scholarly journals Enough with the madness: a systematic review and meta-analysis of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-220
Author(s):  
André Santos ◽  
◽  
Érica Gonçalves ◽  
Ananda Oliveira ◽  
Douglas Lima ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
P Value ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Significant Difference

Objective: Because of preliminary results from in vitro studies, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) have been proposed as possible treatments for COVID-19, but the clinical evidence is discordant. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CQ and HCQ for the treatment of COVID-19. Methods: A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed. An electronic search was conducted in four databases for randomized controlled trials that compared HCQ or CQ with standard-of-care. A complementary search was performed. A quantitative synthesis of clinical outcomes was performed using the inverse variance method adjusting for a random-effects model. Results: In total, 16 studies were included. The meta-analysis found no significant difference between intervention and control groups in terms of mortality at the most extended follow-up (RR = 1.09, CI95% = 0.99-1.19, p-value = 0.08), patients with negative PCR results (RR = 0.99, CI95% = 0.89-1.10, p-value = 0.86), or serious adverse events (RR = 2.21, CI95% = 0.89-5.47, p-value = 0.09). HCQ was associated with an increased risk of adverse events (RR = 2.28, CI95% = 1.36-2.83, p-value < 0.01). The quality of evidence varied from very low to high. Conclusion: There is no evidence that HCQ reduces the risk of death or improves cure rates in patients with COVID-19, but it might be associated with an increased risk of adverse events

Efficacy and safety of pharmacological cachexia interventions: systematic review and network meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. bmjspcare-2020-002601
Author(s):  
Manit Saeteaw ◽  
Phitjira Sanguanboonyaphong ◽  
Jukapun Yoodee ◽  
Kaitlyn Craft ◽  
Ratree Sawangjit ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Total Body Weight ◽  
Megestrol Acetate ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Pharmacological Interventions ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Significant Difference

AimsRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated benefits of pharmacological interventions for cachexia in improving weight and appetite. However, comparative efficacy and safety are not available. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for cachexia.MethodsPubMed, EmBase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for RCTs until October 2019. Key outcomes were total body weight (TBW) improvement, appetite (APP) score and serious adverse events. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. NMA was performed to estimate weight gain and APP score increase at 8 weeks, presented as mean difference (MD) or standardised MD with 95% CI.Results80 RCTs (10 579 patients) with 12 treatments were included. Majority is patients with cancer (7220). Compared with placebo, corticosteroids, high-dose megestrol acetate combination (Megace_H_Com) (≥400 mg/day), medroxyprogesterone, high-dose megestrol acetate (Megace_H) (≥400 mg/day), ghrelin mimetic and androgen analogues (Androgen) were significantly associated with MD of TBW of 6.45 (95% CI 2.45 to 10.45), 4.29 (95% CI 2.23 to 6.35), 3.18 (95% CI 0.94 to 5.41), 2.66 (95% CI 1.47 to 3.85), 1.73 (95% CI 0.27 to 3.20) and 1.50 (95% CI 0.56 to 2.44) kg. For appetite improvement, Megace_H_Com, Megace_H and Androgen significantly improved standardised APP score, compared with placebo. There is no significant difference in serious adverse events from all interventions compared with placebo.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that several pharmacological interventions have potential to offer benefits in treatment of cachexia especially Megace_H and short-term use corticosteroids. Nonetheless, high-quality comparative studies to compare safety and efficacy are warranted for better management of cachexia.

scholarly journals Fecal Microbiota Transplantation as Therapy for Treatment of Active Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Xiaolei Liu ◽  
Yan Li ◽  
Kaichun Wu ◽  
Yongquan Shi ◽  
Min Chen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Clinical Remission ◽  
Fecal Microbiota Transplantation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Fecal Microbiota ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Endoscopic Remission

