Number Needed To Treat To Benefit Research Articles

Celecoxib for rheumatoid arthritis.

Celecoxib for rheumatoid arthritis.

Number needed to treat (NNT) in clinical literature: an appraisal

BackgroundThe number needed to treat (NNT) is an absolute effect measure that has been used to assess beneficial and harmful effects of medical interventions. Several methods can be used to calculate NNTs, and they should be applied depending on the different study characteristics, such as the design and type of variable used to measure outcomes. Whether or not the most recommended methods have been applied to calculate NNTs in studies published in the medical literature is yet to be determined. The aim of this study is to assess whether the methods used to calculate NNTs in studies published in medical journals are in line with basic methodological recommendations.MethodsThe top 25 high-impact factor journals in the “General and/or Internal Medicine” category were screened to identify studies assessing pharmacological interventions and reporting NNTs. Studies were categorized according to their design and the type of variables. NNTs were assessed for completeness (baseline risk, time horizon, and confidence intervals [CIs]). The methods used for calculating NNTs in selected studies were compared to basic methodological recommendations published in the literature. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.ResultsThe search returned 138 citations, of which 51 were selected. Most were meta-analyses (n = 23, 45.1%), followed by clinical trials (n = 17, 33.3%), cohort (n = 9, 17.6%), and case–control studies (n = 2, 3.9%). Binary variables were more common (n = 41, 80.4%) than time-to-event (n = 10, 19.6%) outcomes. Twenty-six studies (51.0%) reported only NNT to benefit (NNTB), 14 (27.5%) reported both NNTB and NNT to harm (NNTH), and 11 (21.6%) reported only NNTH. Baseline risk (n = 37, 72.5%), time horizon (n = 38, 74.5%), and CI (n = 32, 62.7%) for NNTs were not always reported. Basic methodological recommendations to calculate NNTs were not followed in 15 studies (29.4%). The proportion of studies applying non-recommended methods was particularly high for meta-analyses (n = 13, 56.5%).ConclusionsA considerable proportion of studies, particularly meta-analyses, applied methods that are not in line with basic methodological recommendations. Despite their usefulness in assisting clinical decisions, NNTs are uninterpretable if incompletely reported, and they may be misleading if calculating methods are inadequate to study designs and variables under evaluation. Further research is needed to confirm the present findings.

WITHDRAWN: Radioisotopes for metastatic bone pain.

This is an update of the review published in Issue 4, 2003. Bone metastasis cause severe pain as well as pathological fractures, hypercalcaemia and spinal cord compression. Treatment strategies currently available to relieve pain from bone metastases include analgesia, radiotherapy, surgery, chemotherapy, hormone therapy, radioisotopes and bisphosphonates. To determine efficacy and safety of radioisotopes in patients with bone metastases to improve metastatic pain, decrease number of complications due to bone metastases and improve patient survival. We sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the PaPaS Trials Register up to October 2010. Studies selected had metastatic bone pain as a major outcome after treatment with a radioisotope, compared with placebo or another radioisotope. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies by their sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of study participants, researchers and outcome assessors, and incomplete outcome data. Two review authors extracted data. We performed statistical analysis as an "available case" analysis, and calculated global estimates of effect using a random-effects model. We also performed an intention-to-treat (ITT) sensitivity analysis. This update includes 15 studies (1146 analyzed participants): four (325 participants) already included and 11 new (821 participants). Only three studies had a low risk of bias. We observed a small benefit of radioisotopes for complete relief (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 1.32 to 3.35; Number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) = 5) and complete/partial relief (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.63; NNT = 4) in the short and medium term (eight studies, 499 participants). There is no conclusive evidence to demonstrate that radioisotopes modify the use of analgesia with respect to placebo. Leucocytopenia and thrombocytopenia are secondary effects significantly associated with the administration of radioisotopes (RR 5.03; 95% CI 1.35 to 18.70; Number needed to treat to harm (NNH) = 13). Pain flares were not higher in the radioisotopes group (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.27 to 2.06). There are scarce data of moderate quality when comparing Strontium-89 (89Sr) with Samarium-153 (153Sm), Rhenium-186 (186Re) and Phosphorus-32 (32P). We observed no significant differences between treatments. Similarly, we observed no differences when we compared different doses of 153Sm (0.5 versus 1.0 mCi). This update adds new evidence on efficacy of radioisotopes versus placebo, 89Sr compared with other radioisotopes, and dose-comparisons of 153Sm and 188Re. There is some evidence indicating that radioisotopes may provide complete reduction in pain over one to six months with no increase in analgesic use, but severe adverse effects (leucocytopenia and thrombocytopenia) are frequent.

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, alone or combined, for pain relief in acute otitis media in children.

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, alone or combined, for pain relief in acute otitis media in children.

Different antibiotic treatments for group A streptococcal pharyngitis.

