational interventions versus active and non-active comparators in the prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes among people with mental illness in LMICs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and six other databases, as well as three international trials registries. We also searched conference proceedings and checked the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. Searches are current up to 20 February 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological, behavioural or organisational interventions targeting the prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes in adults with mental disorders in LMICs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors working independently performed data extraction and risk of bias assessments. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models. MAIN RESULTS: One hospital-based RCT with 150 participants (99 participants with schizophrenia) addressed our review's primary outcome of prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes onset. Low-certainty evidence from this study did not show a difference between atypical and typical antipsychotics in the development of diabetes at six weeks (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 7.05) (among a total 99 participants with schizophrenia, 68 were in atypical and 31 were in typical antipsychotic groups; 55 participants without mental illness were not considered in the analysis). An additional 29 RCTs with 2481 participants assessed one or more of the review's secondary outcomes. All studies were conducted in hospital settings and reported on pharmacological interventions. One study, which we could not include in our meta-analysis, included an intervention with pharmacological and behaviour change components. We identified no studies of organisational interventions. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference between the use of atypical and typical antipsychotics for the outcomes of drop-outs from care (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.69; two studies with 144 participants), and fasting blood glucose levels (mean difference (MD) 0.05 lower, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.00; two studies with 211 participants). Participants who receive typical antipsychotics may have a lower body mass index (BMI) at follow-up than participants who receive atypical antipsychotics (MD 0.57, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.81; two studies with 141 participants; moderate certainty of evidence), and may have lower total cholesterol levels eight weeks after starting treatment (MD 0.35, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.43; one study with 112 participants). There was moderate certainty evidence suggesting no difference between the use of metformin and placebo for the outcomes of drop-outs from care (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.09 to 16.35; three studies with 158 participants). There was moderate-to-high certainty evidence of no difference between metformin and placebo for fasting blood glucose levels (endpoint data: MD -0.35, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.11; change from baseline data: MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.22; five studies with 264 participants). There was high certainty evidence that BMI was lower for participants receiving metformin compared with those receiving a placebo (MD -1.37, 95% CI -2.04 to -0.70; five studies with 264 participants; high certainty of evidence). There was no difference between metformin and placebo for the outcomes of waist circumference, blood pressure and cholesterol levels. Low-certainty evidence from one study (48 participants) suggests there may be no difference between the use of melatonin and placebo for the outcome of drop-outs from care (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.66). Fasting blood glucose is probably reduced more in participants treated with melatonin compared with placebo (endpoint data: MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.01; change from baseline data: MD -0.24, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.09; three studies with 202 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). There was no difference between melatonin and placebo for the outcomes of waist circumference, blood pressure and cholesterol levels. Very low-certainty evidence from one study (25 participants) suggests that drop-outs may be higher in participants treated with a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) compared with those receiving a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.01). It is uncertain if there is no difference in fasting blood glucose levels between these groups (MD -0.39, 95% CI -0.88 to 0.10; three studies with 141 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if there is no difference in BMI and depression between the TCA and SSRI antidepressant groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Only one study reported data on our primary outcome of interest, providing low-certainty evidence that there may be no difference in risk between atypical and typical antipsychotics for the outcome of developing type 2 diabetes. We are therefore not able to draw conclusions on the prevention of type 2 diabetes in people with mental disorders in LMICs. For studies reporting on secondary outcomes, there was evidence of risk of bias in the results. There is a need for further studies with participants from LMICs with mental disorders, particularly on behaviour change and on organisational interventions targeting prevention of type 2 diabetes in these populations.