Aim. Increasing evidence supports the role of the gut microbiota in the etiology of ulcerative colitis (UC). Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is a highly effective treatment against recurrent Clostridium difficile infection; however, its efficacy in UC is still controversial. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FMT for treatment of active UC. Methods. We searched Cochrane, Medline, Web of Science, and Embase from inception to February 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults with active UC, which compared FMT with controls, were eligible. The primary outcome was combined clinical remission with endoscopic remission/response. Secondary outcomes included clinical remission, endoscopic remission, and serious adverse events. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) is reported. Results. Five RCTs with 292 participants were eligible for inclusion. When data were pooled for all patients, FMT was associated with a higher combined clinical remission with endoscopic remission/response; the RR of combined outcome not achieving after FMT vs. control was 0.79 (95% CI 0.70-0.88). FMT delivered via lower gastrointestinal route was superior to upper gastrointestinal route with regard to combined clinical remission with endoscopic remission/response ( RR = 0.79 , 95% CI 0.70-0.89). FMT with pooled donor stool ( RR = 0.69 , 95% CI 0.56-0.85) and higher frequency of administration ( RR = 0.76 , 95% CI 0.62-0.93) may be more effective with regard to clinical remission. There was no statistically significant difference in serious adverse events with FMT compared with controls ( RR = 0.98 , 95% CI 0.93-1.03). Conclusion. FMT shows a promising perspective with comparable safety and favorable clinical efficacy for the treatment of active UC in the short term. However, further larger, more rigorously conducted RCTs of FMT in UC are still needed in order to resolve the controversial questions.

scholarly journals The safety, tolerability and mortality reduction efficacy of remdesivir; based on randomized clinical trials, observational and case studies reported safety outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 204209862110425
Author(s):  
Chenchula Santenna ◽  
Kota Vidyasagar ◽  
Krishna Chaitanya Amarneni ◽  
Sai Nikhila Ghanta ◽  
Balakrishnan Sadasivam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Antiviral Drug ◽  
Mortality Reduction ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3

Introduction: Remdesivir, an experimental antiviral drug has shown to inhibit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), both in vitro and in vivo. The present systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to quantify the safety and tolerability of remdesivir, based on safety outcome findings from randomized controlled trials, observational studies and case reports of remdesivir in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Methods: We have performed a systematic search in the PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library using specific keywords such as ‘COVID-19’ OR ‘SARS CoV-2’ AND ‘Remdesivir’. The study endpoints include total adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), grade 3 and grade 4 AEs, mortality and drug tolerability. Statistical analysis was carried out by using Revman 5.4 software. Results: Total 15 studies were included for systematic review, but only 5 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) ( n = 13,622) were included for meta-analysis. Visual inspection of the forest plots for remdesivir 10-day versus placebo and remdesivir 10-day versus 5-day groups revealed that there is a significant difference in SAEs [10-day remdesivir versus control (odds ratio [OR] = 0.55, 0.40–0.74) p = 0.0001; I2 = 0%; 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 0.56, 0.38–0.84) p = 0.005; I2 = 13%]. In grade 4 AEs, there is a significant difference in 10-day remdesivir versus control (OR = 0.32, 0.19–0.54) p = 0.0001; I2 = 0%, but not in comparison to 5-day remdesivir (OR = 0.95, 0.59–1.54) p = 0.85; I2 = 0%. But there is no significant difference in grade 3 AEs [remdesivir 10 day versus control (OR = 0.81, 0.59–1.11) p = 0.19; I2 = 0%; 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 1.24, 0.86–1.80) p = 0.25; I2 = 0%], in total AEs [remdesivir 10 day versus control (OR = 1.07, 0.66–1.75) p = 0.77; I2 = 79%; remdesivir 10 day versus 5 day (OR = 1.08, 0.70–1.68) p = 0.73; I2 = 54%)], in mortality [10-day remdesivir versus control (OR = 0.93, 0.80–1.08) p = 0.32; I2 = 0%; 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 1.39, 0.73–2.62) p = 0.32; I2 = 0%)] and tolerability [remdesivir 10 day versus control (OR = 1.05, 0.51–2.18) p = 0.89; I2 = 65%, 10-day remdesivir versus 5-day remdesivir (OR = 0.86, 0.18–4.01) p = 0.85; I2 = 78%]. Discussion & Conclusion: Ten-day remdesivir was a safe antiviral agent but not tolerable over control in the hospitalized COVID-19 patients with a need of administration cautiousness for grade 3 AEs. There was no added benefit of 10- or 5-day remdesivir in reducing mortality over placebo. To avoid SAEs, we suggest for prior monitoring of liver function tests (LFT), renal function tests (RFT), complete blood count (CBC) and serum electrolytes for those with preexisting hepatic and renal impairments and patients receiving concomitant hepatotoxic or nephrotoxic drugs. Furthermore, a number of RCTs of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients are suggested. Plain Language Summary Ten-day remdesivir is a safe antiviral drug with common adverse events in comparison to placebo. The rate of serious adverse events and grade 3 adverse events were significantly lower in 10-day remdesivir in comparison to placebo/5-day remdesivir. There was no significant difference in the rate of tolerability and mortality reduction in 10-day remdesivir over placebo/5-day remdesivir. There were no new safety signals reported in vulnerable populations, paediatric, pregnant and lactating women.