Antibiotics provide only modest benefit in treating sore throat, although effectiveness increases in participants with positive throat swabs for group A beta-haemolytic streptococci (GABHS). It is unclear which antibiotic is the best choice if antibiotics are indicated.We assessed the comparative efficacy of different antibiotics on clinical outcomes, relapse, complications and adverse events in GABHS tonsillopharyngitis.We searched The Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2010, Issue 3) which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to July Week 4, 2010) and EMBASE (1974 to August 2010).Randomised, double-blind trials comparing different antibiotics reporting at least one of the following: clinical cure, clinical relapse, complications, adverse events.Two authors independently screened trials for inclusion and extracted data.Seventeen trials (5352 participants) were included; 16 compared with penicillin (six with cephalosporins, six with macrolides, three with carbacephem and one with sulfonamides), one trial compared clindamycin and ampicillin. Randomisation reporting, allocation concealment and blinding were poor.There was no difference in symptom resolution between cephalosporins and penicillin (intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis; N = 5; n = 2018; odds ratio for absence of resolution of symptoms (OR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 1.12). Clinical relapse was lower with cephalosporins (N = 4; n = 1386; OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.99); overall number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 50), but found only in adults (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.88; NNTB 33). There were no differences between macrolides and penicillin. Carbacephem showed better symptom resolution post-treatment (N = 3; n = 795; OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99; NNTB 14), but only in children (N = 2; n = 233; OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.99; NNTB 8.3). Children experienced more adverse events with macrolides (N = 1, n = 489; OR 2.33; 95% CI 1.06 to 5.15).Evidence is insufficient for clinically meaningful differences between antibiotics for GABHS tonsillopharyngitis. Limited evidence in adults suggests cephalosporins are more effective than penicillin for relapse, but the NNTB is high. Limited evidence in children suggests carbacephem is more effective for symptom resolution. Data on complications are too scarce to draw conclusions. Based on these results and considering the low cost and absence of resistance, penicillin can still be recommended as first choice.

Exhaled nitric oxide levels to guide treatment for adults with asthma.

Asthma guidelines aim to guide health practitioners to optimise treatment for patients so as to minimise symptoms, improve or maintain good lung function, and prevent acute exacerbations or flare-ups. The principle of asthma guidelines is based on a step-up or step-down regimen of asthma medications to maximise good health outcomes using minimum medications. Asthma maintenance therapies reduce airway inflammation that is usually eosinophilic. Tailoring asthma medications in accordance with airway eosinophilic levels may improve asthma outcomes such as indices of control or reduce exacerbations or both. Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) is a marker of eosinophilic inflammation, and as it is easy to measure, has an advantage over other measurements of eosinophilic inflammation (for example sputum eosinophils). To evaluate the efficacy of tailoring asthma interventions based on exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), in comparison to not using FeNO, that is management based on clinical symptoms (with or without spirometry/peak flow) or asthma guidelines or both, for asthma-related outcomes in adults. We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and reference lists of articles. The last searches were undertaken in June 2016. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adjustment of asthma medications based on exhaled nitric oxide levels compared to not using FeNO, that is management based on clinical symptoms (with or without spirometry/peak flow) or asthma guidelines or both. We reviewed results of searches against predetermined criteria for inclusion. We independently selected relevant studies in duplicate. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for further information, receiving responses from four. We included seven adult studies; these studies differed in a variety of ways including definition of asthma exacerbations, FeNO cutoff levels used (15 to 35 ppb), the way in which FeNO was used to adjust therapy, and duration of study (4 to 12 months). Of 1700 randomised participants, 1546 completed the trials. The mean ages of the participants ranged from 28 to 54 years old. The inclusion criteria for the participants in each study varied, but all had a diagnosis of asthma and required asthma medications. In the meta-analysis, there was a significant difference in the primary outcome of asthma exacerbations between the groups, favouring the FeNO group. The number of people having one or more asthma exacerbations was significantly lower in the FeNO group compared to the control group (odds ratio (OR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 0.84). The number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) over 52 weeks was 12 (95% CI 8 to 32). Those in the FeNO group were also significantly more likely to have a lower exacerbation rate than the controls (rate ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.77). However, we did not find a difference between the groups for exacerbations requiring hospitalisation (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.67) or rescue oral corticosteroids (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.48). There was also no significant difference between groups for any of the secondary outcomes (FEV1, FeNO levels, symptoms scores, or inhaled corticosteroid doses at final visit).We considered three included studies that had inadequate blinding to have a high risk of bias. However, when these studies were excluded from the meta-analysis, the difference between the groups for the primary outcomes (exacerbations) remained statistically significant. The GRADE quality of the evidence ranged from moderate (for the outcome 'exacerbations') to very low (for the outcome 'inhaled corticosteroid dose at final visit') based on the lack of blinding and statistical heterogeneity. Six of the seven studies were industry supported, but the company had no role in the study design or data analyses. With new studies included since the last version of this review, which included adults and children, this updated meta-analysis in adults with asthma showed that tailoring asthma medications based on FeNO levels (compared with primarily on clinical symptoms) decreased the frequency of asthma exacerbations but did not impact on day-to-day clinical symptoms, end-of-study FeNO levels, or inhaled corticosteroid dose. Thus, the universal use of FeNO to help guide therapy in adults with asthma cannot be advocated. As the main benefit shown in the studies in this review was a reduction in asthma exacerbations, the intervention may be most useful in adults who have frequent exacerbations. Further RCTs encompassing different asthma severity, ethnic groups in less affluent settings, and taking into account different FeNO cutoffs are required.

