Number Of Serious Adverse Events Research Articles

Effect of scheduled antimicrobial and nicotinamide treatment on linear growth in children in rural Tanzania: A factorial randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BackgroundStunting among children in low-resource settings is associated with enteric pathogen carriage and micronutrient deficiencies. Our goal was to test whether administration of scheduled antimicrobials and daily nicotinamide improved linear growth in a region with a high prevalence of stunting and enteric pathogen carriage.Methods and findingsWe performed a randomized, 2 × 2 factorial, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in the area around Haydom, Tanzania. Mother–child dyads were enrolled by age 14 days and followed with monthly home visits and every 3-month anthropometry assessments through 18 months. Those randomized to the antimicrobial arm received 2 medications (versus corresponding placebos): azithromycin (single dose of 20 mg/kg) at months 6, 9, 12, and 15 and nitazoxanide (3-day course of 100 mg twice daily) at months 12 and 15. Those randomized to nicotinamide arm received daily nicotinamide to the mother (250 mg pills months 0 to 6) and to the child (100 mg sachets months 6 to 18). Primary outcome was length-for-age z-score (LAZ) at 18 months in the modified intention-to-treat group. Between September 5, 2017 and August 31, 2018, 1,188 children were randomized, of whom 1,084 (n = 277 placebo/placebo, 273 antimicrobial/placebo, 274 placebo/nicotinamide, and 260 antimicrobial/nicotinamide) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The study was suspended for a 3-month period by the Tanzanian National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR) because of concerns related to the timing of laboratory testing and the total number of serious adverse events (SAEs); this resulted in some participants receiving their final study assessment late. There was a high prevalence of stunting overall (533/1,084, 49.2%). Mean 18-month LAZ did not differ between groups for either intervention (mean LAZ with 95% confidence interval [CI]: antimicrobial: −2.05 CI −2.13, −1.96, placebo: −2.05 CI −2.14, −1.97; mean difference: 0.01 CI −0.13, 0.11, p = 0.91; nicotinamide: −2.06 CI −2.13, −1.95, placebo: −2.04 CI −2.14, −1.98, mean difference 0.03 CI −0.15, 0.09, p = 0.66). There was no difference in LAZ for either intervention after adjusting for possible confounders (baseline LAZ, age in days at 18-month measurement, ward, hospital birth, birth month, years of maternal education, socioeconomic status (SES) quartile category, sex, whether the mother was a member of the Datoga tribe, and mother’s height). Adverse events (AEs) and SAEs were overall similar between treatment groups for both the nicotinamide and antimicrobial interventions. Key limitations include the absence of laboratory measures of pathogen carriage and nicotinamide metabolism to provide context for the negative findings.ConclusionsIn this study, we observed that neither scheduled administration of azithromycin and nitazoxanide nor daily provision of nicotinamide was associated with improved growth in this resource-poor setting with a high force of enteric infections. Further research remains critical to identify interventions toward improved early childhood growth in challenging conditions.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03268902.

Cannabinoids for the treatment of dementia.