scholarly journals A retrospective observational study of the impact of Tigecycline in treating multidrug resistant pneumonia

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 122
Author(s):  
John Paul ◽  
Cherish Paul
Keyword(s):  
Critically Ill ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Multidrug Resistant ◽  
Health Concern ◽  
P Value ◽  
Global Public Health ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
The Impact

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> <span lang="EN-IN">Few antimicrobials are currently active to treat extensively drug resistant (XDR) gram-negative bacilli infections. This represents a serious global public health concern. Critically ill patients face the brunt of majority of these infections. Tigecycline has coverage for a majority of these XDR infections (with the exception of <em>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</em>), but is not currently approved for hospital-acquired pneumonia. Nevertheless it is being commonly used for this indication though many meta-analysis have suggested an increased risk of death in patients receiving this antibiotic. </span></p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> <span lang="EN-IN">In this retrospective analysis we compared the mortality rates between a Tigecycline based and a non Tigecycline based therapy for XDR infections in the critically ill over a period of 12 months. A total of 93 patients were included in the study.</span></p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> <span lang="EN-IN">Tigecycline group had significantly increased risk for in hospital mortality with an odds ratio of 6.0 and 95% CI of 1.37 to 26.12 with a p value of 0.01. But such a difference was not evident in 14 day mortality.  </span></p><p class="abstract"><strong>Conclusions:</strong> <span lang="EN-IN">Initiation of Tigecycline for multidrug resistant, pneumonia needs to be re-thought. Only a small percentage of patients with pneumonia with <em>in-vitro</em> sensitivity having low minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) would benefit from the drug. Even in this group the risk of increased mortality needs to be carefully considered before Initiation of therapy</span>.</p>

scholarly journals Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Safety of Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine From Randomized Controlled Trials on Malarial and Non-malarial Conditions

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mayra Souza Botelho ◽  
Fernanda Bolfi ◽  
Renata Giacomini Occhiuto Ferreira Leite ◽  
Mauro Salles Ferreira Leite ◽  
Luisa Rocco Banzato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Cardiac Complications ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background: Despite the expectations regarding the effectiveness of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) management, concerns about their adverse events have remained. Objectives: The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the safety of CQ and HCQ from malarial and non-malarial randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Methods: The primary outcomes were the frequencies of serious adverse events (SAEs), retinopathy, and cardiac complications. Search strategies were applied to MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Trip databases. We used random-effects model to pool results across studies and Peto one-step odds ratio (OR) for event rates below 1 %. Both-armed zero-event studies were excluded from the meta-analyses. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to evaluate the certainty of evidence.Results: Ninety-two RCTs were included. We found no significant difference between CQ/HCQ and control (placebo or non-CQ/HCQ) in the frequency of SAEs (OR: 0.98, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.71–1.36, 25 trials, 11,605 participants, moderate certainty of evidence). No clear relationship was observed between CQ/HCQ and retinopathy (OR: 1,63, 95 % CI: -0.4–6.57, 5 trials, 344 participants, very low certainty of evidence). There was a low certainty of evidence of the effect of CQ/HCQ versus control on cardiac complications (Relative risk: 1.48, 95 % CI: 1.1–1.98, 8 trials, 5,970 participants).Conclusions: CQ and HCQ might be safe, with low frequency of SAEs on malarial and non-malarial conditions. No clear effect of their use on the incidence of retinopathy and cardiac complications was observed.The protocol for this systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020177818)

