Epinephrine (adrenaline) compared to selective beta-2-agonist in adults or children with acute asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Thorax ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. thoraxjnl-2021-217124
Author(s):  
Christina Baggott ◽  
Jo Katherine Hardy ◽  
Jenny Sparks ◽  
Doñah Sabbagh ◽  
Richard Beasley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Acute Asthma ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Healthcare Setting ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity ◽  
Acute Asthma Exacerbation ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundInternational asthma guidelines recommend against epinephrine (adrenaline) administration in acute asthma unless associated with anaphylaxis or angio-oedema. However, administration of intramuscular epinephrine in addition to nebulised selective β2-agonist is recommended for acute severe or life-threatening asthma in many prehospital guidelines. We conducted a systematic review to determine the efficacy of epinephrine in comparison to selective β2-agonist in acute asthma.MethodsWe included peer-reviewed publications of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled children or adults in any healthcare setting and compared epinephrine by any route to selective β2-agonist by any route for an acute asthma exacerbation. The primary outcome was treatment failure, including hospitalisation, need for intubation or death.ResultsThirty-eight of 1140 studies were included. Overall quality of evidence was low. Seventeen studies contributed data on 1299 participants to the meta-analysis. There was significant statistical heterogeneity, I2=56%. The pooled Peto’s OR for treatment failure with epinephrine versus selective β2-agonist was 0.99 (0.75 to 1.32), p=0.95. There was strong evidence that recruitment age group was associated with different estimates of the odds of treatment failure; with studies recruiting adults-only having lower odds of treatment failure with epinephrine. It was not possible to determine whether epinephrine in addition to selective β2-agonist improved outcomes.ConclusionThe low-quality evidence available suggests that epinephrine and selective β2-agonists have similar efficacy in acute asthma. There is a need for high-quality double-blind RCTs to determine whether addition of intramuscular epinephrine to inhaled or nebulised selective β2-agonist improves outcome.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017079472.

scholarly journals Adrenaline (epinephrine) compared to selective beta-2-agonist in adults or children with acute asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Baggott ◽  
Jo Hardy ◽  
Jenny Sparks ◽  
Doñah Sabbagh ◽  
Richard Beasley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Acute Asthma ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Healthcare Setting ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Risk Of Treatment

AbstractBackgroundInternational asthma guidelines recommend against adrenaline administration in acute asthma unless associated with anaphylaxis or angioedema. However, administration of intra-muscular adrenaline in addition to nebulised selective β2-agonist is recommended for acute severe or life-threatening asthma in many pre-hospital guidelines. We conducted a systematic review to determine the efficacy of adrenaline in comparison to selective β2-agonist in acute asthma.MethodsWe included peer-reviewed publications of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled children or adults in any healthcare setting and compared adrenaline by any route to selective β2-agonist by any route for an acute asthma exacerbation. The primary outcome was treatment failure, as indicated by hospitalisation, stay >24hrs in emergency department, need for intubation, or death.ResultsThirty-eight of 1,140 studies were included, involving 2,275 participants. Overall quality of evidence was low. There was significant statistical heterogeneity, I2=56%. The pooled odds ratio for treatment failure with adrenaline versus selective β2-agonist was 0.99 (0.74 to 1.34), p=0.96. There was strong evidence that recruitment age-group was associated with different estimates of the risk of treatment failure; with studies recruiting adults-only having a lower risk of treatment failure with adrenaline. It was not possible to determine whether adrenaline in addition to selective β2-agonist improved outcomes.ConclusionThe limited evidence available suggests that adrenaline and selective β2-agonists have similar efficacy in acute asthma and does not support the use of adrenaline in addition to selective β2-agonists in acute asthma. There is a need for high-quality double-blind RCTs to address this issue.PROSPERO registration number CRD42017079472

scholarly journals Efficacy of antidepressants and benzodiazepines in minor depression: systematic review and meta-analysis

2011 ◽  
Vol 198 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corrado Barbui ◽  
Andrea Cipriani ◽  
Vikram Patel ◽  
José L. Ayuso-Mateos ◽  
Mark van Ommeren
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Allocation Concealment ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Minor Depression ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Study Heterogeneity ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundDepression is a common condition that has been frequently treated with psychotropics.AimsTo review systematically the evidence of efficacy and acceptability of antidepressant and benzodiazepine treatments for patients with minor depression.MethodA systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind randomised controlled trials comparing antidepressants or benzodiazepines v. placebo in adults with minor depression. Data were obtained from MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and pharmaceutical company websites. Risk of bias was assessed for the generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, masking, incomplete outcome data, and sponsorship bias.ResultsSix studies met inclusion criteria. Three studies compared paroxetine with placebo; fluoxetine, amitriptyline and isocarboxazid were studied in one study each. No studies compared benzodiazepines with placebo. In terms of failures to respond to treatment (6 studies, 234 patients treated with antidepressants and 234 with placebo) no significant difference between antidepressants and placebo was found (relative risk (RR) 0.94, 95% CI 0.81–1.08). In terms of acceptability, data extracted from two studies (93 patients treated with antidepressants and 93 with placebo) showed no statistically significant difference between antidepressants and placebo (RR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.65–1.73). There was no statistically significant between-study heterogeneity for any of the reported analyses.ConclusionsThere is evidence showing there is unlikely to be a clinically important advantage for antidepressants over placebo in individuals with minor depression. For benzodiazepines, no evidence is available, and thus it is not possible to determine their potential therapeutic role in this condition.