Dementia is a common chronic condition, mainly affecting older adults,characterised by a progressive decline in cognitive and functional abilities. Medical treatments for dementia are limited. Cannabinoids arebeing investigatedfor the treatment of dementia. To determine the efficacy and safety of cannabinoids for the treatment of dementia. We searched ALOIS - the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register - on 8 July 2021, using the terms cannabis or cannabinoid or endocannabinoid or cannabidiol or THC or CBD or dronabinol or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol or marijuana or marihuana or hashish. The register contains records from all major healthcare databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS), as well as from many clinical trials registries and grey literature sources. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of cannabinoids for the treatment of dementia. We included participants of any age and of either sex with diagnosed dementia of any subtype, or with unspecified dementia of any severity, from any setting. We considered studies of cannabinoids administered by any route, at any dose, for any duration, compared with placebo, no treatment, or any active control intervention. Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in included studies. When necessary, other review authors were involved in reaching consensus decisions. We conducted meta-analyses using a generic inverse variance fixed-effect model to derive estimates of effect size. We used GRADE methods to assess our confidence in the effect estimates. We included four studies (126participants) in this review.Most participants had Alzheimer's disease; a few had vascular dementia or mixed dementia. Three studieshad low risk of bias across all domains; one studyhad unclear risk of bias for the majority ofdomains. The included studies tested natural delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (Namisol) and two types of synthetic THC analogue (dronabinol and nabilone). Three trials had a cross-over design. Interventions were applied over 3to 14 weeks; one study reported adverse events over 70 weeks of follow-up.One trial was undertaken in the USA, one in Canada, and two in The Netherlands.Two studies reported non-commercial funding, and two studies were conducted with the support of both commercial and non-commercial funding. Primary outcomes in this review were changes in global and specific cognitive function, overall behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), and adverse events. We found very low-certainty evidence suggesting there may be little or no clinically important effect of a synthetic THC analogue on cognition assessed with the standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (sMMSE) (mean difference (MD) 1.1 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1 to 2.1; 1 cross-over trial, 28 participants). We found low-certainty evidence suggesting there may be little or no clinically important effect of cannabinoids on overall behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia assessed with the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (or its modified nursing home version) (MD -1.97, 95% CI -3.87 to -0.07; 1 parallel group and 2 cross-over studies, 110 participants). All included studies reported data on adverse events. However, the total number of adverse events, the total numbers of mild and moderate adverse events, and the total number of serious adverse events (SAEs)were not reported in a way that permitted meta-analysis. There were no clear differences between groups in numbers of adverse events, with the exception of sedation (including lethargy), whichwas more frequent among participants taking nabilone (N = 17) than placebo (N = 6) (odds ratio (OR) 2.83, 95% CI 1.07 to 7.48; 1 cross-over study, 38 participants). We judged the certainty of evidence for adverse event outcomes to be low or very low due to serious concerns regarding imprecision and indirectness. Based on data from four small, short, and heterogeneous placebo-controlled trials, we cannot be certain whether cannabinoids have any beneficial or harmful effects on dementia. If there are benefits of cannabinoids for people with dementia, the effects may be too small to be clinically meaningful.Adequately powered, methodologically robust trials with longer follow-up are needed to properly assess the effects of cannabinoids in dementia.

Effectiveness and safety of the adjunctive use of an internet-based self-management intervention for borderline personality disorder in addition to care as usual: results from a randomised controlled trial

ImportanceBorderline personality disorder (BPD) is a severe mental disorder that is often inadequately treated.ObjectiveTo determine if adding a self-management intervention to care as usual (CAU) is effective and safe.DesignRandomised, controlled,...

Intensive therapy for moderate established rheumatoid arthritis: the TITRATE research programme

Intensive therapy for moderate established rheumatoid arthritis: the TITRATE research programme

Does regulatory approval speed impact product quality? Evidence from the US pharmaceutical industry (WITHDRAWN)

The trade-off between speed to market and product quality is a well-studied phenomenon in the new product development literature. However, there is little evidence of how supply chain stakeholders beyond the focal firm can impact the speed-quality trade-off. Moreover, the impact of speed to market on performance parameters outside the firm – such as consumer safety and surplus, or social welfare – is unclear. We address both these gaps in the literature by studying speed to market from a regulatory perspective and analyzing the impact of speed to market on safety-related construct. Rooted in the context of the US pharmaceutical drug industry, our study evaluates the impact of four expedited drug approval programs by the USFDA on the quality of the newly launched pharmaceutical drugs in the US. These programs are designed to provide speedier access to those novel drugs which address a large unmet clinical need for the patients. We operationalize product quality as the number of adverse events and show that drugs approved under expedited programs could result in as high as 131% more number of adverse events and 167% more number of serious adverse events. Our study makes important theoretical and practical contributions. Theoretically, this is the first study in the NPD literature that, to the best of our knowledge, examines the impact of regulatory speed on the product quality. Practically, our study highlights critical unintended consequences of expediting the drug approval process for the regulators.

