The Safety and Efficacy Evaluation of Dexmedetomidine for Procedural Sedation and Postoperative Behaviors in Pediatric Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 106002802110098
Author(s):  
Linguang Gan ◽  
Xiaohong Zhao ◽  
Xiangjian Chen
Keyword(s):  
Pediatric Population ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Procedural Sedation ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Efficacy Evaluation ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Pediatric Populations

Background: This study systematically evaluated the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine for procedural sedation and postoperative behaviors in a pediatric population as well as whether the results met the information required to draw conclusions. Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy evaluation of dexmedetomidine for procedural sedation and postoperative behaviors in a pediatric population. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane library, Web of Science and Ovid MEDLINE were searched to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dexmedetomidine with control medicine and comparing different doses of dexmedetomidine. Results: There were a total of 16 RCTs for a total of 3240 patients. Dexmedetomidine slowed down the heart rate (HR; mean difference: −13.27; 95% CI: −16.41 to 10.14; P < 0.001) and reduced postoperative delirium (risk ratio [RR]: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.20-0.50; P < 0.001), the number of pain patients (RR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.30-0.75; P = 0.002), and desaturation (RR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.13-0.89; P = 0.03) compared with the control group. The limitation was that it was difficult to determine the range of low- and high-dose dexmedetomidine. Conclusion and Relevance: Dexmedetomidine slowed down intraoperative HR within the normal range, which might reduce myocardial oxygen consumption. It reduced postoperative pain and postoperative complications: delirium and desaturation. Dexmedetomidine showed no dose-dependent increase in the procedural sedation time of pediatric patients. Clinically, dexmedetomidine can improve pediatric procedural sedation and postoperative behavior, and it can be considered as a related medicine for safety in pediatric surgery.

scholarly journals The Safety and Efficacy of the Interleukin-1 Antagonist Anakinra in Severe Cases of COVID-19- A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manoj Kumar Reddy Somagutta ◽  
Maria Kezia Lourdes Pormento ◽  
Pousette Hamid ◽  
Alaa Hamdan ◽  
Muhammad Adnan Khan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Interleukin 1 ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Liver Transaminases ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Enzyme Elevation

Abstract This study aims to assess anakinra's safety and efficacy for treating severe coronavirus disease in 2019 (COVID-19). PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, medRxiv, and bioRxiv were searched. Three retrospective studies and five case series involving 3,274 adult patients with severe COVID-19 were included, 621 treated with anakinra (whether administered alone or in combination with other drugs) and 1,565 in the control group arm. All-cause mortality of severe COVID-19 patients among the anakinra group was 20% (16/81), which was lower than that in the control group (65%; 39/60). The difference was statistically significant [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06–0.29, I2= 0%]. The mechanical ventilation requirement with OR 0.57 (0.11-2.84, I2=87%) was not significantly better compared to the control group. For the safety of anakinra, we evaluated thromboembolism risk and liver enzyme elevation. Thromboembolism risk with OR: 1.48 (0.55- 3.99, I2=0%) and elevation in liver transaminases with OR 0.67 (0.11-3.93, I2=66%) were not statistically significant over the control group. However, these non-significant differences between the anakinra and control groups may have been the result of baseline characteristics of the intervention group, and further studies are essential in evaluating anakinra's safety profile.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Adverse Effects of Atropine for Myopia Control in Children: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
ChunWen Chen ◽  
JingYan Yao
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Rebound Effect ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Myopia Progression ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Objectives. To explore the rebound effects and safety of atropine on accommodation amplitude in slowing myopia progression. Methods. We conducted a meta-analysis to testify proper dosage of atropine in children with myopia. We searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library up to March 30, 2021. We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of atropine for controlling myopia progression in children. We performed the inverse variance random-effects model to pool the data using mean difference (MD) for continuous variables. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 test. Additionally, we conducted subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses. Results. Seventeen RCTs involving 2955 participants were included. Myopia progression was significantly less in the atropine group than that of the control group, with MD = 0.38 D per year (95% confidence interval, 0.20 to 0.56). Less axial elongation was shown with MD = −0.19 mm per year (95% CI, −0.25 to −0.12). There was a statistically difference among various doses ( p = 0.00001 ). In addition, 1.0% atropine showed the rebound effect with MD = −0.54 D per year (95% CI, −0.81 to −0.26) and was more effective in the latter six months than in the former one. Less accommodation amplitude was shown in 0.01% atropine. Conclusion. The efficacy of atropine is dose dependent, and 0.01% atropine may be the optimal dose in slowing myopia progression in children with no accommodation dysfunction. A rebound effect is more prominent in high-dose atropine in the former cessation after discontinuation.