Assuntos
Antipsicóticos/uso terapêutico , Países em Desenvolvimento , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/prevenção & controle , Esquizofrenia/tratamento farmacológico , Adulto , Idoso , Antidepressivos Tricíclicos/uso terapêutico , Antioxidantes/uso terapêutico , Glicemia/análise , Índice de Massa Corporal , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicações , Jejum/sangue , Feminino , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Masculino , Melatonina/uso terapêutico , Transtornos Mentais/complicações , Metformina/uso terapêutico , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pacientes Desistentes do Tratamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Esquizofrenia/complicações , Inibidores de Captação de Serotonina/uso terapêutico
6.
JAMA ; 325(12): 1185-1195, 2021 03 23.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33635310

RESUMO

Importance: Convalescent plasma is a proposed treatment for COVID-19. Objective: To assess clinical outcomes with convalescent plasma treatment vs placebo or standard of care in peer-reviewed and preprint publications or press releases of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Data Sources: PubMed, the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, and the Living Overview of Evidence platform were searched until January 29, 2021. Study Selection: The RCTs selected compared any type of convalescent plasma vs placebo or standard of care for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 in any treatment setting. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted data on relevant clinical outcomes, trial characteristics, and patient characteristics and used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. The primary analysis included peer-reviewed publications of RCTs only, whereas the secondary analysis included all publicly available RCT data (peer-reviewed publications, preprints, and press releases). Inverse variance-weighted meta-analyses were conducted to summarize the treatment effects. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, mechanical ventilation use, and serious adverse events. Results: A total of 1060 patients from 4 peer-reviewed RCTs and 10 722 patients from 6 other publicly available RCTs were included. The summary risk ratio (RR) for all-cause mortality with convalescent plasma in the 4 peer-reviewed RCTs was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.38), the absolute risk difference was -1.21% (95% CI, -5.29% to 2.88%), and there was low certainty of the evidence due to imprecision. Across all 10 RCTs, the summary RR was 1.02 (95% CI, 0.92 to 1.12) and there was moderate certainty of the evidence due to inclusion of unpublished data. Among the peer-reviewed RCTs, the summary hazard ratio was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.07 to 20.34) for length of hospital stay, the summary RR was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.20 to 2.87) for mechanical ventilation use (the absolute risk difference for mechanical ventilation use was -2.56% [95% CI, -13.16% to 8.05%]), and there was low certainty of the evidence due to imprecision for both outcomes. Limited data on clinical improvement, clinical deterioration, and serious adverse events showed no significant differences. Conclusions and Relevance: Treatment with convalescent plasma compared with placebo or standard of care was not significantly associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality or with any benefit for other clinical outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate for all-cause mortality and low for other outcomes.


Assuntos
/terapia , Adulto , Viés , Causas de Morte , Feminino , Humanos , Imunização Passiva/efeitos adversos , Tempo de Internação , Masculino , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Respiração Artificial , Padrão de Cuidado , Resultado do Tratamento
7.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 2: CD008013, 2021 02 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33560523

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Functional Abdominal Pain Disorders (FAPDs) present a considerable burden to paediatric patients, impacting quality of life, school attendance and causing higher rates of anxiety and depression disorders. There are no international guidelines for the management of this condition. A previous Cochrane Review in 2011 found no evidence to support the use of antidepressants in this context. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the current evidence for the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for FAPDs in children and adolescents. SEARCH METHODS: In this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and two clinical trial registers from inception until 03 February 2020. We also updated our search of databases of ongoing research, reference lists and 'grey literature' from inception to 03 February 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antidepressants to placebo, to no treatment or to any other intervention, in children aged 4 to 18 years with a FAPD diagnosis as per the Rome or any other defined criteria (as defined by the authors). The primary outcomes of interest included treatment success (as defined by the authors), pain severity, pain frequency and withdrawal due to adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors checked all citations independently, resolving disagreement with a third-party arbiter. We reviewed all potential studies in full text, and once again made independent decisions, with disagreements resolved by consensus. We conducted data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments independently, following Cochrane methods. Where homogeneous data were available, we performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model. We conducted GRADE analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We found one new study in this updated search, making a total of three trials (223 participants) eligible for inclusion: two using amitriptyline (AMI) and one using citalopram. For the primary outcome of treatment success, two studies used reports of success on a symptom-based Likert scale, with either a two-point reduction or the two lowest levels defined as success. The third study defined success as a 15% improvement in quality of life (QOL) ratings scales. Therefore, meta-analysis did not include this final study due to the heterogeneity of the outcome measure. There is low-certainty evidence that there may be no difference when antidepressants are compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.56; 2 studies, 205 participants; I2 = 0%). We downgraded the evidence for significant imprecision due to extremely sparse data (see Summary of findings table 1). The third study reported that participants receiving antidepressants were significantly more likely than those receiving placebo to experience at least a 15% improvement in overall QOL score at 10 and 13 weeks (P = 0.007 and P = 0.002, respectively (absolute figures were not given)). The analysis found no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events between antidepressants and placebo: RR 3.17 (95% CI 0.65 to 15.33), with very low certainty due to high risk of bias in studies and imprecision due to low event and participant numbers. Sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effect model and analysing just for AMI found no change in this result. Due to heterogeneous and limited reporting, no further meta-analysis was possible. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There may be no difference between antidepressants and placebo for treatment success of FAPDs in childhood. There may be no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events, but this is also of low certainty. There is currently no evidence to support clinical decision making regarding the use of these medications. Further studies must consider sample size, homogenous and relevant outcome measures and longer follow up.