A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Phase II Study of Clarithromycin or Placebo Combined with VCD Induction Therapy Prior to High-Dose Melphalan with Stem Cell Support in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

▪Background: Uncontrolled studies and a case-matched study indicate that clarithromycin might exert synergistic effects in combination with thalidomide or lenalidomide in the treatment of multiple myeloma. Recent cellular studies have shown that the combination of clarithromycin and bortezomib results in increased cytotoxicity compared to bortezomib alone in myeloma cell lines. A possible mechanism underlying this synergistic effect might be simultaneous inhibition of the ubiquitin-proteasome system by bortezomib and the autophagy-lysosome system by clarithromycin resulting in enhanced endoplasmic reticulum stress-mediated apoptosis in myeloma cells (Moriya et al. Int J Oncol 2013).The Danish Myeloma Study Group (DMSG) initiated the CLAIM trial (NCT02573935), a randomized placebo-controlled phase II study, to investigate the efficacy and safety of clarithromycin in combination with the bortezomib containing VCD regimen.Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were randomized (1:1) to receive p.o. clarithromycin 500 mg or a matching placebo tablet twice daily for 63 days in combination with VCD induction therapy. The randomization was stratified according to International Staging System stage. The VCD consisted of 21-day cycles of subcut bortezomib 1.3 mg/sqm days 1, 4, 8, 11, i.v. cyclophosphamide 500 mg/sqm on days 1 and 8, and p.o. dexamethasone 40 mg days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12. After induction treatment the patients proceeded to cyclophosphamide priming (2000 mg/sqm), leukapheresis and high-dose melphalan (200 mg/sqm) with hematopoietic stem cell support (HDT). Patients from six Danish hematology departments participated in the trial. Primary endpoint was to compare rate of very good partial response or better response after three cycles of VCD combined with clarithromycin or placebo. Important secondary end-points were to compare very good partial response or better response two months after HDT, number of stem cells harvested, frequency of infections and safety. The responses were assessed according to the IMWG criteria and analyses were by intention to treat.Results: The study was prematurely stopped for safety reasons after the inclusion of 58 patients (36% of the planned study population). The enrolled patients were randomly assigned to clarithromycin (27) or placebo (31), and the clinical characteristics at baseline were balanced (Table I). VGPR or better response after the VCD induction therapy was obtained in 12 patients (44.4%, (95% CI, [25.5 - 64.7]) and in 16 patients (51.6%, [33.1 - 69.8], P = 0.59) in the clarithromycin group and the control group, respectively. There was no difference in the secondary endpoints between the treatment groups (Table I). A total of 26 serious adverse events were reported in 16 (59.3%) patients in the clarithromycin group and 16 serious adverse events in 10 (32.3%) patients in the control group. Seven patients (25.9%) in the clarithromycin group developed severe gastrointestinal complications (SAE ≥ grade 3) comprising pain, neutropenic enterocolitis, paralytic ileus or peptic ulcer. These complications occurred in only one patient in the control group (Table I). Septicaemia with Gram negative bacteria was observed in 5 patients in the clarithromycin group. By contrast, the only case of septicaemia detected in the control group was pneumococcal sepsis associated with pneumonia. In consequence of this imbalance in occurrence of severe gastrointestinal symptoms and septicaemia the study safety board decided to stop inclusion of new patients and to stop administration of the study drug on 16 September 2016.Conclusion: The study was prematurely stopped due to a number of serious adverse events. Although we only could analyse response data in 58 included patients the data do not suggest any effect of clarithromycin when added to the VCD regimen and our trial does not encourage further clinical studies on the combination of clarithromycin and bortezomib. Surprisingly, our study found an increased frequency of serious adverse events, in particular serious gastrointestinal complications and septicaemia, in the clarithromycin group. It emphasizes the need for controlled studies on the effect of clarithromycin, both in assessment of potential anti-myeloma effects as well as assessment of safety measures. [Display omitted] DisclosuresAbildgaard:Takeda: Research Funding.

