scholarly journals Intravenous Colistin Monotherapy versus Combination Therapy against Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria Infections: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. 208 ◽  
Author(s):  
I-Ling Cheng ◽  
Yu-Hung Chen ◽  
Chih-Cheng Lai ◽  
Hung-Jen Tang
Keyword(s):  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Gram Negative Bacteria ◽  
Gram Negative ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Carbapenem Resistant ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
All Cause Mortality

This meta-analysis aims to compare intravenous colistin monotherapy and colistin-based combination therapy against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria (GNB) infections. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched up to July 2018. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating colistin alone and colistin-based combination therapy in the treatment of carbapenem-resistant GNB infections were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Five RCTs including 791 patients were included. Overall, colistin monotherapy was associated with a risk ratio (RR) of 1.03 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.89–1.20, I2 = 0%) for all-cause mortality compared with colistin-based combination therapy. The non-significant difference was also detected in infection-related mortality (RR, 1.23, 95% CI, 0.91–1.67, I2 = 0%) and microbiologic response (RR, 0.86, 95% CI, 0.72–1.04, I2 = 62%). In addition, no significant difference was observed in the subgroup analysis—high or low dose, with or without a loading dose, carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infections, and in combination with rifampicin. Finally, colistin monotherapy was not associated with lower nephrotoxicity than colistin combination therapy (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84–1.21, I2 = 0%). Based on the analysis of the five RCTs, no differences were found between colistin monotherapy and colistin-based combination therapy against carbapenem-resistant GNB infections, especially for A. baumannii infections.

scholarly journals Intravenous colistin combination is superior to monotherapy against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacterial infections: evidence from seven randomized controlled trials

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhong-dong Li ◽  
Genzhu Wang ◽  
Zhikun Xun ◽  
Xiaoying Wang ◽  
Qiang Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Bacterial Infections ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Combination Regimen ◽  
Gram Negative ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Carbapenem Resistant

Abstract Background Previous meta-analysis based on five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) did not display that intravenous colistin-based combination therapy is more efficacious than monotherapy against carbapenem resistant gram- negative bacterial infections. This meta-analysis aimed to further elucidate the efficacy.Methods PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched up to March 2019 and only RCTs evaluating the combination therapy versus monotherapy against carbapenem or even colistin-resistant gram-negative bacteria infections were included. RevMan 5.3 was used to perform meta-analysis.Results Seven RCTs involving 859 patients were included. Total analysis showed that the combination therapy had a trend towards higher microbial response (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.98 –1.51), lower infection-related mortality (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.53–1.05), and significantly lower nephrotoxicity (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 – 0.98) than monotherapy. Subgroup analysis on carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii infections displayed that the combination therapy had significantly higher microbiological response (RR, 1.39; P <0.001; 95% CI, 1.19–1.61). Another subgroup analysis on combination regimen for colistin plus rifampicin showed that the combination therapy had significantly higher eradication rate to carbapenem -resistant A. baumannii (RR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.08–1.68). However, total and subgroup analysis showed no significant difference in all-cause mortality.Conclusions The present study suggests that intravenous colistin-based combination regimen, especially colistin plus rifampicin, may be superior to colistin alone against gram-negative bacterial infections, especially A. baumannii infection

scholarly journals Carbapenems vs β-Lactam Monotherapy or Combination Therapy for the Treatment of Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Li ◽  
Lingyuan Chen ◽  
Junsong Jiang ◽  
Xianshu Li ◽  
Tianguo Huang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Success ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Antibacterial Resistance ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Carbapenem Resistant ◽  
Abdominal Infections

Abstract Background Complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) result in significant morbidity, mortality, and cost. Carbapenem-resistant sepsis has increased dramatically in the last decade, resulting in infections that are difficult to treat and associated with high mortality rates. To prevent further antibacterial resistance, it is necessary to use carbapenem selectively. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of carbapenems vs alternative β-lactam monotherapy or combination therapy for the treatment of cIAIs. Methods The PubMed, Embase, Medline (via Ovid SP), and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing carbapenems vs alternative β-lactam monotherapy or combination therapy for the treatment of cIAIs. Results Twenty-two studies involving 7720 participants were included in the analysis. There were no differences in clinical treatment success (odds ratio [OR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71–1.05; I2 = 35%), microbiological treatment success (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.71–1.09; I2 = 25%), adverse events (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.87–1.09; I2 = 17%), or mortality (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.68–1.35; I2 = 7%). Patients treated with imipenem were more likely to experience clinical or microbiological failure than those treated with alternative β-lactam monotherapy or combination therapy. Conclusions No differences in clinical outcomes were observed between carbapenems and noncarbapenem β-lactams in cIAIs. Patients treated with imipenem were more likely to experience clinical or microbiological failure than those treated with alternative β-lactam monotherapy or combination therapy.

