Incidence of mortality due to rebound toxicity after ‘treat and release’ practices in prehospital opioid overdose care: a systematic review

IntroductionDeath due to opioid overdose was declared a public health crisis in Canada in 2015. Traditionally, patients who have overdosed on opioids that are managed by emergency medical services (EMS) are treated with the opioid antagonist naloxone, provided ventilatory support and subsequently transported to hospital. However, certain EMS agencies have permitted patients who have been reversed from opioid overdose to refuse transport, if the patient exhibits capacity to do so. Evidence on the safety of this practice is limited. Therefore, our intent was to examine the available literature to determine mortality and serious adverse events within 48 hours of EMS treat and release due to suspected rebound opioid toxicity after naloxone administration.MethodsA systematic search was performed on 11 May 2017 in PubMed, Cochrane Central, Embase and CINHAL. Studies that reported on the outcome of patients treated with prehospital naloxone and released at the scene were included. Analyses for incidence of mortality and adverse events at the scene were conducted. Risk of bias and assessment of publication bias was also done.Results1401 records were screened after duplicate removal. Eighteen full-text studies were reviewed with seven selected for inclusion. None were found to be high risk of bias. In most studies, heroin was the source of the overdose. Mortality within 48 hours was infrequent with only four deaths among 4912 patients ﴾0.081%﴿ in the seven studies. Only one study reported on adverse events and found no incidence of adverse events from their sample of 71 released patients.ConclusionMortality or serious adverse events due to suspected rebound toxicity in patients released on scene post-EMS treatment with naloxone were rare. However, studies involving longer-acting opioids were rare and no study involved fentanyl.

Download Full-text

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or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review of published and unpublished data with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses

Systematic Reviews ◽

10.1186/s13643-021-01705-6 ◽

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

Download Full-text

Manipulation and Mobilization for Treating Chronic Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for an Appropriateness Panel

January 2018 - Pain Physician ◽

10.36076/ppj/2019.22.e55 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 2 (22.2) ◽

pp. E55-E70 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Ian D. Coulter

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Neck Pain ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Chronic Neck Pain ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Current Evidence ◽

Sample Sizes ◽

Serious Adverse Events ◽

Multiple Treatment

Background: Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used by patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain; however, questions remain around efficacy, dosing, and safety, as well as how these approaches compare to other therapies. Objectives: Based on published trials, to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic nonspecific neck pain. Study Design: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Methods: We identified studies published between January 2000 and September 2017, by searching multiple electronic databases, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation and/or mobilization therapies to sham, no treatment, each other, and other active therapies, or when combined as multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias by using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. When possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project was funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under award number U19AT007912 and ultimately used to inform an appropriateness panel. Results: A total of 47 randomized trials (47 unique trials in 53 publications) were included in the systematic review. These studies were rated as having low risk of bias and included a total of 4,460 patients with nonspecific chronic neck pain who were being treated by a practitioner using various types of manipulation and/or mobilization interventions. A total of 37 trials were categorized as unimodal approaches and involved thrust or nonthrust compared with sham, no treatment, or other active comparators. Of these, only 6 trials with similar intervention styles, comparators, and outcome measures/timepoints were pooled for meta-analysis at 1, 3, and 6 months, showing a small effect in favor of thrust plus exercise compared to an exercise regimen alone for a reduction in pain and disability. Multimodal approaches appeared to be effective at reducing pain and improving function from the 10 studies evaluated. Health-related quality of life was seldom reported. Some 22/47 studies did not report or mention adverse events. Of the 25 that did, either no or minor events occurred. Limitations: The current evidence is heterogeneous, and sample sizes are generally small. Conclusions: Studies published since January 2000 provide low-moderate quality evidence that various types of manipulation and/or mobilization will reduce pain and improve function for chronic nonspecific neck pain compared to other interventions. It appears that multimodal approaches, in which multiple treatment approaches are integrated, might have the greatest potential impact. The studies comparing to no treatment or sham were mostly testing the effect of a single dose, which may or may not be helpful to inform practice. According to the published trials reviewed, manipulation and mobilization appear safe. However, given the low rate of serious adverse events, other types of studies with much larger sample sizes would be required to fully describe the safety of manipulation and/or mobilization for nonspecific chronic neck pain. Key words: Chronic neck pain, nonspecific, chiropractic, manipulation, mobilization, systematic review, meta-analysis, appropriateness

