Heparin versus 0.9% sodium chloride locking for prevention of occlusion in central venous catheters in adults.

BACKGROUND: Intermittent locking of central venous catheters (CVCs) is undertaken to help maintain their patency and performance. There are systematic variations in care: some practitioners use heparin (at different concentrations), whilst others use 0.9% sodium chloride (normal saline). This review looks at the effectiveness and safety of intermittent locking with heparin compared to normal saline, to see if the evidence establishes whether one is better than the other. This is an update of an earlier Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of intermittent locking of CVCs with heparin versus normal saline in adults to prevent occlusion. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 20 October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials in adults ≥ 18 years of age with a CVC that compared intermittent locking with heparin at any concentration versus normal saline. We excluded studies on infants and children from this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were occlusion of CVCs and duration of catheter patency. Our secondary outcomes were CVC-related bloodstream infections and CVC-related colonisation, mortality, haemorrhage, heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia, CVC-related thrombosis, number of additional CVC insertions, abnormality of coagulation profile and allergic reactions to heparin. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one new RCT with 30 participants for this update. We included a total of 12 RCTs with 2422 participants. Data for meta-analysis were available from all RCTs. We noted differences in methods used by the included studies and variation in heparin concentrations (10 to 5000 IU/mL), time to follow-up (1 to 251.8 days), and the unit of analysis used (participant, catheter, line access). Five studies included ICU (intensive care unit) patients, two studies included oncology patients, and the remaining studies included miscellaneous patients (chronic kidney disease, haemodialysis, home care patients, etc.). Primary outcomes Overall, combined results may show fewer occlusions with heparin compared to normal saline but this is uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.95; 10 studies; 1672 participants; low-certainty evidence). We pooled studies that used participant or catheter as the unit of analysis. We carried out subgroup analysis by unit of analysis. No clear differences were detected after testing for subgroup differences (P = 0.23). We found no clear evidence of a difference in the duration of catheter patency with heparin compared to normal saline (mean difference (MD) 0.44 days, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.99; 6 studies; 1788 participants; low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes We found no clear evidence of a difference in the following outcomes: CVC-related bloodstream infections (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.08 to 5.80; 3 studies; 1127 participants; very low-certainty evidence); mortality (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.31; 3 studies; 1100 participants; very low-certainty evidence); haemorrhage (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.41 to 5.74; 3 studies; 1197 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.27; 3 studies; 443 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The main reasons for downgrading the certainty of evidence for the primary and secondary outcomes were unclear allocation concealment, suspicion of publication bias, imprecision and inconsistency. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain whether intermittent locking with heparin results in fewer central venous catheter occlusions than intermittent locking with normal saline in adults. Low-certainty evidence suggests that heparin may have little or no effect on catheter patency duration. Although we found no evidence of differences in safety (CVC-related bloodstream infections, mortality, or haemorrhage), the combined studies were not powered to detect rare adverse events such as heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia. Further research conducted over longer periods would reduce the current uncertainties.

Heparin versus 0.9% sodium chloride locking for prevention of occlusion in central venous catheters in adults.

BACKGROUND: Intermittent locking of central venous catheters (CVCs) is undertaken to help maintain their patency. There are systematic variations in care: some practitioners use heparin (at different concentrations), whilst others use 0.9% NaCl (normal saline). This review looks at the effectiveness and safety of intermittent locking with heparin compared to 0.9% NaCl to see if the evidence establishes whether one is better than the other. This work is an update of a review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of intermittent locking of CVCs with heparin versus normal saline (NS) in adults to prevent occlusion. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (last searched 11 June 2018) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 5). Searches were also carried out in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and clinical trials databases (11 June 2018). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials in adults ≥ 18 years of age with a CVC that compared intermittent locking with heparin at any concentration versus NS. We applied no restriction on language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed quality, and extracted data. We contacted trial authors to retrieve additional information, when necessary. We carried out statistical analysis using Review Manager 5 and assessed the overall quality of the evidence supporting assessed outcomes using GRADE. We carried out prespecified subgroup analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We identified five new studies for this update (six prior studies were included in the original review), bringing the number of eligible studies to 11, with a total of 2392 participants. We noted differences in methods used by the included studies and variation in heparin concentrations (10 to 5000 IU/mL), time to follow-up (1 to 251.8 days), and the unit of analysis used (participant, catheter, line access).Combined results from these studies showed fewer occlusions with heparin than with NS (risk ratio (RR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.95; P = 0.02; 1672 participants; 1025 catheters from 10 studies; I² = 14%) and provided very low-quality evidence.We carried out subgroup analysis by unit of analysis (testing for subgroup differences (P = 0.23; I² = 30.3%). When the unit of analysis was the participant, results show no clear differences in all occlusions between heparin and NS (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.08; P = 0.15; 1672 participants; seven studies). Subgroup analysis using the catheter as the unit of analysis shows fewer occlusions with heparin use (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.95; P = 0.03; 1025 catheters; three studies). When the unit of analysis was line access, results show no clear differences in occlusions between heparin and NS (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.40; 770 line accesses; one study).We found no clear differences in the duration of catheter patency (mean difference (MD) 0.44 days, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.99; P = 0.11; 1036 participants; 752 catheters; six studies; low-quality evidence).We found no clear evidence of a difference in the following: CVC-related sepsis (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.03 to 19.54; P = 0.86; 1097 participants; two studies; low-quality evidence); mortality (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.31; P = 0.33; 1100 participants; three studies; low-quality evidence); haemorrhage at any site (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.57 to 3.07; P = 0.52; 1245 participants; four studies; moderate-quality evidence); or heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.27; P = 0.31; 443 participants; three studies; low-quality evidence).The main reasons for downgrading the quality of evidence were unclear allocation concealment, imprecision, and suspicion of publication bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the very low quality of the evidence, we are uncertain whether intermittent locking with heparin results in fewer occlusions than intermittent locking with NS. Low-quality evidence suggests that heparin may have little or no effect on catheter patency. Although we found no evidence of differences in safety (sepsis, mortality, or haemorrhage), the combined trials are not powered to detect rare adverse events such as heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia.