Vitamin A supplementation to prevent mortality and short- and long-term morbidity in very low birth weight infants.

Vitamin A is necessary for normal lung growth and the integrity of respiratory tract epithelial cells. Preterm infants have low vitamin A status at birth and this has been associated with an increased risk of developing chronic lung disease. To evaluate supplementation with vitamin A on the incidence of death or neonatal chronic lung disease and long-term neurodevelopmental disability in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants compared with a control (placebo or no supplementation), and to consider the effect of the supplementation route, dose, and timing. For the original review and subsequent updates, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Science Citation Index, and the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials. The reference lists of relevant trials, paediatric and nutrition journals, and conference abstracts and proceedings were handsearched up to 2010.For the 2016 update, we used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE via PubMed (1 May 2016), EMBASE (1 May 2016), and CINAHL (1 May 2016). We also searched clinical trials' databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. Randomised controlled trials comparing vitamin A supplementation with a control (placebo or no supplementation) or other dosage regimens in VLBW infants (birth weight ≤ 1500 grams or less than 32 weeks' gestation). Two review authors screened the search results, extracted data, and assessed the trials for risk of bias. Results were reported as risk ratios (RR), risk differences (RD), and number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB), all with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Trialists were contacted for additional data. Eleven trials met the inclusion criteria. Ten trials (1460 infants) compared vitamin A supplementation with a control and one (120 infants) compared different regimens of vitamin A supplementation. Compared to the control group, vitamin A appeared to have a small benefit in reducing the risk of death or oxygen requirement at one month of age (typical RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99; typical RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.01; NNTB 20, 95% CI 10 to 100; 6 studies, 1165 infants) and the risk of chronic lung disease (oxygen requirement) at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (typical RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.99; typical RD -0.07, 95% CI -0.13 to -0.01; NNTB 11, 95% CI 6 to 100; 5 studies, 986 infants) (moderate-quality evidence). There was a marginal reduction of the combined outcome of death or chronic lung disease (typical RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; typical RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.01; 4 studies, 1089 infants). Neurodevelopmental assessment of 88% of the surviving infants in the largest trial showed no difference between the groups at 18 to 22 months of age, corrected for prematurity (low-quality evidence). There is no evidence to support different vitamin A dosing regimens. No adverse effects of vitamin A supplementation were reported, but it was noted that intramuscular injections of vitamin A were painful. Whether clinicians decide to utilise repeat intramuscular doses of vitamin A to prevent chronic lung disease may depend upon the local incidence of this outcome and the value attached to achieving a modest reduction in the outcome balanced against the lack of other proven benefits and the acceptability of the treatment. Information on long-term neurodevelopmental status suggests no evidence of either benefit or harm from the intervention.

Benefit-Risk of Therapies for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: Testing the Number Needed to Treat to Benefit (NNTB), Number Needed to Treat to Harm (NNTH) and the Likelihood to be Helped or Harmed (LHH): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This study aimed to test the number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) and to harm (NNTH), and the likelihood to be helped or harmed (LHH) when assessing benefits, risks, and benefit-risk ratios of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) approved for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). In May 2016, we conducted a systematic review using the PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases to identify phase III, randomized controlled trials with a duration of ≥2 years that assessed first-line (dimethyl fumarate [DMF], glatiramer acetate [GA], β-interferons [IFN], and teriflunomide) or second-line (alemtuzumab, fingolimod, and natalizumab) DMTs in patients with RRMS. Meta-analyses were performed to estimate relative risks (RRs) on annualized relapse rate (ARR), proportion of relapse-free patients (PPR-F), disability progression (PP-F-CDPS3M), and safety outcomes. NNTB and NNTH values were calculated applying RRs to control event rates. LHH was calculated as NNTH/NNTB ratio. The lowest NNTBs on ARR, PPR-F, and PP-F-CDPS3M were found with IFN-β-1a-SC (NNTB 3, 95% CI 2-4; NNTB 7, 95% CI 4-18; NNTB 4, 95% CI 3-7, respectively) and natalizumab (NNTB 2, 95% CI 2-3; NNTB 4, 95% CI 3-6; NNTB 9, 95% CI 6-19, respectively). The lowest NNTH on adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation was found with IFN-β-1b (NNTH 14, 95% 2-426) versus placebo; a protective effect was noted with alemtuzumab versus IFN-β-1a-SC (NNTB 22, 95% 17-41). LHHs >1 were more frequent with IFN-β-1a-SC and natalizumab. These metrics may be valuable for benefit-risk assessments, as they reflect baseline risks and are easily interpreted. Before making treatment decisions, clinicians must acknowledge that a higher RR reduction with drug A as compared with drug B (versus a common comparator in trial A and trial B, respectively) does not necessarily mean that the number of patients needed to be treated for one patient to encounter one aditional outcome of interest over a defined period of time is lower with drug A than with drug B. Overall, IFN-β-1a-SC and natalizumab seem to have the most favorable benefit-risk ratios among first- and second-line DMTs, respectively.

Antibiotics for otitis media with effusion in children.