Download Full-text

Efficacy and safety of colchicine in COVID-19: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

RMD Open ◽

10.1136/rmdopen-2021-001746 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 7 (3) ◽

pp. e001746

Author(s):

Kedar Gautambhai Mehta ◽

Tejas Patel ◽

Paragkumar D Chavda ◽

Parvati Patel

Keyword(s):

Adverse Events ◽

Supportive Care ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Ventilatory Support ◽

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Serious Adverse Events ◽

Quality Of Evidence ◽

Randomised Controlled

BackgroundColchicine, an anti-inflammatory drug is prescribed nowadays for COVID-19. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated efficacy and safety of colchicine in patients with COVID-19.MethodsWe searched databases for randomised controlled studies evaluating efficacy and/or safety of colchicine as compared with supportive care in patients with COVID-19. The efficacy outcomes were mortality, ventilatory support, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and length of hospital stay. The safety outcomes were adverse events, serious adverse events and diarrhoea. A meta-analytical summary was estimated using random effects model through Mantle-Hanzle method. An I2 test was used to assess heterogeneity. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess quality of evidence for each outcome.ResultsOut of 69 full texts assessed, 6 studies (16148 patients with COVID-19) were included in meta-analysis. Patients receiving colchicine did not show significant reduction in mortality (risk difference, RD −0.00 (95% CI −0.01 to 0.01), I2=15%), ventilatory support (risk ratio, RR 0.67 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.21), I2=47%), ICU admission (RR 0.49 (95% CI 0.19 to 1.25), I2=34%), length of hospital stay (mean difference: −1.17 (95% CI −3.02 to 0.67), I2=77%) and serious adverse events (RD −0.01 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.00), I2=28%) than those who received supportive care only. Patients receiving colchicine had higher rates of adverse events (RR 1.58 (95% CI 1.07 to 2.33), I2=81%) and diarrhoea (RR 1.93 (95% CI 1.62 to 2.29), I2=0%) than supportive care treated patients. The GRADE quality of evidence was moderate for most outcomes.ConclusionThe moderate quality evidence suggests no benefit of addition of colchicine to the standard care regimen in patients with COVID-19.

Download Full-text

The Place of Community Rescue Naloxone in a Public Health Crisis of Opioid Overdose

Pharmacology &amp Pharmacy ◽

10.4236/pp.2019.102006 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 10 (02) ◽

pp. 61-81

Author(s):

Joseph V. Pergolizzi ◽

Jo Ann LeQuang ◽

Robert Taylor ◽

Robert B. Raffa

Keyword(s):

Public Health ◽

Opioid Overdose ◽

Health Crisis ◽

Public Health Crisis

Download Full-text

Ivabradine added to usual care in patients with heart failure: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BMJ evidence-based medicine ◽

10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111724 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. bmjebm-2021-111724

Author(s):

Mathias Maagaard ◽

Emil Eik Nielsen ◽

Naqash Javaid Sethi ◽

Ning Liang ◽

Si-Hong Yang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Heart Failure ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Usual Care ◽

Sequential Analysis ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Trial Sequential Analysis ◽