Editors' Note: Nusinersen in Adult Patients With Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Observations From a Single Center

In “Nusinersen in Adult Patients With Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Observations From a Single Center,” Moshe-Lilie et al. compared 10 adult patients with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) treated with nusinersen for 6–24 months with 12 untreated patients. They found that although half of the treated patients endorsed subjective improvement, there was no evidence of objective improvement, and half of the treated patients experienced side effects. The authors concluded that decision making about the use of nusinersen in adult patients with SMA requires careful consideration because the benefit is unclear; there is a risk of side effects, some of which can be serious; and the cost is substantial. Hagenacker et al. believed that this conclusion was premature given (1) the small size of this study; (2) the methods included evaluation of strength using the Medical Research Council (MRC) scores, which they felt were antiquated and no longer considered an acceptable way to assess muscle function in such patients; (3) the number of serious adverse events experienced by patients in this study was unusually high; and (4) larger studies demonstrated the benefit of nusinersen on motor function in this patient population. Karam et al. responded that (1) the MRC scores were the only tool used consistently in this retrospective study; (2) clinical improvement, which should be evident on any scale, was not seen in their patients; (3) the side effects their patients experienced have been described elsewhere; and (4) larger studies were not published before their article was submitted. Furthermore, they noted that an important weakness of the existing larger studies is the lack of a placebo group and emphasized the need for a randomized double-blind placebo control trial to more clearly evaluate the benefits and risks of nusinersen in adults with SMA. In “Nusinersen in Adult Patients With Spinal Muscular Atrophy: Observations From a Single Center,” Moshe-Lilie et al. compared 10 adult patients with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) treated with nusinersen for 6–24 months with 12 untreated patients. They found that although half of the treated patients endorsed subjective improvement, there was no evidence of objective improvement, and half of the treated patients experienced side effects. The authors concluded that decision making about the use of nusinersen in adult patients with SMA requires careful consideration because the benefit is unclear; there is a risk of side effects, some of which can be serious; and the cost is substantial. Hagenacker et al. believed that this conclusion was premature given (1) the small size of this study; (2) the methods included evaluation of strength using the Medical Research Council (MRC) scores, which they felt were antiquated and no longer considered an acceptable way to assess muscle function in such patients; (3) the number of serious adverse events experienced by patients in this study was unusually high; and (4) larger studies demonstrated the benefit of nusinersen on motor function in this patient population. Karam et al. responded that (1) the MRC scores were the only tool used consistently in this retrospective study; (2) clinical improvement, which should be evident on any scale, was not seen in their patients; (3) the side effects their patients experienced have been described elsewhere; and (4) larger studies were not published before their article was submitted. Furthermore, they noted that an important weakness of the existing larger studies is the lack of a placebo group and emphasized the need for a randomized double-blind placebo control trial to more clearly evaluate the benefits and risks of nusinersen in adults with SMA.

Primary prevention of variceal bleeding in people with oesophageal varices due to liver cirrhosis: a network meta-analysis.