Certolizumab pegol (CDP870) for rheumatoid arthritis in adults.

BACKGROUND: Tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha inhibitors are beneficial for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for reducing the risk of joint damage, improving physical function and improving the quality of life. This review is an update of the 2014 Cochrane Review of the treatment of RA with certolizumab pegol. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical benefits and harms of certolizumab pegol (CZP) in people with RA who have not responded well to conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL: Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 9), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Knowledge, reference lists of articles, clinicaltrials.gov and ICTRP of WHO. The searches were updated from 2014 (date of the last search for the previous version) to 26 September 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared certolizumab pegol with any other agent, including placebo or methotrexate (MTX), in adults with active RA, regardless of current or prior treatment with conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), such as MTX. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently checked search results, extracted data and assessed trial quality. We resolved disagreements by discussion or referral to a third review author. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 trials in this update, three more than previously. Twelve trials (5422 participants) included measures of benefit. We pooled 11 of them, two more than previously. Thirteen trials included information on harms, (5273 participants). The duration of follow-up varied from 12 to 52 weeks and the range of doses of certolizumab pegol varied from 50 to 400 mg given subcutaneously. In Phase III trials, the comparator was placebo plus MTX in seven trials and placebo in five. In the two Phase II trials the comparator was only placebo.The approved dose of certolizumab pegol, 200 mg every other week, produced clinically important improvements at 24 weeks for the following outcomes:- American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50% improvement (pain, function and other symptoms of RA): 25% absolute improvement (95% confidence interval (CI) 20% to 33%); number need to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 4 (95% CI 3 to 5); risk ratio (RR) 3.80 (95% CI 2.42 to 5.95), 1445 participants, 5 studies.- The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ): -12% absolute improvement (95% CI -9% to -14%); NNTB of 8 (95% CI 7 to 11); mean difference (MD) - 0.35 (95% CI -0.43 to -0.26; 1268 participants, 4 studies) (scale 0 to 3; lower scores mean better function).- Proportion of participants achieving remission (Disease Activity Score (DAS) < 2.6) absolute improvement 10% (95% CI 8% to 16%); NNTB of 8 (95% CI 6 to 12); risk ratio (RR) 2.94 (95% CI 1.64 to 5.28), 2420 participants, six studies.- Radiological changes: erosion score (ES) absolute improvement -0.29% (95% CI -0.42% to -0.17%); NNTB of 6 (95% CI 4 to 10); MD -0.67 (95% CI -0.96 to -0.38); 714 participants, two studies (scale 0 to 230), but not a clinically important difference.-Serious adverse events (SAEs) were statistically but not clinically significantly more frequent for certolizumab pegol (200 mg every other week) with an absolute rate difference of 3% (95% CI 1% to 4%); number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) of 33 (95% CI 25 to 100); Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.47 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.91); 3927 participants, nine studies.There was a clinically significant increase in all withdrawals in the placebo groups (for all doses and at all follow-ups) with an absolute rate difference of -29% (95% CI -16% to -42%), NNTH of 3 (95% CI 2 to 6), RR 0.47 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.56); and there was a clinically significant increase in withdrawals due to adverse events in the certolizumab groups (for all doses and at all follow-ups) with an absolute rate difference of 2% (95% CI 0% to 3%); NNTH of 58 (95% CI 28 to 329); Peto OR 1.45 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.94) 5236 participants Twelve studies.We judged the quality of evidence to be high for ACR50, DAS remission, SAEs and withdrawals due to adverse events, and moderate for HAQ and radiological changes, due to concerns about attrition bias. For all withdrawals we judged the quality of evidence to be moderate, due to inconsistency. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results and conclusions did not change from the previous review. There is a moderate to high certainty of evidence from randomised controlled trials that certolizumab pegol, alone or combined with methotrexate, is beneficial in the treatment of RA for improved ACR50 and health-related quality of life, an increased chance of remission of RA, and reduced joint damage as seen on x-ray. Fewer people stopped taking their treatment, but most of these who did stopped due to serious adverse events. Adverse events were more frequent with active treatment. We found a clinically but not statistically significant risk of serious adverse events.