Serious Adverse Events ◽

All Cause Mortality

ObjectivesTo assess the beneficial and harmful effects of adding ivabradine to usual care in participants with heart failure.DesignA systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.Eligibility criteriaRandomised clinical trials comparing ivabradine and usual care with usual care (with or without) placebo in participants with heart failure.Information sourcesMedline, Embase, CENTRAL, LILACS, CNKI, VIP and other databases and trial registries up until 31 May 2021.Data extractionPrimary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction and non-serious adverse events. We performed meta-analysis of all outcomes. We used trial sequential analysis to control risks of random errors, the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the risks of systematic errors and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.ResultsWe included 109 randomised clinical trials with 26 567 participants. Two trials were at low risk of bias, although both trials were sponsored by the company that developed ivabradine. All other trials were at high risk of bias. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses showed that we could reject that ivabradine versus control reduced all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR)=0.94; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01; p=0.09; high certainty of evidence). Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis showed that ivabradine seemed to reduce the risk of serious adverse events (RR=0.90; 95% CI 0.87 to 0.94; p<0.00001; number needed to treat (NNT)=26.2; low certainty of evidence). This was primarily due to a decrease in the risk of ‘cardiac failure’ (RR=0.83; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; p=0.02; NNT=43.9), ‘hospitalisations’ (RR=0.89; 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94; p<0.0001; NNT=36.4) and ‘ventricular tachycardia’ (RR=0.59; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; p=0.001; NNT=212.8). However, the trials did not describe how these outcomes were defined and assessed during follow-up. Meta-analyses showed that ivabradine increased the risk of atrial fibrillation (RR=1.19; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.35; p=0.008; number needed to harm (NNH)=116.3) and bradycardia (RR=3.95; 95% CI 1.88 to 8.29; p=0.0003; NNH=303). Ivabradine seemed to increase quality of life on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) (mean difference (MD)=2.92; 95% CI 1.34 to 4.50; p=0.0003; low certainty of evidence), but the effect size was small and possibly without relevance to patients, and on the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHFQ) (MD=−5.28; 95% CI −6.60 to −3.96; p<0.00001; very low certainty of evidence), but the effects were uncertain. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between ivabradine and control when assessing cardiovascular mortality and myocardial infarction. Ivabradine seemed to increase the risk of non-serious adverse events.Conclusion and relevanceHigh certainty evidence shows that ivabradine does not seem to affect the risks of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. The effects on quality of life were small and possibly without relevance to patients on the KCCQ and were very uncertain for the MLWHFQ. The effects on serious adverse events, myocardial infarction and hospitalisation are uncertain. Ivabradine seems to increase the risk of atrial fibrillation, bradycardia and non-serious adverse events.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018112082.

Download Full-text

Are Supplemental Branched-Chain Amino Acids Beneficial During the Oncological Peri-Operative Period: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Integrative Cancer Therapies ◽

10.1177/1534735421997551 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 20 ◽

pp. 153473542199755

Author(s):

Elise Cogo ◽

Mohamed Elsayed ◽

Vivian Liang ◽

Kieran Cooley ◽

Christilynn Guerin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Amino Acids ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Observational Studies ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Total Sample ◽

Branched Chain Amino Acids ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Serious Adverse Events ◽

Branched Chain

Background: Branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs; leucine, isoleucine, and valine) are essential amino acids involved in immune responses, and may have roles in protein malnutrition and sarcopenia. Furthermore, certain liver diseases have been associated with a decreased Fischer’s ratio (BCAAs to aromatic amino acids; phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan). We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BCAAs use in patients with cancer undergoing surgery. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched (inception to July 24, 2020) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies in English evaluating BCAAs (alone or in combinations) during the oncological peri-operative period. Study selection, data extraction, and quality appraisal were done in duplicate. RCT risk-of-bias was appraised using Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool, and observational studies’ quality assessment was conducted with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analyses were conducted when appropriate. Results: 20 articles were included comprising 13 RCTs and 6 observational cohort studies in 7 reports and 2019 total participants overall. Among 13 RCTs, 77% involved liver cancer. Methodological study quality scored substantial risk-of-bias across most RCTs. Meta-analysis of RCTs found a 38% decreased risk of post-operative infections in BCAAs group compared to controls (RR = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.44 to 0.87; P = .006; number of RCTs, k = 6; total sample size, N = 389; I2 = 0%). BCAAs were also found to be beneficial for ascites (RR = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.86; P = .008; k = 4; N = 296; I2 = 0%), body weight (MD = 3.24 kg; 95% CI = 0.44 to 6.04; P = .02; k = 3; N = 196; I2 = 24%), and hospitalization length (MD = −2.07 days; 95% CI = −3.97 to −0.17; P = .03; k = 5; N = 362; I2 = 59%). No differences were found between BCAAs and controls for mortality, recurrence, other post-operative complications (liver failure, edema, pleural effusion), blood loss, quality of life, ammonia level, and prothrombin time. No serious adverse events were related to BCAAs; however, serious adverse events were reported due to intravenous catheters. No safety concerns from observational studies were identified. Conclusions: Branched-chain amino acids during the oncological surgical period demonstrated promise in reducing important post-operative morbidity from infections and ascites compared to controls. Blinded, placebo-controlled confirmatory trials of higher methodological quality are warranted, especially using oral, short-term BCAAs-enriched supplements within the context of recent ERAS programs. PROSPERO registration: CRD42018086168.