Approximately 40% to 95% of people with cirrhosis have oesophageal varices. About 15% to 20% of oesophageal varices bleed in about one to three years. There are several different treatments to prevent bleeding, including: beta-blockers, endoscopic sclerotherapy, and variceal band ligation. However, there is uncertainty surrounding their individual and relative benefits and harms. To compare the benefits and harms of different treatments for prevention of first variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices in adults with liver cirrhosis through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different treatments for prevention of first variceal bleeding from oesophageal varices according to their safety and efficacy. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers to December 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in people with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding. We included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no history of bleeding. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had previous bleeding from oesophageal varices and those who had previously undergone liver transplantation or previously received prophylactic treatment for oesophageal varices. We performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the differences in treatments using hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR), and rate ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrI) based on an available-case analysis, according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance. We performed the direct comparisons from randomised clinical trials using the same codes and the same technical details. We included 66 randomised clinical trials (6653 participants) in the review. Sixty trials (6212 participants) provided data for one or more comparisons in the review. The trials that provided the information included people with cirrhosis due to varied aetiologies and those at high risk of bleeding from oesophageal varices. The follow-up in the trials that reported outcomes ranged from 6 months to 60 months. All but one of the trials were at high risk of bias. The interventions compared included beta-blockers, no active intervention, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation, beta-blockers plus nitrates, nitrates, beta-blockers plus sclerotherapy, and portocaval shunt. Overall, 21.2% of participants who received non-selective beta-blockers ('beta-blockers') - the reference treatment (chosen because this was the most common treatment compared in the trials) - died during 8-month to 60-month follow-up. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates all had lower mortality versus no active intervention (beta-blockers: HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.67; direct comparison HR: 0.59, 95% CrI 0.42 to 0.83; 10 trials, 1200 participants; variceal band ligation: HR 0.51, 95% CrI 0.35 to 0.74; direct comparison HR 0.49, 95% CrI 0.12 to 2.14; 3 trials, 355 participants; sclerotherapy: HR 0.66, 95% CrI 0.51 to 0.85; direct comparison HR 0.61, 95% CrI 0.41 to 0.90; 18 trials, 1666 participants; beta-blockers plus nitrates: HR 0.41, 95% CrI 0.20 to 0.85; no direct comparison). No trials reported health-related quality of life. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation had a higher number of serious adverse events (number of events) than beta-blockers (rate ratio 10.49, 95% CrI 2.83 to 60.64; 1 trial, 168 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers plus nitrates had a higher number of 'any adverse events (number of participants)' than beta-blockers alone (OR 3.41, 95% CrI 1.11 to 11.28; 1 trial, 57 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, adverse events (number of events) were higher in sclerotherapy than in beta-blockers (rate ratio 2.49, 95% CrI 1.53 to 4.22; direct comparison rate ratio 2.47, 95% CrI 1.27 to 5.06; 2 trials, 90 participants), and in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison rate ratio 1.72, 95% CrI 1.08 to 2.76; 1 trial, 140 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was lower in beta-blockers plus variceal band ligation than in beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.04 to 0.71; 1 trial, 173 participants). Based on low-certainty evidence, any variceal bleed was higher in nitrates than beta-blockers (direct comparison HR 6.40, 95% CrI 1.58 to 47.42; 1 trial, 52 participants). The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in the remaining comparisons. Based on low-certainty evidence, beta-blockers, variceal band ligation, sclerotherapy, and beta-blockers plus nitrates may decrease mortality compared to no intervention in people with high-risk oesophageal varices in people with cirrhosis and no previous history of bleeding. Based on low-certainty evidence, variceal band ligation may result in a higher number of serious adverse events than beta-blockers. The evidence indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of beta-blockers versus variceal band ligation on variceal bleeding. The evidence also indicates considerable uncertainty about the effect of the interventions in most of the remaining comparisons.

Biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis.