Oxygen therapy for acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Oxygen (O2) is widely used in people with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Previous systematic reviews concluded that there was insufficient evidence to know whether oxygen reduced, increased or had no effect on heart ischaemia or infarct size. Our first Cochrane review in 2010 also concluded there was insufficient evidence to know whether oxygen should be used. Since 2010, the lack of evidence to support this widely used intervention has attracted considerable attention, prompting further trials of oxygen therapy in myocardial infarction patients. It is thus important to update this Cochrane review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of routine use of inhaled oxygen for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following bibliographic databases on 6 June 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO) and Web of Science (Thomson Reuters). LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature) was last searched in September 2016. We also contacted experts to identify eligible studies. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in people with suspected or proven AMI (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI) within 24 hours after onset, in which the intervention was inhaled oxygen (at normal pressure) compared to air, regardless of co-therapies provided to participants in both arms of the trial. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of identified studies to see if they met the inclusion criteria and independently undertook the data extraction. We assessed the quality of studies and the risk of bias according to guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The primary outcome was death. The measure of effect used was the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the quality of the evidence and the GRADE profiler (GRADEpro) to import data from Review Manager 5 and create 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: The updated search yielded one new trial, for a total of five included studies involving 1173 participants, 32 of whom died. The pooled risk ratio (RR) of all-cause mortality in the intention-to-treat analysis was 0.99 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.95; 4 studies, N = 1123; I2 = 46%; quality of evidence: very low) and 1.02 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.98; 4 studies, N = 871; I2 = 49%; quality of evidence: very low) when only analysing participants with confirmed AMI. One trial measured pain directly, and two others measured it by opiate usage. The trial showed no effect, with a pooled RR of 0.97 for the use of opiates (95% CI 0.78 to 1.20; 2 studies, N = 250). The result on mortality and pain are inconclusive. There is no clear effect for oxygen on infarct size (the evidence is inconsistent and low quality). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials to support the routine use of inhaled oxygen in people with AMI, and we cannot rule out a harmful effect. Given the uncertainty surrounding the effect of oxygen therapy on all-cause mortality and on other outcomes critical for clinical decision, well-conducted, high quality randomised controlled trials are urgently required to inform guidelines in order to give definitive recommendations about the routine use of oxygen in AMI.

Colchicine for pericarditis.

BACKGROUND: Pericarditis is the inflammation of the pericardium, the membranous sac surrounding the heart. Recurrent pericarditis is the most common complication of acute pericarditis, causing severe and disabling chest pains. Recurrent pericarditis affects one in three patients with acute pericarditis within the first 18 months. Colchicine has been suggested to be beneficial in preventing recurrent pericarditis. OBJECTIVES: To review all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assess the effects of colchicine alone or combined, compared to any other intervention to prevent further recurrences of pericarditis, in people with acute or recurrent pericarditis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following bibliographic databases on 4 August 2014: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 7 of 12, 2014 on The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OVID, 1946 to July week 4, 2014), EMBASE (OVID, 1947 to 2014 week 31), and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on Web of Science (Thomson Reuters) 1990 to 1 Aug 2014. We did not apply any language or time restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs of people with acute or recurrent pericarditis who are receiving colchicine compared to any other treatment, in order to prevent recurrences. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The first primary outcome was the time to recurrence, measured by calculating the hazard ratios (HRs). The second primary outcome was the adverse effects of colchicine. Secondary outcomes were the rate of recurrences at 6, 12 and 18 months, and symptom relief. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs, involving 564 participants in this review. We compared the effects of colchicine in addition to a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) such as ibuprofen, aspirin or indomethacin to the effects of the NSAID alone. Two comparable trials studied the effects of colchicine in 204 participants with recurrent pericarditis and two trials studied 360 people with acute pericarditis. All trials had a moderate quality for the primary outcomes. We identified two on-going trials; one of these trials examines acute pericarditis and the other assesses recurrent pericarditis.There was moderate quality evidence that colchicine reduces episodes of pericarditis in people with recurrent pericarditis over 18 months follow-up (HR 0.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 0.58). It is expected that at 18 months, the number needed to treat (NNT) is 4. In people with acute pericarditis, there was moderate quality evidence that colchicine reduces recurrence (HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.61) at 18 months follow-up. Colchicine led to a greater chance of symptom relief at 72 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.4; 95% CI 1.26 to 1.56; low quality evidence). Adverse effects were mainly gastrointestinal and included abdominal pain and diarrhoea. The pooled RR for adverse events was 1.26 (95% CI 0.75 to 2.12). While the number of people experiencing adverse effects was higher in the colchicine than the control groups (9% versus 7%), the quality of evidence was low owing to imprecision, and there was no statistically significant difference between the treatment groups (P = 0.42). There was moderate quality evidence that treatment with colchicine led to more people stopping treatment due to adverse events (RR 1.87; 95% CI 1.02 to 3.41). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Colchicine, as adjunctive therapy to NSAIDs, is effective in reducing the number of pericarditis recurrences in patients with recurrent pericarditis or acute pericarditis. However, evidence is based on a limited number of small trials. Patients with multiple resistant recurrences were not represented in any published or on-going trials, and it is these patients that are in the most need for treatment.