Otitis media with effusion (OME) is characterised by an accumulation of fluid in the middle ear behind an intact tympanic membrane, without the symptoms or signs of acute infection. Since most cases of OME will resolve spontaneously, only children with persistent middle ear effusion and associated hearing loss potentially require treatment. Previous Cochrane reviews have focused on the effectiveness of ventilation tube insertion, adenoidectomy, nasal autoinflation, antihistamines, decongestants and corticosteroids in OME. This review, focusing on the effectiveness of antibiotics in children with OME, is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2012. To assess the benefits and harms of oral antibiotics in children up to 18 years with OME. The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 3); PubMed; Ovid EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 14 April 2016. Randomised controlled trials comparing oral antibiotics with placebo, no treatment or therapy of unproven effectiveness in children with OME. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Twenty-five trials (3663 children) were eligible for inclusion. Two trials did not report on any of the outcomes of interest, leaving 23 trials (3258 children) covering a range of antibiotics, participants, outcome measures and time points for evaluation. Overall, we assessed most studies as being at low to moderate risk of bias.We found moderate quality evidence (six trials including 484 children) that children treated with oral antibiotics are more likely to have complete resolution at two to three months post-randomisation (primary outcome) than those allocated to the control treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.58 to 2.53; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 5). However, there is evidence (albeit of low quality; five trials, 742 children) indicating that children treated with oral antibiotics are more likely to experience diarrhoea, vomiting or skin rash (primary outcome) than those allocated to control treatment (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.29 to 3.60; number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) 20).In respect of the secondary outcome of complete resolution at any time point, we found low to moderate quality evidence from five meta-analyses, including between two and 14 trials, of a beneficial effect of antibiotics, with a NNTB ranging from 3 to 7. Time periods ranged from 10 to 14 days to six months.In terms of other secondary outcomes, only two trials (849 children) reported on hearing levels at two to four weeks and found conflicting results. None of the trials reported data on speech, language and cognitive development or quality of life. Low quality evidence did not show that oral antibiotics were associated with a decrease in the rate of ventilation tube insertion (two trials, 121 children) or in tympanic membrane sequelae (one trial, 103 children), while low quality evidence indicated that children treated with antibiotics were less likely to have acute otitis media episodes within four to eight weeks (five trials, 1086 children; NNTB 18) and within six months post-randomisation (two trials, 199 children; NNTB 5). It should, however, be noted that the beneficial effect of oral antibiotics on acute otitis media episodes within four to eight weeks was no longer significant when we excluded studies with high risk of bias. This review presents evidence of both benefits and harms associated with the use of oral antibiotics to treat children up to 16 years with OME. Although evidence indicates that oral antibiotics are associated with an increased chance of complete resolution of OME at various time points, we also found evidence that these children are more likely to experience diarrhoea, vomiting or skin rash. The impact of antibiotics on short-term hearing is uncertain and low quality evidence did not show that oral antibiotics were associated with fewer ventilation tube insertions. Furthermore, we found no data on the impact of antibiotics on other important outcomes such as speech, language and cognitive development or quality of life.Even in situations where clear and relevant benefits of oral antibiotics have been demonstrated, these must always be carefully balanced against adverse effects and the emergence of bacterial resistance. This has specifically been linked to the widespread use of antibiotics for common conditions such as otitis media.

Single dose intravenous paracetamol or intravenous propacetamol for postoperative pain.

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 10, 2011. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is the most commonly prescribed analgesic for the treatment of acute pain. It may be administered orally, rectally, or intravenously. The efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) formulations of paracetamol, IV paracetamol, and IV propacetamol (a prodrug that is metabolized to paracetamol), compared with placebo and other analgesics, is unclear. To assess the efficacy and safety of IV formulations of paracetamol for the treatment of postoperative pain in both adults and children. We ran the search for the previous review in May 2010. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (May 2010 to 16 February 2016), EMBASE (May 2010 to 16 February 2016), LILACS (2010 to 2016), a clinical trials registry, and reference lists of reviews for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any language and we retrieved articles. Randomized, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled single dose clinical trials of IV paracetamol or IV propacetamol for acute postoperative pain in adults or children. Two review authors independently extracted data, which included demographic variables, type of surgery, interventions, efficacy, and adverse events. We contacted study authors for additional information. We graded each included study for methodological quality by assessing risk of bias and employed the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence. We included 75 studies (36 from the original review and 39 from our updated review) enrolling a total of 7200 participants.Among primary outcomes, 36% of participants receiving IV paracetamol/propacetamol experienced at least 50% pain relief over four hours compared with 16% of those receiving placebo (number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) = 5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.7 to 5.6, high quality evidence). The proportion of participants in IV paracetamol/propacetamol groups experiencing at least 50% pain relief diminished over six hours, as reflected in a higher NNT of 6 (4.6 to 7.1, moderate quality evidence). Mean pain intensity at four hours was similar when comparing IV paracetamol and placebo, but was seven points lower on a 0 to 100 visual analog scale (0 = no pain, 100 = worst pain imaginable, 95% CI -9 to -6, low quality evidence) in those receiving paracetamol at six hours.For secondary outcomes, participants receiving IV paracetamol/propacetamol required 26% less opioid over four hours and 16% less over six hours (moderate quality evidence) than those receiving placebo. However, this did not translate to a clinically meaningful reduction in opioid-induced adverse events.Meta-analysis of efficacy comparisons between IV paracetamol/propacetamol and active comparators (e.g., opioids or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) were either not statistically significant, not clinically significant, or both.Adverse events occurred at similar rates with IV paracetamol or IV propacetamol and placebo. However, pain on infusion occurred more frequently in those receiving IV propacetamol versus placebo (23% versus 1%). Meta-analysis did not demonstrate clinically meaningful differences between IV paracetamol/propacetamol and active comparators for any adverse event. Since the last version of this review, we have found 39 new studies providing additional information. Most included studies evaluated adults only. We reanalyzed the data but the results did not substantially alter any of our previously published conclusions. This review provides high quality evidence that a single dose of either IV paracetamol or IV propacetamol provides around four hours of effective analgesia for about 36% of patients with acute postoperative pain. Low to very low quality evidence demonstrates that both formulations are associated with few adverse events, although patients receiving IV propacetamol have a higher incidence of pain on infusion than both placebo and IV paracetamol.