scholarly journals Safety and Efficacy of Remdesivir for the Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 237-245
Author(s):  
Mohammad Tasavon Gholamhoseini ◽  
Vahid Yazdi-Feyzabadi ◽  
Reza Goudarzi ◽  
Mohammad Hossein Mehrolhassani
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Qualitative Assessment ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Placebo Control ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Positive Effects

Purpose: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of remdesivir in adult patients with COVID-19. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and medRxiv databases were searched using a search strategy tailored to each database. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) checklists were used for the studies' qualitative assessment. The outcomes studied were mortality, all adverse events, serious adverse events, and clinical improvement. The quantitative synthesis was conducted using fixed and random effects models in the CMA 2.2. Heterogeneity was tested using the I-squared (I2) measure. Results: In general, six studies, including five randomized controlled trials and one cohort study were found eligible. Comparison of the findings related to both groups receiving remdesivir (10-day remdesivir group) and placebo/control group showed that remdesivir treatment had no significant effect on mortality at day 14 of the treatment (RR=0.769; 95% CI :0.563-1.050; p=0.098), and all adverse events (RR= 1.078; 95% CI: 0.908-1.279; p= 0.392). However, remdesivir had a significant effect on clinical improvement at day 14 compared to placebo/control (OR= 1.447; 95% CI: 1.005-2.085; p= 0.047) and reduced serious adverse events (RR= 0.736; 95% CI: 0.611-0.887; p= 0.001). Conclusion: Remdesivir has positive effects on clinical improvement, and reduction of the risk of serious adverse events. However, it does not influence the mortality at day 14 of treatment.

scholarly journals Safety and Efficacy of Anticoagulation in Patients with Cirrhosis: A Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Huan Chen ◽  
Jiaming Lei ◽  
Sicheng Liang ◽  
Gang Luo ◽  
Mingming Deng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Liver Cirrhosis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Portal Vein ◽  
Portal Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Anticoagulant Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Vein Thrombosis

Background and Aims. Portal vein thrombosis is a serious adverse event that occurs during liver cirrhosis. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of anticoagulant therapy and prophylactic anticoagulant therapy in cirrhosis patients with (/without) portal vein thrombosis. Methods. Eligible comparative studies were identified by searching the following electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CNKI. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals using fixed-effects models. Recanalization and thrombus progression were defined as the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and death mortality. Results. A total of 3479 patients were included in this analysis. Compared with the control group, the recanalization rate in the anticoagulant therapy group was increased P < 0.00001 in patients with cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis without increasing adverse events. Multiple use of enoxaparin in small doses is safer than single large doses P = 0.004 . Direct oral anticoagulants are more effective P < 0.00001 and safer than traditional anticoagulants. Prophylactic anticoagulant therapy can effectively prevent portal vein thrombosis formation P < 0.00001 . Conclusions. Anticoagulation therapy can treat or prevent portal vein thrombosis in patients with liver cirrhosis and is a relatively safe treatment.

scholarly journals The Safety and Efficacy of the Interleukin-1 Antagonist Anakinra in Severe Cases of COVID-19- A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manoj Kumar Reddy Somagutta ◽  
Maria Kezia Lourdes Pormento ◽  
Pousette Hamid ◽  
Alaa Hamdan ◽  
Muhammad Adnan Khan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Interleukin 1 ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Liver Transaminases ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Enzyme Elevation

Abstract This study aims to assess anakinra's safety and efficacy for treating severe coronavirus disease in 2019 (COVID-19). PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, medRxiv, and bioRxiv were searched. Three retrospective studies and five case series involving 3,274 adult patients with severe COVID-19 were included, 621 treated with anakinra (whether administered alone or in combination with other drugs) and 1,565 in the control group arm. All-cause mortality of severe COVID-19 patients among the anakinra group was 20% (16/81), which was lower than that in the control group (65%; 39/60). The difference was statistically significant [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06–0.29, I2= 0%]. The mechanical ventilation requirement with OR 0.57 (0.11-2.84, I2=87%) was not significantly better compared to the control group. For the safety of anakinra, we evaluated thromboembolism risk and liver enzyme elevation. Thromboembolism risk with OR: 1.48 (0.55- 3.99, I2=0%) and elevation in liver transaminases with OR 0.67 (0.11-3.93, I2=66%) were not statistically significant over the control group. However, these non-significant differences between the anakinra and control groups may have been the result of baseline characteristics of the intervention group, and further studies are essential in evaluating anakinra's safety profile.