Heparin versus 0.9% sodium chloride intermittent flushing for prevention of occlusion in central venous catheters in adults.

BACKGROUND: Heparin intermittent flushing is a standard practice in the maintenance of patency in central venous catheters. However, we could find no systematic review examining its effectiveness and safety. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of intermittent flushing with heparin versus 0.9% sodium chloride (normal saline) solution in adults with central venous catheters in terms of prevention of occlusion and overall benefits versus harms. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched December 2013) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 11). Searches were also carried out in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and clinical trials databases (December 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults 18 years of age and older with a central venous catheter (CVC) in which intermittent flushing with heparin (any dose with or without other drugs) was compared with 0.9% normal saline were included. No restriction on language was applied. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed trial quality and extracted data. Trial authors were contacted to retrieve additional information, when necessary. MAIN RESULTS: Six eligible studies with a total of 1433 participants were included. The heparin concentrations used in these studies were very different (10-5000 IU/mL), and follow-up varied from 20 days to 180 days. The overall risk of bias in the studies was low. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate for the main outcomes (occlusion of CVC, duration of catheter patency, CVC-related sepsis, mortality and haemorrhage at any site).Combined findings from three trials in which the unit of analysis was the catheter suggest that heparin was associated with reduced CVC occlusion rates (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.94). However, no clear evidence of a similar effect was found when the results of two studies in which the unit of analysis was the participant were combined (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.70), nor when findings were derived from one study, which considered total line accesses (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.40). Furthermore, results for other estimated effects were found to be imprecise and compatible with benefit and harm: catheter duration in days (mean difference (MD) 0.41, 95% CI -1.29 to 2.12), CVC-related thrombosis (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.99), CVC-related sepsis (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.34 to 3.03), mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.32) and haemorrhage at any site (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.85). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no conclusive evidence of important differences when heparin intermittent flushing was compared with 0.9% normal saline flushing for central venous catheter maintenance in terms of efficacy or safety. As heparin is more expensive than normal saline, our findings challenge its continued use in CVC flushing outside the context of clinical trials.

Certolizumab pegol (CDP870) for rheumatoid arthritis in adults.

BACKGROUND: Tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha inhibitors are beneficial for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in terms of reducing the risk of joint damage, improving physical function and improving quality of life. This Cochrane review is an update of a review of the treatment of RA with certolizumab pegol that was first published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical benefits and harms of certolizumab pegol (CDP870) in patients with RA who have not responded well to conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, TOXLINE, Web of Knowledge; websites of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA); reference lists of articles; and searched http/clinicaltrials.gov. The searches were updated from 2009 (date of last search for the original review) to 5 June 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared certolizumab pegol with any other agent including placebo or methotrexate (MTX) in adult patients with active RA despite current or prior treatment with conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), such as MTX. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed search results, trial quality and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or referral to a third author. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven trials were included in this update. Ten (4324 patients) were included in the pooled analysis for benefits, five more than previously, and 10 (3711 patients) in the pooled analysis for harms, four more trials (1930 patients) than previously. The duration of follow-up varied from 12 to 52 weeks and the range of doses of certolizumab pegol varied from 50 to 400 mg given subcutaneously (sc). In phase III trials, the control was placebo plus MTX in five trials and placebo in four trials. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed as low but there may have been a risk of attrition bias.Statistically significant improvements were observed at 24 weeks with the approved dose of 200 mg certolizumab pegol every other week, in 1) American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50% improvement: 27% absolute improvement (95% CI 20% to 33%), NNT of 4 (95% CI 3 to 8), risk ratio (RR) 3.80 (95% CI 2.42 to 5.95); 2) the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ): -12% absolute improvement (95% CI -9% to -14%), NNT of 6 (95% CI 5 to 8), mean difference (MD) - 0.35 (95% CI -0.43 to -0.26) (scale 0 to 3); 3) Disease Activity Score (DAS) remission improvement: absolute improvement 11% (95% CI 8% to 15%), NNT of 9 (95% CI 4 to 20), RR 8.47 (95% CI 4.15-17.28); and 4) radiological changes: erosion score (ES) absolute improvement -0.29% (95% CI -0.42% to -0.17%), NNT of 6 (95% CI 4 to 10), MD -0.67 (95% CI -0.96 to -0.38) (scale 0 to 230). Serious adverse events were statistically significantly more frequent for certolizumab pegol (200 mg every other week) with an absolute rate difference of 4% (95% CI 2% to 6%), NNTH of 32 (95% CI 17 to 88), Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.77 (95% CI 1.27 to 2.46). There was a statistically significant increase in all withdrawals in the placebo groups (for all doses and all follow-ups) with an absolute rate difference of -34% (95% CI -18% to -50%), NNTH of 4 (95% CI 3 to 5), NNTH of 4 (95% CI 3 to 5), RR 0.42 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.50); and there was a statistically significant increase in all withdrawals due to adverse events in the certolizumab groups (for all doses and all follow-up) with an absolute rate difference of 2% (95% CI 1% to 3%), NNTH of 55 (95% CI 27 to 238), Peto OR 1.66 (95% CI 1.15 to 2.37).The risk of bias was low and the quality of evidence was downgraded to moderate because of high rates of dropouts (> 20%) in most of the trials. We did not find any problems with inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision or publication bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results and conclusions did not change from the previous review. There is moderate-level evidence from randomised controlled trials that certolizumab pegol alone or combined with methotrexate is beneficial in the treatment of RA. Adverse events were more frequent with active treatment. We found a potential risk of serious adverse events.