Vaccines for preventing herpes zoster in older adults.

Herpes zoster, also known as 'shingles', is a neurocutaneous disease characterised by the reactivation of the latent varicella zoster virus (VZV), the virus that causes chickenpox when immunity to VZV declines. It is an extremely painful condition that can last many weeks or months and it can significantly compromise the quality of life of affected individuals. The natural process of aging is associated with a reduction in cellular immunity and this predisposes older people to herpes zoster. Vaccination with an attenuated form of VZV activates specific T cell production avoiding viral reactivation. The Food and Drug Administration has approved a herpes zoster vaccine with an attenuated active virus for clinical use among older adults, which has been tested in large populations. A new adjuvanted recombinant VZV subunit zoster vaccine has also been tested. It consists of recombinant VZV glycoprotein E and a liposome-based AS01B adjuvant system. This new vaccine is not yet available for clinical use. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of vaccination for preventing herpes zoster in older adults. For this 2015 update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1948 to the 3rd week of October 2015), EMBASE (2010 to October 2015), CINAHL (1981 to October 2015) and LILACS (1982 to October 2015). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing zoster vaccine with placebo or no vaccine, to prevent herpes zoster in older adults (mean age > 60 years). Two review authors independently collected and analysed data using a data extraction form. They also performed 'Risk of bias' assessment. We identified 13 studies involving 69,916 participants. The largest study included 38,546 participants. All studies were conducted in high-income countries and included only healthy Caucasian individuals ≥ 60 years of age without immunosuppressive comorbidities. Ten studies used live attenuated varicella zoster virus (VZV) vaccines. Three studies tested a new type of vaccine not yet available for clinical use. We judged five of the included studies to be at low risk of bias.The incidence of herpes zoster, at up to three years of follow-up, was lower in participants who received the vaccine than in those who received a placebo: risk ratio (RR) 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 0.56, risk difference (RD) 2%, number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 50; GRADE: moderate quality evidence. The vaccinated group had a higher incidence of mild to moderate intensity adverse events. These date came from one large study that included 38,546 people aged 60 years or older.A study including 8122 participants compared the new vaccine (not yet available) to the placebo; the group that received the new vaccine had a lower incidence of herpes zoster at 3.2 years of follow-up: RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.10, RD 3%, NNTB 33; GRADE: moderate quality evidence. The vaccinated group had a higher incidence of adverse events but most them were of mild to moderate intensity.All studies received funding from the pharmaceutical industry. Herpes zoster vaccine is effective in preventing herpes zoster disease and this protection can last three years. In general, zoster vaccine is well tolerated; it produces few systemic adverse events and injection site adverse events of mild to moderate intensity.There are studies of a new vaccine (with a VZV glycoproteic fraction plus adjuvant), which is currently not yet available for clinical use.

Topical treatments for scalp psoriasis.

Topical treatments for scalp psoriasis.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of home palliative care services for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers.

Extensive evidence shows that well over 50% of people prefer to be cared for and to die at home provided circumstances allow choice. Despite best efforts and policies, one-third or less of all deaths take place at home in many countries of the world. 1. to quantify the effect of home palliative care services for adult patients with advanced illness and their family caregivers on patients' odds of dying at home; 2. to examine the clinical effectiveness of home palliative care services on other outcomes for patients and their caregivers such as symptom control, quality of life, caregiver distress and satisfaction with care; 3. to compare the resource use and costs associated with these services; 4. to critically appraise and summarize the current evidence on cost-effectiveness. We searched 12 electronic databases up to November 2012. We checked the reference lists of all included studies, 49 relevant systematic reviews, four key textbooks and recent conference abstracts. We contacted 17 experts and researchers for unpublished data. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before and after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series (ITSs) evaluating the impact of home palliative care services on outcomes for adults with advanced illness or their family caregivers, or both. One review author assessed the identified titles and abstracts. Two independent reviewers performed assessment of all potentially relevant studies, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality. We carried out meta-analysis where appropriate and calculated numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNTBs) for the primary outcome (death at home). We identified 23 studies (16 RCTs, 6 of high quality), including 37,561 participants and 4042 family caregivers, largely with advanced cancer but also congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), HIV/AIDS and multiple sclerosis (MS), among other conditions. Meta-analysis showed increased odds of dying at home (odds ratio (OR) 2.21, 95% CI 1.31 to 3.71; Z = 2.98, P value = 0.003; Chi2 = 20.57, degrees of freedom (df) = 6, P value = 0.002; I2 = 71%; NNTB 5, 95% CI 3 to 14 (seven trials with 1222 participants, three of high quality)). In addition, narrative synthesis showed evidence of small but statistically significant beneficial effects of home palliative care services compared to usual care on reducing symptom burden for patients (three trials, two of high quality, and one CBA with 2107 participants) and of no effect on caregiver grief (three RCTs, two of high quality, and one CBA with 2113 caregivers). Evidence on cost-effectiveness (six studies) is inconclusive. The results provide clear and reliable evidence that home palliative care increases the chance of dying at home and reduces symptom burden in particular for patients with cancer, without impacting on caregiver grief. This justifies providing home palliative care for patients who wish to die at home. More work is needed to study cost-effectiveness especially for people with non-malignant conditions, assessing place of death and appropriate outcomes that are sensitive to change and valid in these populations, and to compare different models of home palliative care, in powered studies.