Intranasal Corticosteroid Therapy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Reported Safety and Adverse Effects in Adults

2020 ◽  
Vol 163 (6) ◽  
pp. 1097-1108
Author(s):  
Angela M. Donaldson ◽  
Garret Choby ◽  
Daniel H. Kim ◽  
Lisa A. Marks ◽  
Devyani Lal
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Treatment Group ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adult Population ◽  
Intranasal Corticosteroid ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Significant Difference

Objectives To address concerns related to the safety profile of both Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved and non–FDA-approved intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) use in the adult population. Data Source Systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases using a comprehensive search strategy including all INCS formulations and adverse events. The study design was developed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Additional sources were identified from study references of relevant articles. Review Methods A structured literature search was conducted. Each study was graded for level of evidence using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Extracted data included population size, study design, drug (dosage, route, and frequency), presence of hypothalamus pituitary axis suppression, ocular symptoms, and treatment-related adverse events. Results A total of 60 studies met inclusion criteria. The studies included use of INCS as metered nasal sprays, drops, injections, aerosols, and irrigations. There were no persistent abnormalities in cortisol level or intraocular pressure change. Meta-analysis of epistaxis showed a significantly increased risk in the FDA-approved treatment group in comparison with control (risk ratio 1.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-2.14; P = .007). Conclusions Overall, it appears that the use of both FDA and published non-FDA application of INCS are safe in the adult population. Meta-analysis demonstrated an increased risk of epistaxis in patients using INCS compared with placebo. Otherwise, there was no significant difference between in adults in the treatment group and placebo group. As an important caveat, the interpretation of safety of nonstandard INCS is restricted to delivery methods and dosages published in the literature.

scholarly journals 529. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Ivermectin Safety Profile in COVID-19 Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S365-S365
Author(s):  
Hannah Wentzel ◽  
Junzheng Wang ◽  
Abbienaya Dayanamby ◽  
Victoria Pilkington ◽  
Jacob Levi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Day Treatment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Adverse Event Reporting ◽  
Forest Plot ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Treatment Trials ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background There is a continued and pressing need for safe and effective treatment of COVID-19. Significant survival benefits have been shown by dexamethasone, tocilizumab and sarilumab, however they are only recommended in hospitalised COVID-19 patients. Ivermectin is a well-established and readily available antiparasitic drug which may be suitable for treatment in mild and moderate disease stages. It recently demonstrated anti-viral properties in vitro and now over 80 clinical trials have been registered worldwide to test its effectiveness in COVID-19 patients. This meta-analysis aims to collect data on adverse events reported in new COVID-19 treatment trials for the use of ivermectin as a repurposed medication. Methods Data was extracted from randomised trials of COVID-19 treatment trials identified through systematic searches of PUBMED, EMBASE, MedRxiv and trial registries. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis is the frequency of adverse events. Key safety events included serious, gastrointestinal, neurological, cardiovascular and dermatological adverse events. Results Overall, 18 trials investigating ivermectin for COVID-19 in a total of 2496 participants reported safety data and were included. There was no significant difference in the proportion of all adverse events between ivermectin and the comparator. There were 371/1261 (29%) adverse events recorded in the ivermectin containing arms and 376/1284 (29%) in the control arms (RR 1.02 [95% CI 0.77 - 1.34]; p = 0.91). There was no significant difference in the rate of serious adverse events across treatment arms (RR 1.95 [95% CI 0.75 - 5.11]; p = 0.18). No significant differences between ivermectin and the control were seen across different subcategories of adverse events. Figure 1 shows a summary of the results for all adverse events. Forest plot comparing ivermectin and the control for all adverse events in COVID-19 trials, subdivided into single-day dosing trials and multi-day dosing trials. Conclusion The results of recent COVID-19 trials show that overall, ivermectin is safe and well-tolerated. No significant difference in adverse event reporting was found across all subgroups in single and multi-day treatment regimens for the studies analysed. Safety reporting methodologies often varied across trials. Future and ongoing trials should be encouraged to collect and monitor safety data systematically. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

scholarly journals 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

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

scholarly journals 416 - Risk of Mortality Associated with Antipsychotics in Alzheimer's Disease

