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

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.

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lajos Szakó ◽  
Nelli Farkas ◽  
Szabolcs Kiss ◽  
Szilárd Váncsa ◽  
Noémi Zádori ◽  
...  

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.


2013 ◽  
Vol 6;16 (6;11) ◽  
pp. E521-E532
Author(s):  
Sheng-Xi Wu

Background: Currently, there is no specific therapy for chronic pancreatitis (CP). The treatment of micronutrient antioxidant therapy for painful CP has been sporadically used for more than 30 years, however, its efficacy are still poorly understood. Objective: The purpose of this meta-analysis is to investigate the safety and efficacy of antioxidant therapy for pain relief in patients with CP. Setting: University Hospital in China Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis Methods: Two authors independently reviewed the search results and extracted data and disagreements were resolved by discussion. Effects were summarized using standardized mean differences (SMDs), weighted mean differences, or odds ratio (OR) according to the suitable effect model. MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 1980 through December 2012. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that studied antioxidant supplementation for pain relief in patients with CP were analyzed. Results: Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 390 patients were included. Overall, there was no association of antioxidant therapy with pain reduction in CP patients (SMD, −0.55; 95% CI, −1.22 to 0.12; P = 0.67). However, antioxidant therapy significantly increased blood levels of antioxidants in CP patients versus the placebo group (SMD, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.43; P < 0.00001). Interestingly, combined antioxidant (selenium, β-carotene, vitamin C, vitamin E, methionine) therapy was found to be associated with pain relief (SMD, -0.93; 95% CI, -1.72 to -0.14; P = 0.02), while the trials in which a single antioxidant was used revealed no significant pain relief (SMD, -0.12; 95% CI, -1.23 to 0.99; P = 0.83) in CP patients. Strong evidence was obtained that the antioxidants increased adverse effects (OR, 6.09; 95% CI, 2.29 to 16.17, P < 0.01); nevertheless, none was serious. Limitations: Because of the small sample, a consolidated conclusion cannot be reached based on current RCTs. Large-sample RCTs are needed to clarify the analgesic effect of antioxidants in CP patients. Conclusions: Combined antioxidant therapy seems to be a safe and effective therapy for pain relief in CP patients. Measures of total antioxidant status may not help to monitor the efficacy of antioxidant therapy for patients with CP. Key words: Antioxidant, pain, chronic pancreatitis, meta-analysis


Lupus ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 334-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
K M Thong ◽  
T M Chan

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Theresa F Rambaran ◽  
Jonathan Bergman ◽  
Peter Nordström ◽  
Anna Nordström

ABSTRACT The effect of berry polyphenols on glucose metabolism has been evaluated in several studies; however, the results are conflicting. A systematic review and meta-analysis was therefore conducted to evaluate the effect of berry polyphenol consumption on glucose metabolism in adults with impaired glucose tolerance or insulin resistance. PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL (EBSCO), and Scopus were searched for randomized controlled trials published by June 2019. Of the 3240 articles found, 21 met inclusion criteria. Study-specific effects were calculated as mean differences, which were pooled using fixed-effect, inverse-variance weighting. Overall, berry polyphenol consumption did not have a clear effect on biomarkers of glucose metabolism compared with placebo or no treatment. Although some analyses showed statistically significant effects, these effects were too small to be of clinical relevance. The review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews as CRD42019130811.