Oxygen therapy for acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Oxygen (O2) is widely used in people with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) although it has been suggested it may do more harm than good. Previous systematic reviews have concluded that there was insufficient evidence to know whether oxygen reduced, increased or had no effect on heart ischaemia or infarct size, as did our original Cochrane review on this topic in 2010. The wide dissemination of the lack of evidence to support this widely-used intervention since 2010 may stimulate the needed trials of oxygen therapy, and it is therefore important that this review is updated regularly. OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence from randomised controlled trials to establish whether routine use of inhaled oxygen in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) improves patient-centred outcomes, in particular pain and death. SEARCH METHODS: The following bibliographic databases were searched last in July 2012: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO) and Web of Science (ISI). LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature) and PASCAL were last searched in May 2013. We also contacted experts to identify any studies. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of people with suspected or proven AMI (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI), less than 24 hours after onset, in which the intervention was inhaled oxygen (at normal pressure) compared to air and regardless of cotherapies provided these were the same in both arms of the trial. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of identified studies to see if they met the inclusion criteria, and independently undertook the data extraction. The quality of studies and the risk of bias were assessed according to guidance in the Cochrane Handbook. The primary outcomes were death, pain and complications. The measure of effect used was the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). MAIN RESULTS: The updated search identified one new trial. In total, four trials involving 430 participants were included and 17 deaths occurred. The pooled RR of death was 2.05 (95% CI 0.75 to 5.58) in an intention-to-treat analysis and 2.11 (95% CI 0.78 to 5.68) in participants with confirmed AMI. While suggestive of harm, the small number of deaths recorded means that this could be a chance occurrence. Pain was measured by analgesic use. The pooled RR for the use of analgesics was 0.97 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.20). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no conclusive evidence from randomised controlled trials to support the routine use of inhaled oxygen in people with AMI. A definitive randomised controlled trial is urgently required, given the mismatch between trial evidence suggestive of possible harm from routine oxygen use and recommendations for its use in clinical practice guidelines.

Certolizumab pegol (CDP870) for rheumatoid arthritis in adults.

BACKGROUND: TNF-alpha inhibitors have been shown to reduce the risk of joint damage and improve physical function and quality of life in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This is the first Cochrane review of certolizumab pegol, a new TNF-alpha inhibitor. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of certolizumab pegol (CDP870) in patients with RA who have not responded well to conventional disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 3),  MEDLINE (1966 to November 2009), EMBASE (1966 to November 2009), Scopus (January 2004 to November 2009), TOXLINE (until November 2009), Web of Knowledge (until November 2009); websites of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA) (until November 2009), and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared certolizumab pegol with any other agent including placebo or methotrexate (MTX) in adult RA patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite current or prior treatment with conventional DMARDs, such as methotrexate (MTX). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed search results, trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials were included. We included in the analysis 2394 people for effectiveness and 2094 people for safety. The duration of follow-up was from 12 to 52 weeks, and the range of doses of certolizumab pegol were from 50 to 400 mg subcutaneously (sc). In three trials the control was placebo plus methotrexate (MTX) and in two trials it was just placebo. Significant improvements were observed at 24 weeks with the approved dose of 200 mg certolizumab pegol: American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50% improvement: risk ratio (RR) 6.01 (95% CI 3.84 to 9.40) with an absolute benefit of 29% (95% CI 25% to 34%), number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) of 4 (3 to 5) and the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) mean difference (MD) - 0.39 (95% CI -0.45 to -0.32) (scale 0 to 3). At 52 weeks the results were quite similar: ACR 50% improvement RR 5.27 (95% CI 3.19 to 8.71), HAQ mean difference (MD) - 0.42 (95% CI -0.52 to -0.32). Serious adverse events were more frequent for certolizumab pegol 200 mg, Peto OR 2.02 (95% CI 1.24 to 3.30). The most common adverse events with certolizumab pegol 200 mg were: upper respiratory tract infections, Peto OR 2.21 (95% CI 1.15 to 4.25); hypertension, Peto OR 2.81 (95% CI 1.38 to 5.75); and nasopharyngitis, Peto OR 2.71 (95% CI 1.30 to 5.66). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: With an overall high grade of evidence this review revealed an improvement of clinical results (ACR50, 28 joint disease activity score (DAS-28) remission and HAQ scores) with certolizumab pegol. Adverse events were more frequent with certolizumab; there was a statistically significant increase in the number of serious adverse events, infections and hypertension.