Assuntos
Dor Abdominal/tratamento farmacológico , Amitriptilina/uso terapêutico , Antidepressivos de Segunda Geração/uso terapêutico , Antidepressivos Tricíclicos/uso terapêutico , Citalopram/uso terapêutico , Gastroenteropatias/tratamento farmacológico , Dor Abdominal/psicologia , Adolescente , Amitriptilina/efeitos adversos , Antidepressivos de Segunda Geração/efeitos adversos , Antidepressivos Tricíclicos/efeitos adversos , Criança , Citalopram/efeitos adversos , Gastroenteropatias/psicologia , Humanos , Síndrome do Intestino Irritável/tratamento farmacológico , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Qualidade de Vida , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto
8.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 2: CD013560, 2021 02 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33580709

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Depression is one of the most common morbidities of the postnatal period. It has been associated with adverse outcomes for women, children, the wider family and society as a whole. Treatment is with psychosocial interventions or antidepressant medication, or both. The aim of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of different antidepressants and to compare their effectiveness with placebo, treatment as usual or other forms of treatment. This is an update of a review last published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of antidepressant drugs in comparison with any other treatment (psychological, psychosocial, or pharmacological), placebo, or treatment as usual for postnatal depression. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Common Mental Disorders's Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO in May 2020. We also searched international trials registries and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with depression during the first 12 months postpartum that compared antidepressant treatment (alone or in combination with another treatment) with any other treatment, placebo or treatment as usual. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from the study reports. We requested missing information from study authors wherever possible. We sought data to allow an intention-to-treat analysis. Where we identified sufficient comparable studies we pooled data and conducted random-effects meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 11 RCTs (1016 women), the majority of which were from English-speaking, high-income countries; two were from middle-income countries. Women were recruited from a mix of community-based, primary care, maternity and outpatient settings. Most studies used selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), with treatment duration ranging from 4 to 12 weeks. Meta-analysis showed that there may be a benefit of SSRIs over placebo in response (55% versus 43%; pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.66); remission (42% versus 27%; RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.41); and reduced depressive symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.30, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.05; 4 studies, 251 women), at 5 to 12 weeks' follow-up. We were unable to conduct meta-analysis for adverse events due to variation in the reporting of this between studies. There was no evidence of a difference between acceptability of SSRI and placebo (27% versus 27%; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.64; 4 studies; 233 women). The certainty of all the evidence for SSRIs was low or very low due to the small number of included studies and a number of potential sources of bias, including high rates of attrition. There was insufficient evidence to assess the efficacy of SSRIs compared with other classes of antidepressants and of antidepressants compared with other pharmacological interventions, complementary medicines, psychological and psychosocial interventions or treatment as usual. A substantial proportion of women experienced adverse effects but there was no evidence of differences in the number of adverse effects between treatment groups in any of the studies. Data on effects on children, including breastfed infants, parenting, and the wider family were limited, although no adverse effects were noted. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There remains limited evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of antidepressants in the management of postnatal depression, particularly for those with more severe depression. We found low-certainty evidence that SSRI antidepressants may be more effective in treating postnatal depression than placebo as measured by response and remission rates. However, the low certainty of the evidence suggests that further research is very likely to have an important impact on our effect estimate. There is a continued imperative to better understand whether, and for whom, antidepressants or other treatments are more effective for postnatal depression, and whether some antidepressants are more effective or better tolerated than others. In clinical practice, the findings of this review need to be contextualised by the extensive broader literature on antidepressants in the general population and perinatal clinical guidance, to inform an individualised risk-benefit clinical decision. Future RCTs should focus on larger samples, longer follow-up, comparisons with alternative treatment modalities and inclusion of child and parenting outcomes.