Animal derived surfactant extract versus protein free synthetic surfactant for the prevention and treatment of respiratory distress syndrome.

A wide variety of surfactant preparations have been developed and tested including synthetic surfactants and surfactants derived from animal sources. Although clinical trials have demonstrated that both synthetic surfactant and animal derived surfactant preparations are effective, comparison in animal models has suggested that there may be greater efficacy of animal derived surfactant products, perhaps due to the protein content of animal derived surfactant. To compare the effect of animal derived surfactant to protein free synthetic surfactant preparations in preterm infants at risk for or having respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). Searches were updated of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2014), PubMed, CINAHL and EMBASE (1975 through November 2014). All languages were included. Randomized controlled trials comparing administration of protein free synthetic surfactants to administration of animal derived surfactant extracts in preterm infants at risk for or having respiratory distress syndrome were considered for this review. Data collection and analysis were conducted according to the standards of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. Fifteen trials met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed that the use of animal derived surfactant rather than protein free synthetic surfactant resulted in a significant reduction in the risk of pneumothorax [typical relative risk (RR) 0.65, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.77; typical risk difference (RD) -0.04, 95% CI -0.06 to -0.02; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 25; 11 studies, 5356 infants] and a marginal reduction in the risk of mortality (typical RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99; typical RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.00; NNTB 50; 13 studies, 5413 infants).Animal derived surfactant was associated with an increase in the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis [typical RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.76; typical RD 0.02, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.04; number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) 50; 8 studies, 3462 infants] and a marginal increase in the risk of any intraventricular hemorrhage (typical RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.15; typical RD 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.05; 10 studies, 5045 infants) but no increase in Grade 3 to 4 intraventricular hemorrhage (typical RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.27; typical RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.03; 9 studies, 4241 infants).The meta-analyses supported a marginal decrease in the risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia or mortality associated with the use of animal derived surfactant preparations (typical RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.00; typical RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.00; 6 studies, 3811 infants). No other relevant differences in outcomes were noted. Both animal derived surfactant extracts and protein free synthetic surfactant extracts are effective in the treatment and prevention of respiratory distress syndrome. Comparative trials demonstrate greater early improvement in the requirement for ventilator support, fewer pneumothoraces, and fewer deaths associated with animal derived surfactant extract treatment. Animal derived surfactant may be associated with an increase in necrotizing enterocolitis and intraventricular hemorrhage, though the more serious hemorrhages (Grade 3 and 4) are not increased. Despite these concerns, animal derived surfactant extracts would seem to be the more desirable choice when compared to currently available protein free synthetic surfactants.

Amitriptyline for fibromyalgia in adults.

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 12, 2012. That review considered both fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain, but the efficacy of amitriptyline for neuropathic pain is now dealt with in a separate review. Amitriptyline is a tricyclic antidepressant that is widely used to treat fibromyalgia, and is recommended in many guidelines. It is usually used at doses below those at which the drugs act as antidepressants. To assess the analgesic efficacy of amitriptyline for relief of fibromyalgia, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to March 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers, previous systematic reviews and other reviews, and two clinical trial registries. We also used our own hand searched database for older studies. We included randomised, double-blind studies of at least four weeks' duration comparing amitriptyline with placebo or another active treatment in fibromyalgia. We extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and two study authors examined issues of study quality independently. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks duration, parallel design), second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both. For efficacy, we calculated the number needed to treat to benefit (NNT), and for harm we calculated the number needed to treat to harm (NNH) for adverse events and withdrawals. We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis. We included seven studies from the earlier review and two new studies (nine studies, 649 participants) of 6 to 24 weeks' duration, enrolling between 22 and 208 participants; none had 50 or more participants in each treatment arm. Two studies used a cross-over design. The daily dose of amitriptyline was 25 mg to 50 mg, and some studies had an initial titration period. There was no first or second tier evidence for amitriptyline in the treatment of fibromyalgia. Using third tier evidence the risk ratio (RR) for at least 50% pain relief, or equivalent, with amitriptyline compared with placebo was 3.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7 to 4.9), with an NNT) of 4.1 (2.9 to 6.7) (very low quality evidence). There were no consistent differences between amitriptyline and placebo or other active comparators for relief of symptoms such as fatigue, poor sleep, quality of life, or tender points. More participants experienced at least one adverse event with amitriptyline (78%) than with placebo (47%). The RR was 1.5 (1.3 to 1.8) and the NNH was 3.3 (2.5 to 4.9). Adverse event and all-cause withdrawals were not different, but lack of efficacy withdrawals were more common with placebo (12% versus 5%; RR 0.42 (0.19 to 0.95)) (very low quality evidence). Amitriptyline has been a first-line treatment for fibromyalgia for many years. The fact that there is no supportive unbiased evidence for a beneficial effect is disappointing, but has to be balanced against years of successful treatment in many patients with fibromyalgia. There is no good evidence of a lack of effect; rather our concern should be of overestimation of treatment effect. Amitriptyline will be one option in the treatment of fibromyalgia, while recognising that only a minority of patients will achieve satisfactory pain relief. It is unlikely that any large randomised trials of amitriptyline will be conducted in fibromyalgia to establish efficacy statistically, or measure the size of the effect.

