Infectious complications in lupus nephritis treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Lupus ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 334-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
K M Thong ◽  
T M Chan
Keyword(s):  
Lupus Nephritis ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Risk Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Induction Treatment ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Serious Infections ◽  
Related Mortality

Objectives Infection is an important concern in lupus nephritis treatment, but few studies have focused on this complication. Available data suggest marked variation in occurrence and outcome. This meta-analysis and review aims to provide an overview of infective complications, focusing on the risk factors and outcomes. Methods Original articles on lupus nephritis Class III/IV/V published in the period January 1980 to December 2016 were identified from the Pubmed/Medline electronic database. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to investigate total and serious infections at different phases of treatment and their associated factors. A descriptive review that included all studies was also performed, providing details on the types of infection, infection-related mortality, and potential impact of different eras on infection rates. Results A total of 56 studies (32 randomized controlled trials) were included. The incidence rates of overall and serious infections were higher during the induction than maintenance phase of therapy, with serious infections occurring at 8.2–50 and 3.5 per 100 patient-years, respectively. Recent data, predominantly from Asia, suggested lower rates of overall infections with induction regimens that included tacrolimus compared with mycophenolate (risk ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.33–0.76, p = 0.001). Mycophenolate as induction treatment was associated with lower overall infection risks than cyclophosphamide in non-Asians (risk ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.48–0.75, p < 0.001). The rates of serious infections were 4.1–25% in Asian and 4.4–8.5% in non-Asian countries; with infection-related mortality rates of 0–6.7% in Asian, compared to 0–2.1% in non-Asian locations. Conclusions Infection remains a serious complication during treatment of lupus nephritis, but the reported rates and outcomes varied markedly. Mycophenolate was associated with lower infection risk than cyclophosphamide in non-Asians. Infection-related deaths appeared more common in Asian patients.

scholarly journals Influency of pentoxifylline treatment for neonatal sepsis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

2019 ◽  
pp. 102490791986424
Author(s):  
Peiyun Peng ◽  
Yunfeng Xia
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Risk Ratio ◽  
Neonatal Sepsis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Mean Differences

Introduction: Pentoxifylline may be an important approach to treat neonatal sepsis. However, its use has not been well established. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of pentoxifylline treatment for neonatal sepsis. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials are searched. Randomized controlled trials assessing the influence of pentoxifylline treatment on neonatal sepsis are included. Two investigators independently have searched articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model. Results: Seven randomized controlled trials involving 439 patients are included in the meta-analysis. Compared with control intervention for neonatal sepsis, pentoxifylline treatment is associated with reduced hospital stay (standard mean differences = −0.61; 95% confidence interval = −0.93 to −0.29; p = 0.0002) and metabolic acidosis (risk ratio = 0.38; 95% confidence interval = 0.22 to 0.66; p = 0.0006), but has no remarkable impact on mortality (risk ratio = 0.59; 95% confidence interval = 0.30 to 1.16; p = 0.13), serum tumor necrosis factor-α (standard mean differences = −0.38; 95% confidence interval = −1.29 to 0.52; p = 0.41), serum C-reactive protein (standard mean differences = −0.25; 95% confidence interval = −0.92 to 0.42; p = 0.47), plasma interleukin-6 (standard mean differences = −0.13; 95% confidence interval = −0.41 to 0.15; p = 0.37), disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (risk ratio = 0.55; 95% confidence interval = 0.25 to 1.21; p = 0.14), and oliguria/anuria (risk ratio = 0.77; 95% confidence interval = 0.28 to 2.16; p = 0.62). Conclusion: Pentoxifylline treatment may be associated with reduced mortality and hospital stay in neonatal sepsis with caution.