Oxygen therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Oxygen (O(2)) is widely recommended in international guidelines for treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), but there is uncertainty about its safety and benefits. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine whether inhaled O(2) in AMI improves pain or the risk of death. Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS and PASCAL were searched from start date to February 2010. Other sources included British Library ZETOC, Web of Science, ISI Proceedings, relevant conferences, expert contacts. Randomised controlled trials of inhaled O(2) versus air in patients with suspected or proven AMI of < 24 h onset were included. Two authors independently reviewed studies to confirm inclusion criteria met, and undertook data abstraction. Quality of studies and risk of bias was assessed according to Cochrane Collaboration guidance. Main outcomes were death, pain, and complications. Measure of effect used was the RR. Three trials (n=387 patients) were included. Pooled RR of death on O(2) compared to air was 2.88 (95%CI 0.88 to 9.39) on ITT analysis and 3.03 (95%CI 0.93 to 9.83) in confirmed AMI. While suggestive of harm, this could be a chance occurrence. Pain was measured by analgesic use. Pooled RR for the use of analgesics was 0.97 (95%CI 0.78 to 1.20). Evidence for O(2) in AMI is sparse, of poor quality and pre-dates advances in reperfusion and trial methods. Evidence is suggestive of harm but lacks power and excess deaths in the O(2) group could be due to chance. More research is required.

Oxygen therapy for acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Oxygen (O(2)) is widely recommended for patients with myocardial infarction yet a narrative review has suggested it may do more harm than good. Systematic reviews have concluded that there was insufficient evidence to know whether oxygen reduced, increased or had no effect on the heart ischaemia or infarct size. OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence from randomised controlled trials to establish whether routine use of inhaled oxygen in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) improves patient-centred outcomes, in particular pain and death. SEARCH STRATEGY: The following bibliographic databases were searched (to the end of February 2010): Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS and PASCAL, British Library ZETOC, Web of Science ISI Proceedings. Experts were also contacted to identify any studies. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of people with suspected or proven AMI, less than 24 hours after onset, in which the intervention was inhaled oxygen (at normal pressure) compared to air and regardless of co-therapies provided these were the same in both arms of the trial. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of identified studies to see if they met the inclusion criteria and independently undertook the data extraction. The quality of studies and the risk of bias were assessed according to guidance in the Cochrane Handbook. The primary outcomes were death, pain and complications. The measure of effect used was the relative risk (RR). MAIN RESULTS: Three trials involving 387 patients were included and 14 deaths occurred. The pooled RR of death was 2.88 (95% CI 0.88 to 9.39) in an intention-to-treat analysis and 3.03 (95% CI 0.93 to 9.83) in patients with confirmed AMI. While suggestive of harm, the small number of deaths recorded meant that this could be a chance occurrence. Pain was measured by analgesic use. The pooled RR for the use of analgesics was 0.97 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.20). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no conclusive evidence from randomised controlled trials to support the routine use of inhaled oxygen in patients with acute AMI. A definitive randomised controlled trial is urgently required given the mismatch between trial evidence suggestive of possible harm from routine oxygen use and recommendations for its use in clinical practice guidelines.

Oxygen use in acute myocardial infarction: an online survey of health professionals' practice and beliefs.