2015 ◽  
Vol 5;18 (5;9) ◽  
pp. 405-417
Author(s):  
Prof. Qu Yan

Background: Clinical studies have been previously carried out on the efficacy of systemic magnesium to minimize postoperative pain, however, with controversial results. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety of systemic magnesium on post-operative pain. Study Design: Comprehensive systematic review of all relevant, publsished randomized controlled trials. Methods: A search was conducted of published literature in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases from inception to September 2014. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared magnesium with placebo were identified. Effects were summarized using standardized mean differences (SMDs), weighed mean differences (WMD), or odds ratio (OR) with suitable effect model. Results: Twenty-seven RCTs involving 1,504 patients were included. In total, peri-operative magnesium significantly reduced the pain score at rest (SMD, -1.43, 95% CI, -2.74 to -0.12, < 0.01). Magnesium significantly reduced analgesic consumption (SMD, -1.72, 95% CI, -3.21 to -0.23) in patients undergoing urogenital, orthopaedic, and cardiovascular surgeries, but was inconclusive for patients receiving gastrointestinal surgeries. The obvious analgesia of systemic magnesium was observed on reducing the pain score during movement at 24 hours after operation (SMD, -0.05, 95% CI, -0.43 to 0.32). Moreover, magnesium administration showed a beneficial effect with regard to intra-operative hemodynamics and reduced extubation time in the cardiovascular surgery patients (WMD, -29.34 min, 95% CI, -35.74 to -22.94, P < 0.01). Limitations: Focused only on the quality of analgesia on postoperative pain with regards to surgery type. Conclusions: Our study suggests that systemic magnesium during general anesthesia significantly decreases post-operative pain scores without increasing adverse events. It should be noted that since there are 18 ongoing RCTs without published data, it is still premature to draw conclusions on the long-term analgesic effects of magnesium as well as potential gender or age difference. Key words: Magnesium, post-operative pain, meta-analysis


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sha Yang ◽  
Yujia J. Luo ◽  
Cong Luo

Background: There is no uniform treatment for pathological scars, including keloids and hypertrophic scars, in clinic currently. Previously, multiple randomized controlled trials have examined the clinical efficacy of different treatments. Nonetheless, the results are inconsistent, and many treatments have not been directly compared. This makes it difficult to conclude which approach is more favorable, in terms of efficacy and safety, for the treatment of pathological scarring. This study aimed at evaluating the efficacy of different injection and topical treatment strategies for hypertrophic scar and keloid.Methods: Relevant literature from PubMed, Medline, Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCRCT), and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP) were searched, from database inception through November 2020. Randomized clinical trials evaluating different treatment strategies of pathological scars, including triamcinolone acetonide (TAC), verapamil (VER), 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), botulinum toxin A (BTA), bleomycin (BLM), and silicone gels were included in the study.Results: The network meta-analysis included a total of 2,009 patients from 29 studies. A network meta-analysis of injection and topical treatment strategies showed that the efficacy of TAC combined with BTA was best in the treatment of pathological scars. Combination therapies of TAC with 5-FU and TAC with BTA significantly improved the clinical efficiency. However, there was no statistically significant difference between other treatment strategies. The order of efficacy predicted by the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve was as follows: TAC+BTA (82.2%) &gt; TAC+5-FU (69.8%) &gt; BTA (67.3%) &gt; 5-FU+silicone (59.4%) &gt; TAC+silicone (58.3%) &gt; 5-FU (49.8%) &gt; BLM (42.0%) &gt; TAC (26.7%) &gt; VER (26.2%) &gt; silicone (18.3%). There was no publication bias revealed based on the funnel diagram.Conclusion: This study recommends intralesional injection of TAC-BTA and TAC-5-FU combined therapies. But for patients who cannot tolerate the side effects, the use of silicone gels in combination with TAC is recommended. However, these conclusions need to be further confirmed by more randomized controlled trials.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mi-Zhou Wang ◽  
Rui Dong ◽  
Li-Na Jia ◽  
Deng-Bin Ai ◽  
Jian-Hua Zhang

Abstract Background: Several studies have investigated the effects of intrathecal magnesium sulfate as an adjuvant for bupivacaine; however, their conclusions are inconsistent. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a meta-analysis on this topic.Methods We searched Pubmed, EMBASE (OvidSP) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of intrathecal bupivacaine combined with magnesium sulfate versus bupivacaine alone in adults using spinal anesthesia.Results Eighteen studies that met our inclusion criteria were included in our analysis. We found that the addition of intrathecal magnesium sulfate to bupivacaine provided a longer duration of analgesia (SMD 0.99; 95% CI [0.45, 1.52], P = 0.0003, I2 = 93%), prolonged the duration of sensory block (MD=106.69; 95% CI, 60.93-152.45; P<0.00001), delayed the onset of sensory block (SMD 1.20; 95% CI [0.65, 1.75], P =<0.0001, I2 = 91%) and motor block (SMD 1.46; 95% CI [0.23, 2.69], P =0.02, I2 = 96%), decreased the requirement for rescue analgesia (SMD -0.81; 95% CI [-1.06, -0.56], P < 0.00001, I2 = 11%). For duration of motor block, and incidence of postoperative adverse events (such as nausea and vomiting, hypotension, bradycardia, pruritus, shivering and neurological deficit), no statistically differences were observed between the 2 groups.Conclusions Our meta-analysis demonstrated that intrathecal magnesium sulfate combined with bupivacaine prolongs the dusration of analgesia, without an impact on the adverse events. However, the quality of evidence was very low when using GRADE to assess it. Given adverse effects before use, more high-quality trials with large samples are required before magnesium sulfate is routinely used as a intrathecal adjunct.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chun Chen ◽  
ZeMei Zhou ◽  
Jing Zhang