scholarly journals Antipsychotic combinations in schizophrenia

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 462-465 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Gastaldon ◽  
D. Papola ◽  
G. Ostuzzi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Negative Symptoms ◽  
Partial Agonist ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
D2 Antagonist ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

In the treatment of resistant schizophrenia, a number of meta-analyses attempted to quantify the efficacy and tolerability of antipsychotic (AP) polypharmacy v. monotherapy with contradictory results. Recently, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials investigated the efficacy and tolerability of AP combination v. monotherapy in schizophrenia. It included 31 studies: 21 double-blind (considered high-quality studies) and 10 open-label (considered low-quality studies). The meta-analysis showed that, overall, the combination of two APs was more effective than monotherapy in terms of symptom reduction (standardised mean difference (SMD) = −0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.87 to −0.19); however, this result was confirmed only in the subgroup of low-quality studies. Negative symptoms improved when combining a D2 antagonist with a D2 partial agonist (SMD = −0.41, 95% CI −0.79 to −0.03) both in double-blind and open-label studies. In the present commentary, the results of this systematic review are critically discussed in terms of their clinical and research implications.

Effects of diacerein intake on cardiometabolic profiles in type 2 diabetics: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peyman Nowrouzi-Sohrabi ◽  
Reza Tabrizi ◽  
Mohammad Jalali ◽  
Navid Jamali ◽  
Shahla Rezaei ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Body Weight ◽  
Total Cholesterol ◽  
Ldl Cholesterol ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hdl Cholesterol ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity

Introduction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials was undertaken to evaluate the effect of diacerein intake on cardiometabolic profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods: Electronic databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to 31 July 2019. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using Cochran’s Q test and I-square (I2 ) statistic. Data were pooled using random-effect models and weighted mean difference (WMD). Results: From 1,733 citations, seven clinical trials were eligible for inclusion and meta-analysis. A significant reduction in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (WMD -0.73; 95%CI -1.25 to -0.21; P= 0.006; I2 = 72.2%) and body mass index (BMI) (WMD -0.55; 95%CI -1.03 to -0.07; P= 0.026; I2 = 9.5%) were identified. However, no significant effect of diacerein intake was identified on fasting blood sugar (FBS) (WMD - 9.00; 95%CI -22.57 to 4.57; P= 0.194; I2 = 60.5%), homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) (WMD 0.39; 95%CI 0.95 to 1.73; P= 0.569; I2 = 2.2%), body weight (WMD -0.54; 95%CI -1.10 to 0.02; P= 0.059), triglycerides (WMD -0.56; 95%CI -24.16 to 23.03; P= 0.963; I2 = 0.0%), total-cholesterol (WMD -0.21; 95%CI -12.19 to 11.78; P= 0.973; I2 = 0.0%), HDL-cholesterol (WMD -0.96; 95%CI -2.85 to 0.93; P= 0.321; I2 = 0.0%), and LDL-cholesterol levels (WMD -0.09; 95%CI -8.43 to 8.25; P= 0.983; I2 = 37.8%). Conclusion: Diacerein intake may reduce HbA1c and BMI; however, no evidence of effect was observed for FBS, HOMA-IR, body weight, triglycerides, total-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol or LDL-cholesterol.

Is there Sex-related Outcome Difference According to oral P2Y12 Inhibitors in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 107,126 Patients

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-203
Author(s):  
Oliver Brown ◽  
Jennifer Rossington ◽  
Gill Louise Buchanan ◽  
Giuseppe Patti ◽  
Angela Hoye
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Coronary Syndromes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Indirect Comparison ◽  
Bleeding Risk ◽  
Cardiovascular Death ◽  
P2y12 Inhibitors ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Coronary Syndromes ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background and Objectives: The majority of patients included in trials of anti-platelet therapy are male. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether, in addition to aspirin, P2Y12 blockade is beneficial in both women and men with acute coronary syndromes. </P><P> Methods: Electronic databases were searched and nine eligible randomised controlled studies were identified that had sex-specific clinical outcomes (n=107,126 patients). Risk Ratios (RR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were calculated for a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke (MACE), and a safety endpoint of major bleeding for each sex. Indirect comparison analysis was performed to statistically compare ticagrelor against prasugrel. </P><P> Results: Compared to aspirin alone, clopidogrel reduced MACE in men (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.92; p=0.003), but was not statistically significant in women (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.02, p=0.08). Clopidogrel therapy significantly increased bleeding in women but not men. Compared to clopidogrel, prasugrel was beneficial in men (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.97; p=0.02) but not statistically significant in women (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.06; p=0.30); ticagrelor reduced MACE in both men (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.94; p=0.001) and women (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.97; p=0.02). Indirect comparison demonstrated no significant difference between ticagrelor and prasugrel in either sex. Compared to clopidogrel, ticagrelor and prasugrel increased bleeding risk in both women and men. </P><P> Conclusion: In summary, in comparison to monotherapy with aspirin, P2Y12 inhibitors reduce MACE in women and men. Ticagrelor was shown to be superior to clopidogrel in both sexes. Prasugrel showed a statistically significant benefit only in men; however indirect comparison did not demonstrate superiority of ticagrelor over prasugrel in women.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document