Assuntos
Antidepressivos/uso terapêutico , Depressão Pós-Parto/tratamento farmacológico , Inibidores de Captação de Serotonina/uso terapêutico , Adolescente , Adulto , Antidepressivos/efeitos adversos , Viés , Feminino , Humanos , Pacientes Desistentes do Tratamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Inibidores de Captação de Serotonina/efeitos adversos , Resultado do Tratamento , Adulto Jovem
9.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 2: CD013457, 2021 02 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33583058

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Symptoms of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have been associated, in part, with the dysfunction of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) glutamate receptors at excitatory synapses and glutamate abnormalities. Medications related to glutamatergic neurotransmission, such as D-cycloserine - which is a partial agonist of the NMDA glutamate receptor - are potential treatment options for the core features of ASD. However, the potential effect of D-cycloserine on the social and communication skills deficits of individuals with ASD has not been thoroughly explored and no systematic reviews of the evidence have been conducted. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of D-cycloserine compared with placebo for social and communication skills in individuals with ASD. SEARCH METHODS: In November 2020, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and two trials registers. We also searched the reference lists of relevant publications and contacted the authors of the included study, Minshawi 2016, to identify any additional studies. In addition, we contacted pharmaceutical companies, searched manufacturers' websites and sources of reports of adverse events.  SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any duration and dose of D-cycloserine, with or without adjunct treatment, compared to placebo in individuals with ASD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted relevant data, assessed the risk of bias, graded the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach, and analysed and evaluated the data. We provide a narrative report of the findings as only one study is included in this review. MAIN RESULTS: We included a single RCT (Minshawi 2016) funded by the United States Department of Defense. It was conducted at two sites in the USA: Indiana University School of Medicine and Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Centre. In the included study, 67 children with ASD aged between 5 and 11 years were randomised to receive either 10 weeks (10 doses) of (50 mg) D-cycloserine plus social skills training, or placebo plus social skills training. Randomisation was carried out 1:1 between D-cycloserine and placebo arms, and outcome measures were recorded at one-week post-treatment. The 'risk of bias' assessment for the included study was low for five domains and unclear for two domains. The study (67 participants) reported low certainty evidence of little to no difference between the two groups for all outcomes measured at one week post-treatment: social interaction impairment (mean difference (MD) 3.61 (assessed with the Social Responsiveness Scale), 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.60 to 12.82); social communication impairment (MD -1.08 (measured using the inappropriate speech subscale of the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC)), 95% CI -2.34 to 0.18); restricted, repetitive, stereotyped patterns of behaviour (MD 0.12 (measured by the ABC stereotypy subscale), 95% CI -1.71 to 1.95); serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.31); non-core symptoms of ASD (RR 0.97 (measured by the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale), 95% CI 0.49 to 1.93); and tolerability of D-cycloserine (RR 0.32 (assessed by the number of dropouts), 95% CI 0.01 to 7.68).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are unable to conclude with certainty whether D-cycloserine is effective for individuals with ASD. This review included low certainty data from only one study with methodological issues and imprecision. The added value of this review compared to the included study is we assessed the risk of bias and evaluated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Moreover, if we find new trials in future updates of this review, we could potentially pool the data, which may either strengthen or decrease the evidence for our findings.