Single dose oral ibuprofen plus caffeine for acute postoperative pain in adults.

There is good evidence that combining two different analgesics in fixed doses in a single tablet can provide better pain relief in acute pain and headache than either drug alone, and that the drug-specific benefits are essentially additive. This appears to be broadly true in postoperative pain and migraine headache across a range of different drug combinations, and when tested in the same and different trials. Adding caffeine to analgesics also increases the number of people obtaining good pain relief. Combinations of ibuprofen and caffeine are available without prescription in some parts of the world. To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of a single oral dose of ibuprofen plus caffeine for moderate to severe postoperative pain, using methods that permit comparison with other analgesics evaluated in standardised trials using almost identical methods and outcomes. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Relief Database, two clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of articles. The date of the most recent search was 1 February 2015. Randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled clinical trials of single dose oral ibuprofen plus caffeine for acute postoperative pain in adults. Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We used the area under the pain relief versus time curve to derive the proportion of participants with at least 50% pain relief over six hours prescribed either ibuprofen plus caffeine or placebo. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat to benefit (NNT). We used information on the use of rescue medication to calculate the proportion of participants requiring rescue medication and the weighted mean of the median time to use. We also collected information on adverse effects. We identified five randomised, double-blind studies with 1501 participants, but only four had been published and had relevant outcome data. These four studies were of high quality, although two of the studies were small.Both ibuprofen 200 mg + caffeine 100 mg and ibuprofen 100 mg + caffeine 100 mg produced significantly more participants than placebo who achieved at least 50% of maximum pain relief over six hours, and both doses significantly reduced remedication rates (moderate quality evidence). For at least 50% of maximum pain relief, the NNT was 2.1 (95% confidence interval 1.8 to 2.5) for ibuprofen 200 mg + caffeine 100 mg (four studies, 334 participants) and 2.4 (1.9 to 3.1) for ibuprofen 100 mg + caffeine 100 mg (two studies, 200 participants) (moderate quality evidence). These values were close to those predicted by published models for combination analgesics in acute pain, and were supported by low (good) NNT values for prevention of remedication.Adverse event rates were low, and no sensible analysis was possible. For ibuprofen 200 mg + caffeine 100 mg particularly, the low NNT value is among the lowest (best) values for analgesics in this pain model. The combination is not commonly available, but can be probably be achieved by taking a single 200 mg ibuprofen tablet with a cup of modestly strong coffee or caffeine tablets. In principle, this can deliver good analgesia at lower doses of ibuprofen.

Single dose oral diclofenac for acute postoperative pain in adults.

Diclofenac is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, available as a potassium salt (immediate release) or sodium salt (enteric coated to suppress dissolution in the stomach). This review updates an earlier review published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 2, 2009) entitled 'Single dose oral diclofenac for acute postoperative pain in adults'. To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of a single oral dose of diclofenac for moderate to severe postoperative pain, using methods that permit comparison with other analgesics evaluated in standardised trials using almost identical methods and outcomes. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Oxford Pain Relief Database, two clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of articles. The date of the most recent search was 9 March 2015. Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of single dose, oral diclofenac (sodium or potassium) for acute postoperative pain in adults. Two review authors independently considered studies for inclusion in the review, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We used the area under the pain relief versus time curve to derive the proportion of participants with at least 50% pain relief over six hours prescribed either diclofenac or placebo. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat to benefit (NNT). We used information on the use of rescue medication to calculate the proportion of participants requiring rescue medication and the weighted mean of the median time to use. We also collected information on adverse effects. This update included three new studies, providing a 26% increase in participants in comparisons between diclofenac and placebo. We included 18 studies involving 3714 participants, 1902 treated with diclofenac and 1007 with placebo. This update has also changed the focus of the review, examining the effects of formulation in more detail than previously. This is a result of increased understanding of the importance of speed of onset in determining analgesic efficacy in acute pain.The largest body of information, for diclofenac potassium 50 mg, in seven studies, produced an NNT for at least 50% of maximum pain relief compared with placebo of 2.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9 to 2.5) (high quality evidence). There was a graded improvement in efficacy as doses rose from 25 mg to 100 mg, both for participants achieving at least 50% maximum pain relief, and for remedication within 6 to 8 hours. Fast-acting formulations (dispersible products, solutions, and softgel formulations) had a similar efficacy for a 50 mg dose, with an NNT of 2.4 (2.0 to 3.0). Diclofenac sodium in a small number of studies produced a lesser effect, with an NNT of 6.6 (4.1 to 17) for the 50 mg dose.Adverse event rates were low in these single dose studies, with no difference between diclofenac and placebo (moderate quality evidence). Diclofenac potassium provides good pain relief at 25 mg, 50 mg, and 100 mg doses. Diclofenac sodium has limited efficacy and should probably not be used in acute pain.