Download Full-text

Comparative Effectiveness of Pharmacological Interventions for Covid-19: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Frontiers in Pharmacology ◽

10.3389/fphar.2021.649472 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 ◽

Author(s):

Franco De Crescenzo ◽

Laura Amato ◽

Fabio Cruciani ◽

Luke P Moynihan ◽

Gian Loreto D’Alò ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Randomised Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Pharmacological Intervention ◽

Pharmacological Interventions ◽

Serious Adverse Events ◽

All Cause Mortality ◽

Randomised Controlled

Background: Several pharmacological interventions are now under investigation for the treatment of Covid-19, and the evidence is evolving rapidly. Our aim is to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of these drugs.Methods and Findings: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We included 96 RCTs, comprising of 34,501 patients. The network meta-analysis showed in terms of all-cause mortality, when compared to SC or placebo, only corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate (RR 0.90, 95%CI 0.83, 0.97; moderate certainty of evidence). Corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate also when compared to hydroxychloroquine (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.74, 0.94; moderate certainty of evidence). Remdesivir proved to be better in terms of SAEs when compared to SC or placebo (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0.63, 0.89; high certainty of evidence) and plasma (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.34, 0.94; high certainty of evidence). The combination of lopinavir and ritonavir proved to reduce SAEs when compared to plasma (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.25, 0.95; high certainty of evidence). Most of the RCTs were at unclear risk of bias (42 of 96), one third were at high risk of bias (34 of 96) and 20 were at low risk of bias. Certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low.Conclusion: At present, corticosteroids reduced all-cause mortality in patients with Covid-19, with a moderate certainty of evidence. Remdesivir appeared to be a safer option than SC or placebo, while plasma was associated with safety concerns. These preliminary evidence-based observations should guide clinical practice until more data are made public.

Download Full-text

Herbal Medicine for Cervicogenic Dizziness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

10.21203/rs.3.rs-364098/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Hyunjoo Oh ◽

Seungwon Shin ◽

Euiju Lee ◽

Won-Seok Chung

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Herbal Medicines ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Current Evidence ◽

Serious Adverse Events ◽

Reliable Effect ◽

Cervicogenic Dizziness ◽

Active Controls

Abstract Background: Herbal medicines (HMs) have been widely used in the treatment of cervicogenic dizziness (CGD) based on their empirical effectiveness and safety. Herein, we reviewed and evaluated the clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of HM for CGD. Methods: Among the relevant studies published up to December 2019 in 11 electronic databases, only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The studies’ methodological quality was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials, and the strength of evidence for the main findings was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Results: All 17 included RCTs with 1,797 participants were conducted with six types of modified HM prescriptions and three types of active controls. More than half of the included studies were of low quality because of the high risk of bias due to deviations from the intended intervention. HMs plus active controls were more effective in CGD treatment than active controls alone. HMs plus antivertigo drugs, HMs plus manual therapy, and HMs plus acupuncture therapy were all effective in CGD treatment, with HMs plus antivertigo drugs showing the most reliable effect. All HM prescriptions were effective for specific patterns of CGD when administered with active controls, with Banxia Baizhu Tianma tang and Dingxuan tang demonstrating the most reliable effect. No serious adverse events were reported in all included studies. Conclusions: The current evidence suggests that HMs may enhance the treatment effect on CGD when combined with other treatments without serious adverse events. Further high-quality evidence is needed to draw a definite conclusion.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020199222), and the Research Registry (Review Registry Unique Identifying Number: reviewregistry1036)