Assuntos
Transtorno do Espectro Autista/tratamento farmacológico , Comunicação , Ciclosserina/uso terapêutico , Habilidades Sociais , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Ciclosserina/efeitos adversos , Feminino , Humanos , Indiana , Masculino , Estudos Multicêntricos como Assunto , Ohio , Pacientes Desistentes do Tratamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Comportamento Estereotipado/efeitos dos fármacos
10.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 2: CD013109, 2021 02 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33586138

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: People with chronic kidney disease (CKD) requiring dialysis are at a particularly high risk of cardiovascular death and morbidity. Several clinical studies suggested that aldosterone antagonists would be a promising treatment option for people undergoing dialysis. However, the clinical efficacy and potential harm of aldosterone antagonists for people with CKD on dialysis has yet to be determined. OBJECTIVES: This review aimed to evaluate the benefits and harms of aldosterone antagonists, both non-selective (spironolactone) and selective (eplerenone), in comparison to control (placebo or standard care) in people with CKD requiring haemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 5 August 2020 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over RCTs, and quasi-RCTs (where group allocation is by a method that is not truly random, such as alternation, assignment based on alternate medical records, date of birth, case record number, or other predictable methods) that compared aldosterone antagonists with placebo or standard care in people with CKD requiring dialysis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for included studies. We used a random-effects model meta-analysis to perform a quantitative synthesis of the data. We used the I² statistic to measure heterogeneity among the studies in each analysis. We indicated summary estimates as a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, or standardised mean differences (SMD) if different scales were used, with their 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence for each of the main outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 studies (14 parallel RCTs and two cross-over RCTs) involving a total of 1446 participants. Thirteen studies compared spironolactone to placebo or standard care and one study compared eplerenone to a placebo. Most included studies had an unclear or high risk of bias. Compared to control, aldosterone antagonists probably reduced the risk of death (any cause) for people with CKD requiring dialysis (9 studies, 1119 participants: RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.67; I² = 0%; moderate certainty of evidence). Aldosterone antagonist probably decreased the risk of death due to cardiovascular disease (6 studies, 908 participants: RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.64; I² = 0%; moderate certainty of evidence) and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular morbidity (3 studies, 328 participants: RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.76; I² = 0%; moderate certainty of evidence). While aldosterone antagonists probably increased risk of gynaecomastia compared with control (4 studies, 768 participants: RR 5.95, 95% CI 1.93 to 18.3; I² = 0%; moderate certainty of evidence), aldosterone antagonists may make little or no difference to the risk of hyperkalaemia (9 studies, 981 participants: RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.78; I² = 47%; low certainty of evidence). Aldosterone antagonists had a marginal effect on left ventricular mass among participants undergoing dialysis (8 studies, 633 participants: SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.05; I² = 77%). In people with CKD requiring dialysis received aldosterone antagonists compared to control, there were 72 fewer deaths from all causes per 1000 participants (95% CI 47 to 98) with a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 14 (95% CI 10 to 21) and for gynaecomastia were 26 events per 1000 participants (95% CI 15 to 39) with a number need to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) of 38 (95% CI 26 to 68). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on moderate certainty of the evidence, aldosterone antagonists probably reduces the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular death and probably reduces morbidity due to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease in people with CKD requiring dialysis. For the adverse effect of gynaecomastia, the risk was increased compared to control. For this outcome, the absolute risk was lower than the absolute risk of death. It is hoped the three large ongoing studies will provide better certainty of evidence.


Assuntos
Antagonistas de Receptores de Mineralocorticoides/uso terapêutico , Diálise Renal , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/terapia , Viés , Doenças Cardiovasculares/induzido quimicamente , Causas de Morte , Transtornos Cerebrovasculares/induzido quimicamente , Eplerenona/efeitos adversos , Eplerenona/uso terapêutico , Ginecomastia/induzido quimicamente , Humanos , Hiperpotassemia/induzido quimicamente , Antagonistas de Receptores de Mineralocorticoides/efeitos adversos , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/mortalidade , Espironolactona/efeitos adversos , Espironolactona/uso terapêutico
11.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 2: CD010668, 2021 02 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33631841