scholarly journals Convalescent plasma therapy for COVID-19 patients: a protocol of a prospective meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lajos Szakó ◽  
Nelli Farkas ◽  
Szabolcs Kiss ◽  
Szilárd Váncsa ◽  
Noémi Zádori ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Organ Failure ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Plasma Therapy ◽  
Monthly Basis ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infection with possible serious consequences. The plasma of recovered patients might serve as treatment, which we aim to assess in the form of a prospective meta-analysis focusing on mortality, multi-organ failure, duration of intensive care unit stay, and adverse events. Methods A systematic search was conducted to find relevant registered randomized controlled trials in five trial registries. A comprehensive search will be done continuously on a monthly basis in MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science to find the results of previously registered randomized controlled trials. The selection will be done by two independent authors. Data extraction will be carried out by two other independent reviewers. Disagreements will be resolved by a third investigator. An update of the search of the registries and the first search of the databases will be done on the 21st of July. Data synthesis will be performed following the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration. In the case of dichotomous outcomes (mortality and organ failure), we will calculate pooled risk ratios with a 95% confidence interval (CI) from two-by-two tables (treatment Y/N, outcome Y/N). Data from models with multivariate adjustment (hazard ratios, odds ratio, risk ratio) will be preferred for the analysis. P less than 0.05 will be considered statistically significant. In the case of ICU stay, weighted mean difference with a 95% confidence interval will be calculated. Heterogeneity will be tested with I2, and χ2 tests. Meta-analysis will be performed if at least 3 studies report on the same outcome and population. Discussion Convalescent plasma therapy is a considerable alternative in COVID-19, which we aim to investigate in a prospective meta-analysis.

scholarly journals Lower Risk of Recurrence After Mesh Repair Versus Non-Mesh Sutured Repair in Open Umbilical Hernia Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 108 (3) ◽  
pp. 187-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Bisgaard ◽  
R. Kaufmann ◽  
M. W. Christoffersen ◽  
P. Strandfelt ◽  
L. L. Gluud
Keyword(s):  
Relative Risk ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Mesh Repair ◽  
Umbilical Hernia ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Seroma Formation ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Background and Aims: The use of mesh repair in a small- or middle-sized umbilical hernia remains controversial, and evidence is based on only few and small heterogeneous randomized trials. The primary aim was to assess differences, if any, in recurrence (clinical and reoperation), and secondary aim was to assess differences in infections, seroma formation, hematomas, chronic pain, cosmetic result, and quality of life. Method: A systematic review (predefined search strategy) and meta-analyses were conducted based on pre-study strict and well-defined methodology. The literature search was completed on 1 January 2018. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO. Results: Five randomized controlled trials were identified (mesh repair, n = 326 versus non-mesh sutured repair, n = 330) and 602 records were excluded. Randomized controlled trials included patients with defect diameters of ⩾1 to 4 cm. Mesh repair reduced the risk of recurrence compared with sutured repair with a relative risk of 0.28 (95% confidence interval = 0.13–0.58, I2 = 0%, number needed to treat = 13 patients). Additional analyses found no differences between the two surgical techniques regarding infection (relative risk = 0.80, 95% confidence interval = 0.36–1.79), seroma formation (relative risk = 1.38, 95% confidence interval = 0.57–3.32), or hematomas (relative risk = 0.55, 95% confidence interval = 0.23–1.30). Lack of sufficient data precluded meta-analysis evaluating risk of seroma formation, hematomas, chronic pain, cosmetic result, and quality of life. Conclusion: Mesh repair is recommended for umbilical hernia of ⩾1 to 4 cm. More evidence is needed for the optimal placement of the mesh (sublay or onlay) and the role of mesh in patients with an umbilical hernia <1 cm.

scholarly journals Thoracoscopic surgical ablation or catheter ablation for patients with atrial fibrillation? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 763-773
Author(s):  
Shaolei Yi ◽  
Xiaojun Liu ◽  
Wei Wang ◽  
Lianghua Chen ◽  
Haitao Yuan
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Catheter Ablation ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Invasive Procedure ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Surgical Ablation ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract OBJECTIVES There is an urgent need to understand the difference in the influence of thoracoscopic surgical ablation (TSA) and catheter ablation (CA) on clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of TSA versus CA in patients with AF. METHODS Databases including EMBASE, Clinical Trials, PubMed and Cochrane Central Registered Control System were screened for the retrieval of articles. A direct meta-analysis of TSA versus CA was conducted. The I2 test analysis was performed to evaluate heterogeneity. The Begg–Mazumdar test and the Harbord–Egger test were used to detect publication bias. The primary efficacy outcome was freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia, while the primary safety outcome was severe adverse event (SAE) occurrence. RESULTS Of the 860 identified articles, 6, comprising 466 participants, were finally included. The rate of freedom from AT was higher in the TSA group (75%) than in the CA group (57.1%) (odds ratio 0.41; 95% confidence interval 0.2–0.85; P = 0.02; I2 = 57%). A larger number of SAEs were observed in the TSA group than in the CA group (odds ratio 0.16; 95% confidence interval 0.006–0.46; P = 0.0006; I2 = 44%). The result of the subgroup analysis of 3 studies that enrolled AF patients without a history of ablation showed that the incidence of AT was comparable in both arms. The ablation procedure and hospitalization durations were longer in the TSA arm. CONCLUSIONS In our study, TSA was associated with better efficacy but a higher rate of SAEs compared to CA. In addition, TSA did not show better efficacy results as the first invasive procedure in the sub-analysis of patients with paroxysmal AF or early persistent AF. Therefore, doctors should recommend either TSA or CA to patients with AF after due consideration of the aforementioned findings.