Download Full-text

Outcomes associated with hospital admissions for accidental opioid overdose in British Columbia: a retrospective cohort study

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025567 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (5) ◽

pp. e025567

Author(s):

Richard L Morrow ◽

Ken Bassett ◽

Malcolm Maclure ◽

Colin R Dormuth

Keyword(s):

British Columbia ◽

Cohort Study ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Retrospective Cohort Study ◽

Retrospective Cohort ◽

Secondary Analysis ◽

Secondary Outcome ◽

Opioid Overdose ◽

Composite Outcome ◽

Serious Adverse Events

ObjectivesTo study the association between accidental opioid overdose and neurological, respiratory, cardiac and other serious adverse events and whether risk of these adverse events was elevated during hospital readmissions compared with initial admissions.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingPopulation-based study using linked administrative data in British Columbia, Canada.ParticipantsThe primary analysis included 2433 patients with 2554 admissions for accidental opioid overdose between 2006 and 2015, including 121 readmissions within 1 year of initial admission. The secondary analysis included 538 patients discharged following a total of 552 accidental opioid overdose hospitalizations and 11 040 matched controls from a cohort of patients with ≥180 days of prescription opioid use.Outcome measuresThe primary outcome was encephalopathy; secondary outcomes were adult respiratory distress syndrome, respiratory failure, pulmonary haemorrhage, aspiration pneumonia, cardiac arrest, ventricular arrhythmia, heart failure, rhabdomyolysis, paraplegia or tetraplegia, acute renal failure, death, a composite outcome of encephalopathy or any secondary outcome and total serious adverse events (all-cause hospitalisation or death). We analysed these outcomes using generalised linear models with a logistic link function.Results3% of accidental opioid overdose admissions included encephalopathy and 25% included one or more adverse events (composite outcome). We found no evidence of increased risk of encephalopathy (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.13 to 2.49) or other outcomes during readmissions versus initial admissions. In the secondary analysis, <5 patients in each cohort experienced encephalopathy. Risk of the composite outcome (OR 2.15; 95% CI 1.48 to 3.12) and all-cause mortality (OR 2.13; 95% CI 1.18 to 3.86) were higher for patients in the year following overdose relative to controls.ConclusionsWe found no evidence that risk of encephalopathy or other adverse events was higher in readmissions compared with initial admissions for accidental opioid overdose. Risk of serious morbidity and mortality may be elevated in the year following an accidental opioid overdose.

Download Full-text

Proving the Correctness of Knowledge Graph Update: A Scenario From Surveillance of Adverse Childhood Experiences

Frontiers in Big Data ◽

10.3389/fdata.2021.660101 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 4 ◽

Author(s):

Jon Haël Brenas ◽

Arash Shaban-Nejad

Keyword(s):

Adverse Childhood Experiences ◽

Knowledge Graph ◽

Semantic Relationship ◽

Childhood Experiences ◽

Health Crisis ◽

Public Health Crisis ◽

Adverse Childhood ◽

Knowledge Graphs ◽

Verification Process ◽

Do So

Knowledge graphs are a modern way to store information. However, the knowledge they contain is not static. Instances of various classes may be added or deleted and the semantic relationship between elements might evolve as well. When such changes take place, a knowledge graph might become inconsistent and the knowledge it conveys meaningless. In order to ensure the consistency and coherency of dynamic knowledge graphs, we propose a method to model the transformations that a knowledge graph goes through and to prove that the new transformations do not yield inconsistencies. To do so, we express the knowledge graphs as logically decorated graphs, then we describe the transformations as algorithmic graph transformations and we use a Hoare-like verification process to prove correctness. To demonstrate the proposed method in action, we use examples from Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), which is a public health crisis.

Download Full-text