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Belimumab, the first biologic approved for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), has been shown to reduce autoantibody levels in people with SLE and help control disease activity. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of belimumab (alone or in combination) in systematic lupus erythematosus. SEARCH METHODS: An Information Specialist carried out the searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to 25 September 2019. There were no language or date restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of belimumab (alone or in combination) compared to placebo/control treatment (immunosuppressive drugs, such as azathioprine, cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil or another biologic), in adults with SLE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: Six RCTs (2917 participants) qualified for quantitative analyses. All included studies were multicenter, international or US-based. The age range of the included participants was 22 to 80 years; most were women; and study duration ranged from 84 days to 76 weeks. The risk of bias was generally low except for attrition bias, which was high in 67% of studies. Compared to placebo, more participants on belimumab 10 mg/kg (Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved dose) showed at least a 4-point improvement (reduction) in Safety of Estrogen in Lupus National Assessment (SELENA) - Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) score, a validated SLE disease activity index: (risk ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.45; 829/1589 in belimumab group and 424/1077 in placebo; I2= 0%; 4 RCTs; high-certainty evidence). Change in health-related quality of life (HRQOL), assessed by Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary score improvement (range 0 to 100), showed there was probably little or no difference between groups (mean difference 1.6 points, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.90; 401 in belimumab group and 400 in placebo; I2= 0%; 2 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). The belimumab 10 mg/kg group showed greater improvement in glucocorticoid dose, with a higher proportion of participants reducing their dose by at least 50% compared to placebo (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.15; 81/269 in belimumab group and 52/268 in placebo; I2= 0%; 2 RCTs; high-certainty evidence). The proportion of participants experiencing harm may not differ meaningfully between the belimumab 10 mg/kg and placebo groups: one or more serious adverse event (RR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.11; 238/1700 in belimumab group and 199/1190 in placebo; I2= 48%; 5 RCTs; low-certainty evidence; ); one or more serious infection (RR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.66 to 1.54; 44/1230 in belimumab group and 40/955 in placebo; I2= 0%; 4 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence); and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.63 to 1.07; 113/1700 in belimumab group and 94/1190 in placebo; I2= 0%; 5 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). Mortality was rare, and may not differ between belimumab 10 mg/kg and placebo (Peto odds ratio 1.15, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.25; 9/1714 in belimumab group and 6/1203 in placebo; I2= 4%; 6 RCTs; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The six studies that provided evidence for benefits and harms of belimumab were well-designed, high-quality RCTs. At the FDA-approved dose of 10 mg/kg, based on moderate to high-certainty data, belimumab was probably associated with a clinically meaningful efficacy benefit compared to placebo in participants with SLE at 52 weeks. Evidence related to harms is inconclusive and mostly of moderate to low-certainty evidence. More data are needed for the longer-term efficacy of belimumab.


Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/uso terapêutico , Imunossupressores/uso terapêutico , Lúpus Eritematoso Sistêmico/tratamento farmacológico , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/efeitos adversos , Viés , Feminino , Glucocorticoides/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Imunossupressores/efeitos adversos , Lúpus Eritematoso Sistêmico/mortalidade , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Qualidade de Vida , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Resultado do Tratamento , Adulto Jovem
12.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 1: CD013133, 2021 01 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33448032

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Inibidores de Ciclo-Oxigenase/uso terapêutico , Permeabilidade do Canal Arterial/tratamento farmacológico , Indometacina/uso terapêutico , Viés , Displasia Broncopulmonar/epidemiologia , Causas de Morte , Inibidores de Ciclo-Oxigenase/administração & dosagem , Inibidores de Ciclo-Oxigenase/efeitos adversos , Permeabilidade do Canal Arterial/mortalidade , Permeabilidade do Canal Arterial/cirurgia , Enterocolite Necrosante/induzido quimicamente , Hemorragia Gastrointestinal/induzido quimicamente , Humanos , Incidência , Indometacina/administração & dosagem , Indometacina/efeitos adversos , Recém-Nascido de Baixo Peso , Recém-Nascido , Recém-Nascido Prematuro , Ligadura/estatística & dados numéricos , Oxigenoterapia/estatística & dados numéricos , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos
13.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 1: CD011973, 2021 Jan 26.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33498095

