Drug-drug interactions and their harmful effects in hospitalised patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wu Yi Zheng ◽  
L. C. Richardson ◽  
L. Li ◽  
R. O. Day ◽  
J. I. Westbrook ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Drug Interactions ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hospitalised Patients ◽  
Harmful Effects

scholarly journals Beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review of published and unpublished data with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Juul ◽  
Faiza Siddiqui ◽  
Marija Barbateskovic ◽  
Caroline Kamp Jørgensen ◽  
Michael Pascal Hengartner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Harmful Effects

Abstract Background Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide. Antidepressants are frequently used to treat major depressive disorder. It has been shown repeatedly that antidepressants seem to reduce depressive symptoms with a statistically significant effect, but the clinical importance of the effect sizes seems questionable. Both beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants have not previously been sufficiently assessed. The main objective of this review will be to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. Methods/design A systematic review with meta-analysis will be reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2 (ROB2), our eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, Trial Sequential Analysis will be conducted to control for random errors, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. To identify relevant trials, we will search both for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases from their inception to the present. Clinical study reports will be obtained from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Two review authors will independently screen the results of the literature searches, extract data, and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include any published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing one or more antidepressants with placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The following active agents will be included: agomelatine, amineptine, amitriptyline, bupropion, butriptyline, cianopramine, citalopram, clomipramine, dapoxetine, demexiptiline, desipramine, desvenlafaxine, dibenzepin, dosulepin, dothiepin, doxepin, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, imipramine, iprindole, levomilnacipran, lofepramine, maprotiline, melitracen, metapramine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, nortriptyline, noxiptiline, opipramol, paroxetine, protriptyline, quinupramine, reboxetine, sertraline, trazodone, tianeptine, trimipramine, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine. Primary outcomes will be depressive symptoms, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be suicide or suicide attempt, suicidal ideation, and non-serious adverse events. Discussion As antidepressants are commonly used to treat major depressive disorder in adults, a systematic review evaluating their beneficial and harmful effects is urgently needed. This review will inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of this highly prevalent and burdensome disorder. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020220279

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Tocilizumab Administration for the Treatment of Hospitalised Patients with COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christos Kyriakopoulos ◽  
Georgios Ntritsos ◽  
Athena Gogali ◽  
Haralampos Milionis ◽  
Evangelos Evangelou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hospitalised Patients

scholarly journals What Is the Impact of Ambulatory Vital Sign Monitoring on Deterioration Detection and Related Clinical Outcomes in Hospitalised Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Morgado Areia ◽  
Christopher Biggs ◽  
Mauro Santos ◽  
Neal Thurley ◽  
Stephen Gerry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Ambulatory Monitoring ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Monitoring Systems ◽  
Hospitalised Patients ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background: Timely recognition of the deteriorating inpatient remains challenging. Ambulatory monitoring systems (AMS) may augment current monitoring practices. However, there are many challenges to implementation in the hospital environment, and evidence describing the clinical impact of AMS on deterioration detection and patient outcome remains unclear. Objective: To assess the impact of vital signs monitoring on detection of deterioration and related clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients using ambulatory monitoring systems, in comparison with standard care.Methods: A systematic search was conducted in August 2020 using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL and Health Technology Assessment databases, as well as grey literature. Studies comparing the use of AMS against standard care for deterioration detection and related clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients were included. Deterioration related outcomes (primary) included unplanned intensive care admissions, rapid response team or cardiac arrest activation, total and major complications rate. Other clinical outcomes (secondary) included in-hospital mortality and hospital length of stay. Exploratory outcomes included alerting system parameters and clinical trial registry information. Results: Of 8706 citations, 10 studies with different designs met the inclusion criteria, of which 7 were included in the meta-analyses. Overall study quality was moderate. The meta-analysis indicated that the AMS, when compared with standard care, was associated with a reduction in intensive care transfers (risk ratio, RR, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.66 to 1.15), rapid response or cardiac arrest team activation (RR, 0.84; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.01), total (RR, 0.77; 95% CI 0.44 to 1.32) and major (RR, 0.55; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.30) complications prevalence. There was also association with reduced mortality (RR, 0.48; 95% CI 0.18 to 1.29) and hospital length of stay (mean difference, MD, -0.09; 95% CI -0.43 to 0.44). However, none were statistically significant.Conclusion: This systematic review indicates that implementation of AMS may have a positive impact on early deterioration detection and associated clinical outcomes, but differing design/quality of available studies and diversity of outcomes measures limits a definite conclusion. Our narrative findings suggested that alarms should be adjusted to minimise false alerts and promote rapid clinical action in response to deterioration.PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42020188633

scholarly journals Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review with network meta-analysis including individual patient data (The LIVING VACCINE Project)

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Kwasi Korang ◽  
Sophie Juul ◽  
Emil Eik Nielsen ◽  
Joshua Feinberg ◽  
Faiza Siddiqui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Viral Vector ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Harmful Effects

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) which has rapidly spread worldwide. Several human randomized clinical trials assessing potential vaccines are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living systematic review that continuously assesses the beneficial and harmful effects of all available vaccines for COVID-19. Methods/design We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any vaccine aiming to prevent COVID-19 (including but not limited to messenger RNA; DNA; non-replicating viral vector; replicating viral vector; inactivated virus; protein subunit; dendritic cell; other vaccines) with any comparator (placebo; “active placebo;” no intervention; standard care; an “active” intervention; another vaccine for COVID-19) for participants in all age groups. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality; a diagnosis of COVID-19; and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be quality of life and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analyses, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Within-study bias will be assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) and Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approaches will be used to assess certainty of evidence. Observational studies describing harms identified during the search for trials will also be included and described and analyzed separately. Discussion COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review assessing the beneficial and harmful effects of different vaccines is urgently needed. This living systematic review will regularly inform best practice in vaccine prevention and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020196492

scholarly journals Biomarkers and outcomes of COVID-19 hospitalisations: systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. bmjebm-2020-111536
Author(s):  
Preeti Malik ◽  
Urvish Patel ◽  
Deep Mehta ◽  
Nidhi Patel ◽  
Raveena Kelkar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Severe Disease ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Mesh Terms ◽  
Hospitalised Patients ◽  
Poor Outcomes ◽  
D Dimer