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (S1) ◽  
pp. 132-132
Author(s):  
Liliana P. Ferreira ◽  
Núria Santos ◽  
Nuno Fernandes ◽  
Carla Ferreira
Keyword(s):  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Mortality Risk ◽  
Antipsychotic Treatment ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Mesh Terms ◽  
Risk Of Mortality ◽  
Increased Risk

Objectives: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common cause of dementia and it is associated with increased mortality. The use of antipsychotics is common among the elderly, especially in those with dementia. Evidence suggests an increased risk of mortality associated with antipsychotic use. Despite the short-term benefit of antipsychotic treatment to reduce the behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia, it increases the risk of mortality in patients with AD. Our aim is to discuss the findings from the literature about risk of mortality associated with the use of antipsychotics in AD.Methods: We searched Internet databases indexed at MEDLINE using following MeSH terms: "Antipsychotic Agents" AND "Alzheimer Disease" OR "Dementia" AND "Mortality" and selected articles published in the last 5 years.Results: Antipsychotics are widely used in the pharmacological treatment of agitation and aggression in elderly patients with AD, but their benefit is limited. Serious adverse events associated with antipsychotics include increased risk of death. The risk of mortality is associated with both typical and atypical antipsychotics. Antipsychotic polypharmacy is associated with a higher mortality risk than monotherapy and should be avoided. The mortality risk increases after the first few days of treatment, gradually reducing but continues to increase after two years of treatment. Haloperidol is associated with a higher mortality risk and quetiapine with a lower risk than risperidone.Conclusions: If the use of antipsychotics is considered necessary, the lowest effective dose should be chosen and the duration should be limited because the mortality risk remains high with long-term use. The risk / benefit should be considered when choosing the antipsychotic. Further studies on the efficacy and risk of adverse events with antipsychotics are needed for a better choice of treatment and adequate monitoring with risk reduction.

Abstract 13315: Long-term Risk of Cardiovascular Events Following Hospitalization for Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Leah B Kosyakovsky ◽  
Federico Angriman ◽  
Emma Katz ◽  
Neill Adhikari ◽  
Lucas C Godoy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cumulative Incidence ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hazard Ratios ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Sepsis Survivors ◽  
Risk Ratios

Introduction: Sepsis results in dysregulated inflammation, coagulation, and metabolism, which may contribute to increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the association between sepsis and subsequent long-term CVD events. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from inception to May 2020 to identify observational studies of adult sepsis survivors (defined by diagnostic codes or consensus definitions) measuring long-term CV outcomes. The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, CV death, and stroke. Random-effects models estimated the pooled cumulative incidence and adjusted hazard ratios of CV events relative to hospital or population controls. Odds ratios were included as risk ratios assuming <10% incidence in non-septic controls, and risk ratios were taken as hazard ratios (HR) assuming no censoring. Outcomes were analyzed at maximum follow-up (primary analysis) and stratified by time (<1 year, 1-2 years, and >2 years) since sepsis. Results: Of 11,235 abstracts screened, 25 studies (22 cohort studies, 2 case-crossover studies, and 1 case-control) involving 1,949,793 sepsis survivors were included. The pooled cumulative incidence of CVD events was 9% (95% CI; 5-14%). Sepsis was associated with an increased risk (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.37-1.86) of CVD events at maximum follow-up ( Figure ); between-study heterogeneity was substantial (I 2 =97.3%). There was no significant difference when comparing studies using population and hospital controls. Significantly elevated risk was observed up to 5 years following sepsis. Conclusions: Sepsis survivors experience an approximately 50% increased risk of CVD events, which may persist for years following the index episode. These results highlight a potential unmet need for early cardiac risk stratification and optimization in sepsis survivors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document