scholarly journals sGC Stimulators for Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xueli Shi ◽  
Xuejing Yu ◽  
Jinhui Wang ◽  
Jianzhong Zhou
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Sgc Stimulators

Abstract Background Oral sGC stimulators are novel treatments for heart failure (HF). Since individual studies are limited to confirm the efficacy and safety of sGC stimulators in patients with HF, we provide a meta-analysis based on published clinical randomized controlled trials. Methods Embase, PubMed, Cochrane and Medline were applied to search for randomized controlled trials (published before March 29, 2020 without language restrictions) by comparing oral sGC stimulators to placebos. Main endpoints were efficacy outcomes, including all-cause mortality, incidence of cardiovascular-events related death or hospitalization, alterations of EQ-5D index, and N-terminal (NT)-pro hormone BNP(NT-proBNP); and safety outcomes included incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs), symptomatic hypotension and syncope. Results Six trials were enrolled (N=6255 participants), sGC stimulators yielded a lower incidence of cardiovascular-events related death or hospitalization (OR=0.88, 95% CI=0.79 to 0.98), an improvement in EQ-5D scores (SMD=0.44, 95% CI=0.24 to 0.63), and a lower relative risk of SAEs (OR=0.90, 95% CI=0.81 to 1.00) compared with placebos. Furthermore, NT-proBNP was decreased by riociguat (SMD=-0.79, 95% CI=-1.10 to -0.49), but not by vericiguat (SMD=0.04, 95% CI=-0.18 to 0.25). There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (OR=0.95, 95% CI=0.83 to 1.09), incidence of symptomatic hypotension (OR=1.15, 95% CI=0.95 to 1.40) and syncope (OR=1.15, 95% CI=0.87 to 1.53) between sGC stimulators and placebos. Conclusion Oral sGC stimulators may be beneficial for HF with a good tolerance, further studies are also needed to establish the optimal approach in clinical practice.

scholarly journals Effect of janus kinase inhibitors and methotrexate combination on malignancy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vinod Solipuram ◽  
Akhila Mohan ◽  
Roshniben Patel ◽  
Ruoning Ni
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Janus Kinase ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy

Abstract Background Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic autoimmune disease. The combination therapy of methotrexate (MTX) and Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) is commonly used. Patients with RA are at increased risk of malignancy, however, it remains unclear whether the combination therapy is associated with a higher risk. Objective To assess the malignancy risk among patients with RA receiving combination therapy of JAKi and MTX compared to MTX alone. Methods PubMed, Cochrane and Embase were thoroughly searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with RA receiving JAKi and MTX, from inception to July 2020. Primary endpoints were malignancy events, Non melanomatous skin cancer (NMSC) and malignancy excluding NMSC and secondary endpoints were serious adverse events (SAE), deaths. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI were calculated using the Mantel–Haenszel random-effect method. Results 659 publications were screened and 13 RCTs with a total of 6911 patients were included in the analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in malignancy [RR = 1.42; 95% CI (0.59, 3.41)], neither NMSC [RR = 1.44 (0.36, 5.76)] nor malignancies excluding NMSC [RR = 1.12 (0.40, 3.13)]. No statistically significant difference between the two groups for SAE [RR = 1.15 (0.90, 1.47)] and deaths [RR = 1.99 (0.75, 5.27)] was found. Conclusion The adjunction of JAKi to MTX is not associated with an increased risk of malignancy when compared to MTX alone. There is no increased risk of SAE and deaths when compared to MTX alone in patients with RA.