scholarly journals Chlorhexidine Dressings to Prevent Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s165-s166
Author(s):  
Mireia Puig-Asensio ◽  
Alexandre R. Marra ◽  
Christopher A Childs ◽  
Eli N. Perencevich ◽  
Marin L. Schweizer
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Quasi Experimental ◽  
Pediatric Populations

Background: Catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of chlorhexidine (CHG) dressings in preventing incident CRBSI in different settings and types of catheters. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov through March 2019 for studies with the following inclusion criteria: (1) population consisted of patients requiring short or long-term catheters; (2) CHG dressing was used in the intervention group and a nonantimicrobial impregnated dressing was used in the control group; (3) CRBSI was reported as an outcome. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies were included. We used a random-effect models to obtain pooled OR estimates. Heterogeneity was evaluated with I 2 test and the Cochran Q statistic. Results: The review included 21 studies (17 RCTs). The use of CHG dressings was associated with a lower incidence of CRBSI (pooled RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53–0.76). There was no evidence of publication bias. In stratified analyses, CHG dressing reduced CRBSI in ICU adult patients (9 studies, pRR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.38–0.72) and adults with oncohematological disease (3 studies, pRR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35–0.81) but not in neonates and pediatric populations (6 studies, pRR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.57–1.40). When stratified by type of catheter, CHG dressing remained protective against CRBSI in short-term venous catheters (11 studies, pRR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48–0.88) but not in long-term catheters (3 studies, pRR, 0.76:; 95% CI, 0.19–3.06). Other subgroup analyses are shown in Table 1. Conclusions: CHG dressings reduce the incidence of CRBSI, particularly in adult ICU patients and adults with an onco-hematological disease. Future studies need to evaluate the benefit of CHG in non-ICU settings, in neonates and pediatric populations, and in long-term catheters.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

scholarly journals Comparison of Associations Between Glucocorticoids Treatment and Mortality in COVID-19 Patients and SARS Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jianbo Li ◽  
Xuelian Liao ◽  
Yue Zhou ◽  
Luping Wang ◽  
Hang Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Risk Ratio ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Random Effects Models ◽  
Specific Effects ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Abstract BackgroundThe response to glucocorticoids treatment may be different between Covid-19 and SARS. MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched studies on Medline, Embase, EBSCO, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP from 2002 to October 7, 2020. We used fixed-effects and random-effects models to compute the risk ratio of death in the group receiving glucocorticoids treatment and the control group for COVID-19 and SARS, respectively.ResultsTen trials and 71 observational studies, with a total of 45935 patients, were identified. Glucocorticoids treatment, was associated with decreased all-cause mortality both in COVID-19 (risk ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.82 to 0.94; I2=26%) and SARS (0.48; 0.29 to 0.79; 10%), based on high quality evidence, as well as decreased all-cause mortality-including composite outcome of COVID-19 (0.89; 0.82 to 0.98; 0%). In subgroup analyses, all-cause mortality was significantly lower among COVID-19 patients being accompanied by severe ARDS but not mild ARDS, taking low-dose or pulse glucocorticoids, being critically severe but not only severe, being of critical severity and old but not young, being of critical severity and men but not women, non-early taking glucocorticoids and taking dexamethasone or methylprednisolone; but for SARS, lower mortality were observed among those who were taking medium-high dose glucocorticoids, being severe or critically severe, early taking glucocorticoids, and taking dexamethasone or prednisolone. ConclusionsGlucocorticoids treatment reduced mortality in COVID-19 and SARS patients of critical severity; however, different curative effects existed between the two diseases among subpopulations, mainly regarding sex- and age-specific effects, optimal doses and use timing of glucocorticoids.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Safety and Efficacy of Propofol for Procedural Sedation in Pediatric Population: A Meta-Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (9) ◽  
pp. A544
Author(s):  
S Kim ◽  
M Jang ◽  
Y Choi ◽  
H Hong ◽  
J Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pediatric Population ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Procedural Sedation ◽  
Safety And Efficacy

scholarly journals Research on Effect and Mechanism of Xuefu Zhuyu Decoction on CHD Based on Meta-Analysis and Network Pharmacology