Adjunctive metformin for antipsychotic-related hyperprolactinemia: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 625-631 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Zheng ◽  
Xin-Hu Yang ◽  
Dong-Bin Cai ◽  
Gabor S Ungvari ◽  
Chee H Ng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Serum Prolactin ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Large Sample Size ◽  
Weighted Mean ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Metformin Group

Hyperprolactinemia is a common and severe antipsychotic-induced adverse drug reaction. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials systematically examined the efficacy and safety of adjunctive metformin for antipsychotic-related hyperprolactinemia in schizophrenia patients. Two independent investigators searched, extracted, and synthesized data. Weighted mean differences and risk ratios with their 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effect model. Four randomized controlled trials ( n=509) comparing adjunctive metformin ( n=253) with the control groups ( n=256), lasting 22.7 weeks of treatment, were included in the meta-analysis. The metformin group had significantly lower serum prolactin level at endpoint (four randomized controlled trials, n=501; weighted mean difference: −6.87 ug/L (95% confidence interval: −13.24 to −0.51), p=0.03; I2=80%) with “moderate quality” based on the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation system. In patients with menstrual disturbances, the rate of menstruation resumption was 66.7% in the metformin group and 4.8% in the control group. Adverse drug reactions and all-cause discontinuation (three randomized controlled trials, n=339, risk ratio: 0.76 (95% confidence interval: 0.29, 1.97), p=0.57; I2= 0%) were similar between the two groups. Adjunctive metformin appears to be effective and safe for reducing antipsychotic-induced hyperprolactinemia and prolactin-related symptoms in schizophrenia patients. Higher quality randomized controlled trials with a large sample size are warranted to confirm these findings.

scholarly journals The Effectiveness of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing Toward Adults With Major Depressive Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuya Yan ◽  
Yanyan Shan ◽  
Shuming Zhong ◽  
Haofei Miao ◽  
Yange Luo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Major Depressive Disorder ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Depressive Disorder ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Eye Movement ◽  
Risk Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Major Depressive ◽  
Randomized Controlled

The practice-based evidence suggests that it is possible to use eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) to treat major depressive disorder (MDD), but its specific efficacy is unknown. A systematic search was carried out for randomized controlled trials comparing EMDR with a control condition group in MDD patients. Two meta-analyses were conducted, with symptom reduction as primary outcome and remission as exploratory outcome. Eight studies with 320 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The first meta-analysis showed that EMDR outperformed “No Intervention” in decreasing depressive symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD] = −0.81, 95% CI = −1.22 to −0.39, p &lt; 0.001, low certainty), but statistically significant differences were not observed in improving remission (risk ratio = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.87–1.66, p = 0.25, very low certainty). The second showed the superiority of EMDR over CBT in reducing depressive symptoms (mean difference [MD] = −7.33, 95% CI = −8.26 to −6.39, p &lt; 0.001, low certainty), and improving remission (risk ratio = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.24–3.06, p = 0.004, very low certainty). Besides, anxiety symptoms and level of functioning could not be included as secondary outcome due to the lack of data. The present meta-analysis suggests that EMDR is more effective in treating MDD than “No Intervention” and CBT, particularly in individuals who have traumatic experience. However, this result should be considered with caution due to small sample size and low quality of trails.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document