Long-term mortality and patency after drug-coated balloon angioplasty in the hemodialysis circuit: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2022 ◽  
pp. 112972982110701
Author(s):  
Yunfeng Li ◽  
Zhenwei Shi ◽  
Yunyun Zhao ◽  
Zhanjiang Cao ◽  
Zhengli Tan
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Balloon Angioplasty ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Primary Patency ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Technical Success ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Drug Coated Balloon

Purpose: To compare all-cause mortality and primary patency with drug-coated balloon angioplasty (DCBA) compared with plain balloon angioplasty (PBA) in people with hemodialysis-related stenosis. Materials and methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from November 1966 to February 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the use of DCBA versus PBA for stenosis in hemodialysis circuits. Data extracted from the articles were integrated to determine all-cause mortality, target lesion primary patency (TLPP), circuit access primary patency (CAPP), 30-day adverse events, and technical success for the two approaches. We performed meta-analysis on these results using a fixed-effects model to evaluate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) where I2 < 50% in a test for heterogeneity, or a random-effect model if otherwise. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were also performed. Results: Sixteen RCTs of 1672 individuals were included in our meta-analysis, of which 839 individuals received DCBA and 833 received PBA. The pooled outcome showed no statistical difference between DCBA and PBA in all-cause mortality at 6 months (OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.72–2.32, p = 0.39, I2 = 4%), 12 months (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.68–1.53, p = 0.91, I2 = 0%), and 24 months (OR = 1.50, 95% CI = 0.87–2.57, p = 0.15, I2 = 0%), 30-day adverse events (OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.30–3.98, p = 0.90, I2 = 66%), and technical success (OR = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.02–1.92, p = 0.16, I2 = 65%). The DCBA had significantly better outcomes versus PBA in TLPP at 6 months (OR = 2.37, 95% CI = 1.84–3.04, p < 0.001, I2 = 44%) and 12 months (OR = 1.77, 95% CI = 1.22–2.56, p = 0.002, I2 = 56%), and CAPP at 6 months (OR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.21–3.54, p = 0.008, I2 = 67%) and 12 months (OR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.29–2.15, p < 0.001, I2 = 0%). Conclusion: In hemodialysis circuit stenosis, DCBA appears to have similar safety but greater efficacy than PBA.

Early Versus Routine Stoma Closure in Patients With Colorectal Resection: A Meta-Analysis of 7 Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-298
Author(s):  
Yinyin Guo ◽  
Yanxin Luo ◽  
Hui Zhao ◽  
Liangliang Bai ◽  
Juan Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Surgery ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Bowel Obstruction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Wound Complications ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Stoma Closure ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Background. A substantial proportion of patients undergoing colorectal surgery receive a temporary stoma, and the timing for stoma closure remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of early stoma closure (ESC) compared with routine stoma closure (RSC) after colorectal surgery. Methods. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials that compared ESC and RSC after colorectal surgery. Results. A total of 7 randomized controlled trials with 814 enrolled patients were identified for this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between the ESC and RSC groups regarding the complications of stoma closure (26.8% and 16.6%, respectively; odds ratio [OR]: 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-1.90; P = .17). A subgroup analysis was conducted by Clavien-Dindo grade of complication, and no significant difference was observed in any subgroup ( P > .05). However, the ESC group had a significantly higher risk of wound complications than the RSC group (17.6% and 7.8%, respectively; OR: 2.61; 95% CI: 1.43-4.76; P = .002), and the RSC group had more cases of small bowel obstruction than the ESC group (3.1% and 8.4%, respectively; OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.15-0.87; P = .02). Conclusions. ESC is a safe and effective therapeutic approach in patients who have undergone colorectal surgery; it is associated with a reduced risk of bowel obstruction but a higher risk of wound complications.

scholarly journals The Effect of Virtual Reality on Preoperative Anxiety: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 3151
Author(s):  
Chang-Hoon Koo ◽  
Jin-Woo Park ◽  
Jung-Hee Ryu ◽  
Sung-Hee Han
Keyword(s):  
Virtual Reality ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Preoperative Anxiety ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Virtual reality (VR), a technology that provides a stimulated sensory experience, has recently been implemented in various fields of medicine. Several studies have investigated the efficacy of VR on preoperative anxiety. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to validate whether VR could relieve preoperative anxiety in patients undergoing surgery. Electronic databases were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of VR on preoperative anxiety. The primary outcome was defined as the preoperative anxiety scores. We estimated the effect size using the standard mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random effect model. Ultimately, 10 RCTs, with a total of 813 patients, were included in the final analysis. Preoperative anxiety was significantly lower in the VR group than in the control group (SMD −0.64, 95% CI −1.08 to −0.20, p = 0.004). In a subgroup analysis, the preoperative anxiety scores were lower in the VR group than in the control group in pediatric patients (SMD −0.71, 95% CI −1.14 to −0.27, p = 0.002), whereas a significant difference was not observed between the two groups in adult patients (p = 0.226). The results of this meta-analysis indicated that VR could decrease preoperative anxiety, especially in pediatric patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document