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Antagonistas Adrenérgicos beta/efeitos adversos , Varizes Esofágicas e Gástricas/complicações , Hemorragia Gastrointestinal/prevenção & controle , Hepatopatias/complicações , Veia Porta , Trombose Venosa/complicações , Antagonistas Adrenérgicos beta/uso terapêutico , Criança , Doença Crônica , Hemorragia Gastrointestinal/etiologia , Humanos , Hipertensão Portal/complicações , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Prevenção Primária/métodos
14.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 1: CD001507, 2021 01 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33427303

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Suplementos Nutricionais , Fenilcetonúrias/tratamento farmacológico , Tirosina/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Inteligência/efeitos dos fármacos , Testes Neuropsicológicos , Fenilalanina/sangue , Fenilcetonúrias/sangue , Fenilcetonúrias/dietoterapia , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Tirosina/sangue
15.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 1: CD009576, 2021 01 20.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33469915

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Amoxicilina/uso terapêutico , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Pneumonia/tratamento farmacológico , Sons Respiratórios , Amoxicilina/efeitos adversos , Antibacterianos/efeitos adversos , Pré-Escolar , Esquema de Medicação , Humanos , Lactente , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Recidiva , Resultado do Tratamento , Organização Mundial da Saúde
16.
Am Heart J ; 233: 141-148, 2021 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33358942

RESUMO

We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of canagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy according to prior history of heart failure in the Canagliflozin and Renal Events in Diabetes With Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation (CREDENCE) trial. We found that participants with a prior history of heart failure at baseline (15%) were more likely to be older, female, white, have a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and use diuretics and beta blockers (all P < .001), and that, compared with placebo, canagliflozin safely reduced renal and cardiovascular events with consistent effects in patients with and without a prior history of heart failure (all efficacy P interaction >.150). These results support the efficacy and safety of canagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy regardless of prior history of heart failure.


Assuntos
Canagliflozina/uso terapêutico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Insuficiência Cardíaca/complicações , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose/uso terapêutico , Antagonistas Adrenérgicos beta/uso terapêutico , Fatores Etários , Idoso , Canagliflozina/efeitos adversos , Doenças Cardiovasculares/prevenção & controle , Diuréticos/uso terapêutico , Método Duplo-Cego , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Fatores Sexuais , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose/efeitos adversos
18.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 99(51): e23785, 2020 Dec 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33371148

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/métodos , Fibromialgia/terapia , Adulto , Análise de Variância , Estudos de Coortes , Pessoas com Deficiência/psicologia , Método Duplo-Cego , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/normas , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Fibromialgia/complicações , Fibromialgia/fisiopatologia , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Dor/etiologia , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Medição da Dor/métodos , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Estudos Prospectivos , Espanha/epidemiologia , Inquéritos e Questionários , Resultado do Tratamento
19.
Dtsch Med Wochenschr ; 145(25): 1861-1866, 2020 12.
Artigo em Alemão | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33327015

RESUMO

For a long time considered ineffective, placebos nowadays have an accepted role in studies as well as clinical practice. The identification of psychological as well as neurophysiological mechanisms helped to conceptualize and legitimize the placebo effect. Moreover, studies have even proven a therapeutic value. Consequently, the benefits of a thoughtfully applied placebo effect are increasingly being exploited. This article reviews the concept and current understanding of the placebo effect and depicts its use in the field of pain management.


Assuntos
Manejo da Dor , Dor/tratamento farmacológico , Efeito Placebo , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Humanos
20.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 12: CD012965, 2020 12 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33316083

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Bronquiolite/tratamento farmacológico , Broncodilatadores/uso terapêutico , Sulfato de Magnésio/uso terapêutico , Doença Aguda , Albuterol/uso terapêutico , Viés , Broncodilatadores/administração & dosagem , Quimioterapia Combinada/métodos , Epinefrina/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Lactente , Recém-Nascido , Tempo de Internação , Sulfato de Magnésio/administração & dosagem , Readmissão do Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Solução Salina/uso terapêutico , Índice de Gravidade de Doença
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...