Repeat doses of prenatal corticosteroids for women at risk of preterm birth for improving neonatal health outcomes.

It has been unclear whether repeat dose(s) of prenatal corticosteroids are beneficial. To assess the effectiveness and safety of repeat dose(s) of prenatal corticosteroids. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (20 January 2015), searched reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted authors for further data. Randomised controlled trials of women who had already received a single course of corticosteroids seven or more days previously and considered still at risk of preterm birth. We assessed trial quality and extracted data independently. We included 10 trials (a total of 4733 women and 5700 babies) with low to moderate risk of bias. Treatment of women who remain at risk of preterm birth seven or more days after an initial course of prenatal corticosteroids with repeat dose(s), compared with no repeat corticosteroid treatment, reduced the risk of their infants experiencing the primary outcomes respiratory distress syndrome (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.91, eight trials, 3206 infants, number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 17, 95% CI 11 to 32) and serious infant outcome (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.94, seven trials, 5094 infants, NNTB 30, 95% CI 19 to 79).Treatment with repeat dose(s) of corticosteroid was associated with a reduction in mean birthweight (mean difference (MD) -75.79 g, 95% CI -117.63 to -33.96, nine trials, 5626 infants). However, outcomes that adjusted birthweight for gestational age (birthweight Z scores, birthweight multiples of the median and small-for-gestational age) did not differ between treatment groups.At early childhood follow-up, no statistically significant differences were seen for infants exposed to repeat prenatal corticosteroids compared with unexposed infants for the primary outcomes (total deaths; survival free of any disability or major disability; disability; or serious outcome) or in the secondary outcome growth assessments. In women, for the two primary outcomes, there was no increase in infectious morbidity of chorioamnionitis or puerperal sepsis, and the likelihood of a caesarean birth was unchanged. The short-term benefits for babies of less respiratory distress and fewer serious health problems in the first few weeks after birth support the use of repeat dose(s) of prenatal corticosteroids for women still at risk of preterm birth seven days or more after an initial course. These benefits were associated with a small reduction in size at birth. The current available evidence reassuringly shows no significant harm in early childhood, although no benefit.Further research is needed on the long-term benefits and risks for the woman and baby. Individual patient data meta-analysis may clarify how to maximise benefit and minimise harm.

Important clinical features of atypical antipsychotics in acute bipolar depression that inform routine clinical care: a review of pivotal studies with number needed to treat.

English-language literature cited in MEDLINE from January, 1980 to October 30, 2014 was searched by using terms of antipsychotic, generic and brand names of atypical antipsychotics, "bipolar depression/bipolar disorder", "placebo", and "trial". The parameters of response (≥50% improvement on MADRS, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score), remission (either ≤12 or 8 on MADRS total score at endpoint), discontinuation due to adverse events (DAEs), somnolence, ≥7% weight gain, overall extrapyramidal side-effects (EPSs), and akathisia, were extracted from originally published primary outcome papers. The number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) for response and remission or harm (NNH) for DAEs or other side effects relative to placebo were estimated and presented with the estimate and 95% confidence interval. Olanzapine monotherapy, olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (OFC), quetiapine-IR monotherapy, quetiapine-XR monotherapy, lurasidone monotherapy, and lurasidone adjunctive therapy were superior to placebo with NNTs for responses of 11-12, 4, 7-8, 4, 4-5, and 7, and NNTs for remission of 11-12, 4, 5-11, 7, 6-7, and 6, respectively. There was no significant difference between OFC and lamotrigine, and between aripiprazole or ziprasidone and placebo in response and remission. Olanzapine monotherapy, quetiapine-IR, quetiapine-XR, aripiprazole, and ziprasidone 120-160 mg/day had significantly increased risk for DAEs with NNHs of 24, 8-14, 9, 12, and 10, respectively. For somnolence, quetiapine-XR had the smallest NNH of 4. For ≥7% weight gain, olanzapine monotherapy and OFC had the smallest NNHs with both of 5. For akathisia, aripiprazole had the smallest NNH of 5. These findings suggest that among the FDA-approved agents including OFC, quetiapine-IR and -XR, lurasidone monotherapy and adjunctive therapy to a mood stabilizer, the differences in the NNTs for response and remission are small, but the differences in NNHs for DAEs and common side-effects are large. Therefore, the selection of an FDA-approved atypical antipsychotic for bipolar depression should be based upon safety and tolerability.

Sweet tasting solutions for reduction of needle-related procedural pain in children aged one to 16 years.

Sweet tasting solutions for reduction of needle-related procedural pain in children aged one to 16 years.