ObjectiveTo evaluate association between biomarkers and outcomes in COVID-19 hospitalised patients. COVID-19 pandemic has been a challenge. Biomarkers have always played an important role in clinical decision making in various infectious diseases. It is crucial to assess the role of biomarkers in evaluating severity of disease and appropriate allocation of resources.Design and settingSystematic review and meta-analysis. English full text observational studies describing the laboratory findings and outcomes of COVID-19 hospitalised patients were identified searching PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, medRxiv using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms COVID-19 OR coronavirus OR SARS-CoV-2 OR 2019-nCoV from 1 December 2019 to 15 August 2020 following Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines.ParticipantsStudies having biomarkers, including lymphocyte, platelets, D-dimer, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), C reactive protein (CRP), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), creatinine, procalcitonin (PCT) and creatine kinase (CK), and describing outcomes were selected with the consensus of three independent reviewers.Main outcome measuresComposite poor outcomes include intensive care unit admission, oxygen saturation <90%, invasive mechanical ventilation utilisation, severe disease, in-hospital admission and mortality. The OR and 95% CI were obtained and forest plots were created using random-effects models. Publication bias and heterogeneity were assessed by sensitivity analysis.Results32 studies with 10 491 confirmed COVID-19 patients were included. We found that lymphopenia (pooled-OR: 3.33 (95% CI: 2.51–4.41); p<0.00001), thrombocytopenia (2.36 (1.64–3.40); p<0.00001), elevated D-dimer (3.39 (2.66–4.33); p<0.00001), elevated CRP (4.37 (3.37–5.68); p<0.00001), elevated PCT (6.33 (4.24–9.45); p<0.00001), elevated CK (2.42 (1.35–4.32); p=0.003), elevated AST (2.75 (2.30–3.29); p<0.00001), elevated ALT (1.71 (1.32–2.20); p<0.00001), elevated creatinine (2.84 (1.80–4.46); p<0.00001) and LDH (5.48 (3.89–7.71); p<0.00001) were independently associated with higher risk of poor outcomes.ConclusionOur study found a significant association between lymphopenia, thrombocytopenia and elevated levels of CRP, PCT, LDH, D-dimer and COVID-19 severity. The results have the potential to be used as an early biomarker to improve the management of COVID-19 patients, by identification of high-risk patients and appropriate allocation of healthcare resources in the pandemic.

Evaluation of Potential Drug–Drug Interactions in Adults in the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Drug Safety ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (9) ◽  
pp. 1035-1044 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Grace Fitzmaurice ◽  
Adrian Wong ◽  
Hannah Akerberg ◽  
Simona Avramovska ◽  
Pamela L. Smithburger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Drug Interactions ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Potential Drug

scholarly journals Neuronal Stem Cell and Drug Interactions: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis: Concise Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 1202-1211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maulana Ikhsan ◽  
Alex Palumbo ◽  
Dorothee Rose ◽  
Marietta Zille ◽  
Johannes Boltze
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Stem Cell ◽  
Drug Interactions ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Concise Review ◽  
Neuronal Stem Cell

scholarly journals Hospitalisation and length of hospital stay following first-episode psychosis: systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (6) ◽  
pp. 991-1001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olesya Ajnakina ◽  
Brendon Stubbs ◽  
Emma Francis ◽  
Fiona Gaughran ◽  
Anthony S. David ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Longitudinal Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
First Episode Psychosis ◽  
Psychotic Symptoms ◽  
First Episode ◽  
Hospitalised Patients ◽  
Episode Psychosis ◽  
Over Time

AbstractBackgroundReducing hospitalisation and length of stay (LOS) in hospital following first episode psychosis (FEP) is important, yet reliable measures of these outcomes and their moderators are lacking. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the proportion of FEP cases who were hospitalised after their first contact with services and the LOS in a hospital during follow-up.MethodsStudies were identified from a systematic search across major electronic databases from inception to October 2017. Random effects meta-analyses and meta-regression analyses were conducted.Results81 longitudinal studies encompassing data for 23 280 FEP patients with an average follow-up length of 7 years were included. 55% (95% CI 50.3–60.5%) of FEP cases were hospitalised at least once during follow-up with the pooled average LOS of 116.7 days (95% CI 95.1–138.3). Older age of illness onset and being in a stable relationship were associated with a lower proportion of people who were hospitalised. While the proportion of hospitalised patients has not decreased over time, LOS has, with the sharpest reduction in the latest time period. The proportion of patients hospitalised during follow-up was highest in Australia and New Zealand (78.4%) compared to Europe (58.1%) and North America (48.0%); and lowest in Asia (32.5%). Black ethnicity and longer duration of untreated psychosis were associated with longer LOS; while less severe psychotic symptoms at baseline were associated with shorter LOS.ConclusionOne in two FEP cases required hospitalisation at least once during a 7-year follow-up with an average length of hospitalisation of 4 months during this period. LOS has declined over time, particularly in those countries in which it was previously longest.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document