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Fuguang Kui ◽  
Wenwen Gu ◽  
Fan Gao ◽  
Yuji Niu ◽  
Wenwen Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Heart Disease ◽  
Heart Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Fixed Effect ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Network Pharmacology ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Efficacy Evaluation ◽  
Xuefu Zhuyu Decoction ◽  
Compound Target

Xuefu Zhuyu Decoction (XFZY) is an ancient compound widely used in the treatment of coronary heart disease. However, its efficacy evaluation is not complete and its mechanism of action is not clear enough. In an attempt to address these problems, the efficacy was evaluated by meta-analysis and the mechanism was elucidated by the network pharmacology method. We systematically searched relevant studies in PubMed, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI), Cochrane Library, Wanfang Data, and other databases from 2007 to 2019. The association between XFZY treatment and CHD was estimated by risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). The compounds and the potential protein targets of XFZY were obtained from TCMSP, and active compounds were selected according to their oral bioavailability and drug similarity. The potential genes of coronary heart disease were obtained from TTD, OMIM, and GeneCards. The potential pathways related to genes were determined by GO and KEGG pathway enrichment analyses. The compound-target and compound-target-pathway networks were constructed. Molecular docking validates the component and the target. A total of 21 studies including 1844 patients were enrolled in the present meta-analysis, indicating that XFZY has a greater beneficial on total effect (fixed effect RR = 1.30; 95% Cl: 1.24–1.36; P = 0.82 ; I2 = 0.0%) and electrocardiogram efficacy (fixed effect RR = 1.40; 95% Cl: 1.26–1.56; P = 0.96 ; I2 = 0.0%) compared with the control group. A total of 1342 components in XFZY were obtained, among which, 241 were chosen as bioactive components. GO and KEGG analyses got top 10 significantly enriched terms and 10 enriched pathways. The C-T network included 192 compounds and 3085 targets, whereas the C-T-P network included 10 compounds, 109 targets, and 5 pathways. There was a good binding activity between the components and the targets. XFZY has the curative effect on coronary heart disease, and its mechanism is related to 10 compounds, 10 core targets, and 5 pathways.

scholarly journals The safety and efficacy of biologic agents in treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus: A network meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Meng-Jun Tao ◽  
Ping Cheng ◽  
Lai-Run Jin ◽  
Jun Zhou ◽  
Wei Shi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Biologic Agents ◽  
The Other ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Systemic Lupus ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Creative Commons

Objective: Previous studies have shown that biologic agents out of the nine medicines might be beneficial for the treatment of SLE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the most effective medication of six biologic agents in treatment of SLE using network meta-analysis (NMA). The performance of these processes is ranked according to the results of this analysis. Methods: Multiple databases including PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library was used to identify applicable articles and collect relevant data to analyzed by using STATA (13.0) software. The papers included in this study were divided into control group (placebo) and observation group (one of the six medicines). Results: A total of 21 eligible RCTs of biologic agents were identified, a total of 995 papers were included, and the results showed that the belimumab had the highest probability of being the most clinically efficacious intervention, with a surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve of 75.0, was significantly superior (P < 0.05) to placebo alone. The blisibimod was the worst, with a SUCRA value of 29.4. The other biologic agents (atacicept, blisibimod, epratuzumab, rituximab, tabalumab) were insignificantly superior (P > 0.05) to placebo alone. Conclusions: Belimumab had the highest probability of being the best treatment for SLE compared with the other biologic agents (atacicept, blisibimod, epratuzumab, rituximab, tabalumab). The other biologic agents indicated an insignificant difference in efficacy for the treatment of SLE compared with placebo. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.35.6.771 How to cite this:Tao MJ, Cheng P, Jin LR, Zhou J, Shi W, Peng H, et al. The safety and efficacy of biologic agents in treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus: A network meta-analysis. Pak J Med Sci. 2019;35(6):1680-1686. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.35.6.771 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document