This living systematic review is one of several Cochrane Reviews evaluating the medical management of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Chronic rhinosinusitis is common. Itis characterised by inflammation of the nasal and sinus linings,nasal blockage, rhinorrhoea, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. It occurs with or without nasal polyps. 'Biologics' are medicinal products produced by a biological process.Monoclonal antibodies are one type, already evaluated in other inflammatory conditions (e.g.asthma and atopic dermatitis). To assess the effects of biologics for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis. The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL (2020, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished studies. The date of the search was 28 September 2020. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least three months follow-upcomparing biologics (monoclonal antibodies) against placebo/no treatment in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), disease severity and serious adverse events (SAEs). The secondary outcomes were avoidance of surgery, extent of disease (measured by endoscopic or computerised tomography (CT) score), generic HRQL and adverse effects (nasopharyngitis, including sore throat). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. We included 10 studies. Of 1262 adult participants, 1260 had severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps; 43% to 100% ofparticipants also had asthma. Three biologics, with different targets, were evaluated: dupilumab, mepolizumab and omalizumab. All of the studies were sponsored or supported by industry. For this update (2021) we have included two new studies, including 265 participants, which reported data relating to omalizumab. Anti-IL-4Rα mAb (dupilumab)versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Three studies (784 participants) evaluated dupilumab. Disease-specific HRQL wasmeasured with the SNOT-22 (a 22-item questionnaire, with a score range of 0 to 110;minimal clinically important difference (MCID) 8.9 points). At 24 weeks, dupilumab results in a large reduction (improvement) in the SNOT-22 score (mean difference (MD) -19.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) -22.54 to -16.69; 3 studies; 784 participants; high certainty). At between 16 and 52 weeks of follow-up, dupilumab probably results in a large reduction in disease severity, as measured by a 0- to 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) (MD -3.00, 95% CI -3.47 to -2.53; 3 studies; 784 participants; moderate certainty). This is a global symptom score, including all aspects of chronic rhinosinusitis symptoms. At between 16 and 52 weeks of follow-up, dupilumab may result in a reduction in serious adverse events compared to placebo (5.9% versus 12.5%, risk ratio (RR) 0.47, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.76; 3 studies, 782 participants; low certainty). Anti-IL-5 mAb (mepolizumab)versus placebo/no treatment (all receiving intranasal steroids) Two studies (137 participants) evaluated mepolizumab. Disease-specific HRQLwas measured with the SNOT-22. At 25 weeks, the SNOT-22 score may be reduced (improved) in participants receivingmepolizumab (MD -13.26 points, 95% CI -22.08to -4.44; 1 study; 105 participants; low certainty; MCID 8.9). It is very uncertain whether there is a difference in disease severity at 25 weeks:ona 0- to 10-point VAS, disease severity was -2.03 lower in those receiving mepolizumab(95% CI -3.65 to -0.41; 1 study;72 participants; very low certainty). It is very uncertain if there is a difference in the number of serious adverse events at between 25 and 40 weeks (1.4% versus 0%; RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.46; 2 studies; 135 participants, very low certainty). Anti-IgE mAb (omalizumab)versus placebo/no treatment (all receivingintranasal steroids) Five studies (329 participants) evaluated omalizumab. Disease-specific HRQL was measured with the SNOT-22. At 24 weeks omalizumab probably results in a large reduction in SNOT-22 score (MD -15.62, 95% CI -19.79 to -11.45; 2 studies; 265 participants; moderate certainty; MCID 8.9). We did not identify any evidence for overall disease severity. It is very uncertain whether omalizumab affects the number of serious adverse events, with follow-up between 20 and 26 weeks (0.8% versus 2.5%, RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.00; 5 studies; 329 participants; very low certainty). Almost all of the participants in the included studies had nasal polyps (99.8%) and all were using topical nasal steroids for their chronic rhinosinusitis symptoms. Inthese patients, dupilumab improves disease-specific HRQL compared to placebo. It probably also results in a reduction in disease severity, and may result in a reduction in the number of serious adverse events. Mepolizumab may improve disease-specific HRQL.Itis very uncertain if there is a difference in disease severity or the number of serious adverse events. Omalizumab probably improves disease-specific HRQL compared to placebo. It is very uncertain if there is a difference in the number of serious adverse events. There was no evidence regarding the effect of omalizumab on disease severity (using global scores that address all symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis).

Iron chetators for acute stroke

BACKGROUND: Stroke is the second leading cause of death and a major cause of morbidity worldwide. Retrospective clinical and animal studies have demonstrated neuroprotective effects of iron chelators in people with haemorrhagic or ischaemic stroke. This is the first update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of iron-chelating drugs in people with acute stroke. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (2 September 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2019, Issue 9; 2 September 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (2 September 2019), Embase Ovid (2 September 2019), and Science Citation Index (2 September 2019). We also searched ongoing trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of iron chelators versus no iron chelators or placebo for the treatment of acute stroke, including subarachnoid haemorrhage. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the search results. We obtained the full texts of potentially relevant studies and evaluated them for eligibility. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Two RCTs (333 participants) were eligible for inclusion; both compared the iron-chelating agent deferoxamine against placebo. Both studies evaluated participants with spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage. We assessed one study to have a low risk of bias; the other study had potential sources of bias. The limited and heterogeneous data did not allow for meta-analysis of the outcome parameters. The evidence suggests that administration of deferoxamine may result in little to no difference in deaths (8% in placebo vs 8% in deferoxamine at 180 days; 1 RCT, 291 participants; low-certainty evidence). These RCTs suggest that there may be little to no difference in good functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0 to 2) between groups at 30, 90 and 180 days (placebo vs deferoxamine: 67% vs 57% at 30 days and 36% vs 45% at 180 days; 2 RCTs, 333 participants; low-certainty evidence). One RCT suggests that administration of deferoxamine may not increase the number of serious adverse events or deaths (placebo vs deferoxamine: 33% vs 27% at 180 days; risk ratio 0.81, 95 % confidence interval 0.57 to 1.16; 1 RCT, 291 participants; low-certainty evidence). No data were available on any deaths within the treatment period. Deferoxamine may result in little to no difference in the evolution of National Institute of Health Stroke Scale scores from baseline to 90 days (placebo vs deferoxamine: 13 to 4 vs 13 to 3; P = 0.37; 2 RCTs, 333 participants; low-certainty evidence). Deferoxamine may slightly reduce relative oedema surrounding intracerebral haemorrhage at 15 days (placebo vs deferoxamine: 1.91 vs 10.26; P = 0.042; 2 RCTs, 333 participants; low-certainty evidence). Neither study reported quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified two eligible RCTs for assessment. We could not demonstrate any benefit for the use of iron chelators in spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage. The added value of iron-chelating therapy in people with ischaemic stroke or subarachnoid haemorrhage remains unknown.