INTRODUCTION: There is growing interest in the safety of oxygen therapy in emergency patients. A Cochrane review of oxygen versus air for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) showed a potentially important, but statistically non-significant, increase in mortality (RR 3.03 (95% CI 0.93 to 9.83)) and concluded a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) was needed. OBJECTIVE: To explore the feasibility of conducting an RCT of oxygen versus air in AMI, by exploring the beliefs of UK professionals who treat patients with AMI about oxygen's benefits, and to establish a baseline of reported practice by asking about their use of oxygen. Method A cross-sectional online survey of UK emergency department, cardiology and ambulance staff. RESULT: 524 responses were received. All specialities had over 100 respondents. 98.3% said they always or usually use oxygen. 80% reported having local guidelines that recommended the routine use of oxygen. 55% believed oxygen definitely or probably significantly reduces the risk of death, while only 1.3% reported that they thought 'it may even increase the risk of death.' There were only minor differences across specialities and grades. CONCLUSION: Widespread belief in the benefit of oxygen in AMI may make it difficult to persuade funders of the importance of this issue and health professionals to participate in enrolling patients into a trial in which oxygen would be withheld from half their patients.

The effectiveness of a clinically integrated e-learning course in evidence-based medicine: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the educational effects of a clinically integrated e-learning course for teaching basic evidence-based medicine (EBM) among postgraduates compared to a traditional lecture-based course of equivalent content. METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial in the Netherlands and the UK involving postgraduate trainees in six obstetrics and gynaecology departments. Outcomes (knowledge gain and change in attitude towards EBM) were compared between the clinically integrated e-learning course (intervention) and the traditional lecture based course (control). We measured change from pre- to post-intervention scores using a validated questionnaire assessing knowledge (primary outcome) and attitudes (secondary outcome). RESULTS: There were six clusters involving teaching of 61 postgraduate trainees (28 in the intervention and 33 in the control group). The intervention group achieved slightly higher scores for knowledge gain compared to the control, but these results were not statistically significant (difference in knowledge gain: 3.5 points, 95% CI -2.7 to 9.8, p = 0.27). The attitudinal changes were similar for both groups. CONCLUSION: A clinically integrated e-learning course was at least as effective as a traditional lecture based course and was well accepted. Being less costly than traditional teaching and allowing for more independent learning through materials that can be easily updated, there is a place for incorporating e-learning into postgraduate EBM curricula that offer on-the-job training for just-in-time learning. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12609000022268.

Harmonising evidence-based medicine teaching: a study of the outcomes of e-learning in five European countries.

BACKGROUND: We developed and evaluated the outcomes of an e-learning course for evidence based medicine (EBM) training in postgraduate medical education in different languages and settings across five European countries. METHODS: We measured changes in knowledge and attitudes with well-developed assessment tools before and after administration of the course. The course consisted of five e-learning modules covering acquisition (formulating a question and search of the literature), appraisal, application and implementation of findings from systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions, each with interactive audio-visual learning materials of 15 to 20 minutes duration. The modules were prepared in English, Spanish, German and Hungarian. The course was delivered to 101 students from different specialties in Germany (psychiatrists), Hungary (mixture of specialties), Spain (general medical practitioners), Switzerland (obstetricians-gynaecologists) and the UK (obstetricians-gynaecologists). We analysed changes in scores across modules and countries. RESULTS: On average across all countries, knowledge scores significantly improved from pre- to post-course for all five modules (p < 0.001). The improvements in scores were on average 1.87 points (14% of total score) for module 1, 1.81 points (26% of total score) for module 2, 1.9 points (11% of total score) for module 3, 1.9 points (12% of total score) for module 4 and 1.14 points (14% of total score) for module 5. In the country specific analysis, knowledge gain was not significant for module 4 in Spain, Switzerland and the UK, for module 3 in Spain and Switzerland and for module 2 in Spain. Compared to pre-course assessment, after completing the course participants felt more confident that they can assess research evidence and that the healthcare system in their country should have its own programme of research about clinical effectiveness. CONCLUSION: E-learning in EBM can be harmonised for effective teaching and learning in different languages, educational settings and clinical specialties, paving the way for development of an international e-EBM course.

A clinically integrated curriculum in evidence-based medicine for just-in-time learning through on-the-job training: the EU-EBM project.

BACKGROUND: Over the last years key stake holders in the healthcare sector have increasingly recognised evidence based medicine (EBM) as a means to improving the quality of healthcare. However, there is considerable uncertainty about the best way to disseminate basic knowledge of EBM. As a result, huge variation in EBM educational provision, setting, duration, intensity, content, and teaching methodology exists across Europe and worldwide. Most courses for health care professionals are delivered outside the work context ('stand alone') and lack adaptation to the specific needs for EBM at the learners' workplace. Courses with modern 'adaptive' EBM teaching that employ principles of effective continuing education might fill that gap. We aimed to develop a course for post-graduate education which is clinically integrated and allows maximum flexibility for teachers and learners. METHODS: A group of experienced EBM teachers, clinical epidemiologists, clinicians and educationalists from institutions from eight European countries participated. We used an established methodology of curriculum development to design a clinically integrated EBM course with substantial components of e-learning. An independent European steering committee provided input into the process. RESULTS: We defined explicit learning objectives about knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviour for the five steps of EBM. A handbook guides facilitator and learner through five modules with clinical and e-learning components. Focussed activities and targeted assignments round off the learning process, after which each module is formally assessed. CONCLUSION: The course is learner-centred, problem-based, integrated with activities in the workplace and flexible. When successfully implemented, the course is designed to provide just-in-time learning through on-the-job-training, with the potential for teaching and learning to directly impact on practice.