Abstract Background: Since December 2019, COVID-19 has spread to the world which leads to a global health threat. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of tocilizumab on COVID-19 patients.Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and WHO international Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) from their inception to March 10, 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on tocilizumab supplementation in adults with COVID-19 disease. The primary outcomes were mortality at 28-30 day and 60-day, incidence of mechanical ventilation (MV), composite outcome of death or MV, time to hospital discharge, and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. A random-effects meta-analysis model was used to pool studies. Results: Eleven studies with a total of 6,579 patients were included in our meta-analysis, of which 3,406 and 3,173 were respectively assigned to the tocilizumab and control groups. Tocilizumab could significantly reduce 28-30 day mortality (RR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.80-0.99, P = 0.04), incidence of MV (RR= 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.89, P = 0.0001), composition outcome of MV or death (RR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.90, P = 0.0002), time to hospital discharge (HR = 1.30, 95% CI 1.16-1.45, P < 0.00001 ), ICU admissions (RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.47-0.88, P = 0.006), serious infection (RR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.40-0.94, P = 0.02) and events of serious adverse advents (RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.47-0.86, P = 0.004). There was no significant difference between tocilizumab and control groups in 60-day mortality and adverse events (AEs).Conclusions: Tocilizumab could reduce the short-term mortality, incidence of MV, composite outcome of death or MV, ICU admissions, serious infection and events of serious adverse advents, and shorten the time to hospital discharge in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The optimal effective dose needs to be confirmed by further studies.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Domínguez-Rodríguez ◽  
Pedro Abreu-González ◽  
Néstor Báez-Ferrer ◽  
Russel J. Reiter ◽  
Pablo Avanzas ◽  
...  

Myocardial ischemia/reperfusion (IR) injury represents a critical problem associated with interventional approaches for coronary reperfusion. Pharmacological cardioprotective interventions are advocated to ameliorate IR injury. Melatonin is an anti-inflammatory and antioxidant agent with a wide range of therapeutic properties that may contribute to its cardioprotective effects. No systematic review or meta-analysis has compared melatonin vs. placebo as a cardioprotective agent in humans. The present study, based on a systematic review and meta-analysis, was carried out to assess melatonin's efficacy as a cardioprotective treatment. We performed a systematic review of the available literature. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified and information was extracted using predefined data extraction forms. The primary outcomes were (a) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and (b) blood troponin levels in patients who underwent myocardial revascularization and were randomized to melatonin or placebo. The inverse-variance random-effects method was used to pool the estimates. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed. Weighted mean differences or standardized mean differences were calculated. A total of 283 records were screened and seven RCTs met all the inclusion criteria. After the pooled analysis, the results on LVEF were consistent across all studies, and a significant heterogeneity was found in the results on troponin levels. The melatonin-treated patients had on average higher LVEF than the placebo-treated individuals with a weighted mean difference = 3.1% (95% CI 0.6–5.5, p = 0.01). Five works compared the levels of troponin after melatonin or placebo treatment. The melatonin-treated patients had lower levels of troponin with a standardized mean difference = −1.76 (95% CI −2.85 to −0.67, p = 0.002). The findings of this meta-analysis revealed that melatonin administration in humans as a cardioprotective agent attenuated heart dysfunction with a favorable effect on the LVEF.


2018 ◽  
Vol 108 (3) ◽  
pp. 187-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Bisgaard ◽  
R. Kaufmann ◽  
M. W. Christoffersen ◽  
P. Strandfelt ◽  
L. L. Gluud

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document