Does evidence-based practice improve patient outcomes? An analysis of a natural experiment in a Spanish hospital.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Evidence-based practice (EBP) is widely promoted, but does EBP produce better patient outcomes? We report a natural experiment when part of the internal medicine service in a hospital was reorganized in 2003 to form an EBP unit, the rest of the service remaining unchanged. The units attended similar patients until 2012 permitting comparisons of outcomes and activity. METHODS: We used routinely collected statistics (2004-11) to compare the two different methods of practice and test whether patients being seen by the EBP unit differed from standard practice (SP) patients. Data were available by doctor and year. To check for differences between the EBP and SP doctors prior to reorganization, we used statistics from 2000 to 2003. We looked for changes in patient outcomes or activity following reorganization and whether the EBP unit was achieving significantly different results from SP. Data across the periods were combined and tested using Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in outcomes were detected between the EBP and the SP doctors prior to reorganization. Following the unit's establishment, the mortality of patients being treated by EBP doctors compared with their previous performance dropped from 7.4% to 6.3% (P < 0.02) and length of stay from 9.15 to 6.01 days (P = 0.002). No statistically significant improvements were seen in SP physicians' performance. No differences in the proportion of patients admitted or their complexity between the services were detected. Despite this, EBP patients had a clinically significantly lower risk of death 6.27% versus 7.75% (P < 0.001) and a shorter length of stay 6.01 versus 8.46 days (P < 0.001) than SP patients. Readmission rates were similar: 14.4% (EBP); 14.5% (SP). EBP doctors attended twice as many patients/doctor as SP doctors. CONCLUSION: The EBP unit was associated with better patient outcomes and more efficient performance than achieved by the same physicians previously or by SP concurrently.

Effectiveness of an e-learning course in evidence-based medicine for foundation (internship) training.

AIM: To evaluate the educational effectiveness of a clinically integrated e-learning course for teaching basic evidence-based medicine (EBM) among postgraduate medical trainees compared to a traditional lecture-based course of equivalent content. METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial to compare a clinically integrated e-learning EBM course (intervention) to a lecture-based course (control) among postgraduate trainees at foundation or internship level in seven teaching hospitals in the UK West Midlands region. Knowledge gain among participants was measured with a validated instrument using multiple choice questions. Change in knowledge was compared between groups taking into account the cluster design and adjusted for covariates at baseline using generalized estimating equations (GEE) model. RESULTS: There were seven clusters involving teaching of 237 trainees (122 in the intervention and 115 in the control group). The total number of postgraduate trainees who completed the course was 88 in the intervention group and 72 in the control group. After adjusting for baseline knowledge, there was no difference in the amount of improvement in knowledge of EBM between the two groups. The adjusted post course difference between the intervention group and the control group was only 0.1 scoring points (95% CI -1.2-1.4). CONCLUSION: An e-learning course in EBM was as effective in improving knowledge as a standard lecture-based course. The benefits of an e-learning approach need to be considered when planning EBM curricula as it allows standardization of teaching materials and is a potential cost-effective alternative to standard lecture-based teaching.

How far did we get? How far to go? A European survey on postgraduate courses in evidence-based medicine.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, evidence-based medicine (EBM) has gained recognition as a means to improve the quality of health care provision. However, little is known about learning opportunities to acquire EBM-associated skills. The EUebm-Unity partnership explored current educational activities for EBM practice for doctors across Europe. METHODS: We surveyed organizations offering postgraduate EBM courses across Europe inquiring about their course programme, teaching content and strategies, and interest in a Europe-wide curriculum in EBM. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-six organizers in eight European countries reported 403 courses that had started first-time from 1996 to 2006. Despite a steady increase, in absolute terms, the frequency of courses was low and varied from 1 first-time offering of a course per 640 doctors (Spain) to 1 first-time offering per 5600 doctors (Austria) over 10 years. Most adopted the McMaster EBM teaching concept of small group, problem-based learning focussing on interventions, diagnostic tests and guidelines, and included efforts to link EBM to patient care. Teaching staff consisted of doctors from academic and non-academic settings, supported by methodologists. Efforts to formally integrate EBM in postgraduate activities were only partially successful. Most organizations welcomed a standardized European qualification in EBM. A limitation of the survey is the lack of follow-up information about the continuation of courses following the first-time offering. CONCLUSIONS: All countries offer some EBM courses with varying teaching intensity. Learning opportunities are insufficient to ensure widespread dissemination of knowledge and skills. Most countries welcome more efforts to develop inexpensive and feasible educational activities at a postgraduate level.