Comparison of Corticosteroid Tapering Regimens in Myasthenia Gravis

The tapering of prednisone therapy in generalized myasthenia gravis (MG) presents a therapeutic dilemma; however, the recommended regimen has not yet been validated. To compare the efficacy of the standard slow-tapering regimen of prednisone therapy with a rapid-tapering regimen. From June 1, 2009, to July 31, 2013, a multicenter, parallel, single-blind randomized trial was conducted to compare 2 regimens of prednisone tapering. Data analysis was conducted from February 18, 2019, to January 23, 2020. A total of 2291 adults with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe generalized MG at 7 specialized centers in France were assessed for eligibility. The slow-tapering arm included a gradual increase of the prednisone dose to 1.5 mg/kg every other day and a slow decrease once minimal manifestation status of MG was attained. The rapid-tapering arm consisted of immediate high-dose daily administration of prednisone, 0.75 mg/kg, followed by an earlier and rapid decrease once improved MG status was attained. Azathioprine, up to a maximum dose of 3 mg/kg/d, was prescribed for all participants. The primary outcome was attainment of minimal manifestation status of MG without prednisone at 12 months and without clinical relapse at 15 months. Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted. Of the 2291 patients assessed, 2086 did not fulfill the inclusion criteria, 87 declined to participate, and 1 patient registered after trial closure. A total of 117 patients (58 in the slow-tapering arm and 59 in the rapid-tapering arm) were selected for inclusion by MG specialists and were randomized. The population included 62 men (53%); median age was 65 years (interquartile range, 35-69 years). The proportion of patients having met the primary outcome was higher in the rapid- vs slow-tapering arm (23 [39%] vs 5 [9%]), with a risk ratio of 3.61 (95% CI, 1.64-7.97; P < .001) after adjusting for center and thymectomy. The rapid-tapering regimen allowed sparing of a mean of 1898 mg (95% CI, -3121 to -461 mg) of prednisone over 1 year (ie, 5.3 mg/d per patient, P = .03). The number of serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the slow- vs rapid-tapering group (13 [22%] vs 21 [36%], P = .15). In patients with moderate to severe generalized MG who require high-dose prednisone with azathioprine therapy, rapid tapering of prednisone appears to be feasible, well tolerated, and associated with a good outcome. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00987116.

Nebulised heparin for patients with or at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial

BackgroundMechanical ventilation in intensive care for 48 h or longer is associated with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which might be present at the time ventilatory support is instituted or develop afterwards, predominantly during the first 5 days. Survivors of prolonged mechanical ventilation and ARDS are at risk of considerably impaired physical function that can persist for years. An early pathogenic mechanism of lung injury in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients is inflammation-induced pulmonary fibrin deposition, leading to thrombosis of the microvasculature and hyaline membrane formation in the air sacs. The main aim of this study was to determine if nebulised heparin, which targets fibrin deposition, would limit lung injury and thereby accelerate recovery of physical function in patients with or at risk of ARDS.MethodsThe Can Heparin Administration Reduce Lung Injury (CHARLI) study was an investigator-initiated, multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial across nine hospitals in Australia. Adult intensive care patients on invasive ventilation, with impaired oxygenation defined by a PaO2/FiO2 ratio of less than 300, and with the expectation of invasive ventilation beyond the next calendar day were recruited. Key exclusion criteria were heparin allergy, pulmonary bleeding, and platelet count less than 50 X 109/L. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1, with stratification by site and using blocks of variable size and random seed, via a web-based system, to either unfractionated heparin sodium 25 000 IU in 5 mL or identical placebo (sodium chloride 0·9% 5 mL), administered using a vibrating mesh membrane nebuliser every 6 h to day 10 while invasively ventilated. Patients, clinicians, and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the Short Form 36 Health Survey Physical Function Score (out of 100) of survivors at day 60. Prespecified secondary outcomes, which are exploratory, included development of ARDS to day 5 among at-risk patients, deterioration of the Murray Lung Injury Score (MLIS) to day 5, mortality at day 60, residence of survivors at day 60, and serious adverse events. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. There was no imputation of missing data. The trial is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register, number ACTRN12612000418875 .FindingsBetween Sept 4, 2012, and Aug 23, 2018, 256 patients were randomised. Final follow-up was on Feb 25, 2019. We excluded three patients who revoked consent and one ineligible participant who received no intervention. Of 252 patients included in data analysis, the mean age was 58 years (SD 15), 157 (62%) were men, and 118 (47%) had ARDS. 128 (51%) patients were assigned to the heparin group and 124 (49%) to the placebo group, all of whom received their assigned intervention. Survivors in the heparin group (n=97) had similar SF-36 Physical Function Scores at day 60 compared to the placebo group (n=94; mean 53·6 [SD 31·6] vs 48·7 [35·7]; difference 4·9 [95% CI −4·8 to 14·5]; p=0·32). Compared with the placebo group, the heparin group had fewer cases of ARDS develop to day 5 among the at-risk patients (nine [15%] of 62 patients vs 21 [30%] of 71 patients; hazard ratio 0·46 [95% CI 0·22 to 0·98]; p=0·0431), less deterioration of the MLIS to day 5 (difference −0·14 [–0·26 to −0·02]; p=0·0215), similar day 60 mortality (23 [18%] of 127 patients vs 18 [15%] of 123 patients; odds ratio [OR] 1·29 [95% CI 0·66 to 2·53]; p=0·46), and more day 60 survivors at home (86 [87%] of 99 patients vs 73 [73%] of 100 patients; OR 2·45 [1·18 to 5·08]; p=0·0165). A similar number of serious adverse events occurred in each group (seven [5%] of 128 patients in the heparin group vs three [2%] of 124 patients in the placebo group; OR 2·33 [0·59 to 9·24]; p=0·23), which were a transient increase in airway pressure during nebulisation (n=3 in the heparin group), major non-pulmonary bleeding (n=2 in each group), haemoptysis (n=1 in the heparin group), tracheotomy site bleeding (n=1 in the heparin group), and hypoxaemia during nebulisation (n=1 in the placebo group).InterpretationIn patients with or at risk of ARDS, nebulised heparin did not improve self-reported performance of daily physical activities, but was well tolerated and exploratory outcomes suggest less progression of lung injury and earlier return home. Further research is justified to establish if nebulised heparin accelerates recovery in those who have or are at risk of ARDS.FundingRowe Family Foundation, TR and RB Ditchfield Medical Research Endowment Fund, Patricia Madigan Charitable Trust, and The J and R McGauran Trust Fund.

Cycling of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors versus switching to different mechanism of action therapy in rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Introduction:For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), main options include cycling onto a different TNFi or switching to a biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug with a different mechanism of action (MOA). This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed comparative clinical efficacy of cycling versus switching.Methods:We conducted a literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Outcomes included proportion of patients with 20%, 50%, or 70% response to American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20/ACR50/ACR70 response), Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) score below 2.6 or between 2.6 and 3.2, mean change in DAS28 score, mean reduction in and proportion of patients achieving a clinically meaningful reduction (⩾0.22) in Health Assessment Questionnaire score, number of serious adverse events (AEs), and withdrawals for any reason/due to AEs/lack of treatment efficacy. To account for the wide range of study populations and designs, we developed three models to conduct the NMA: fixed-effect, random-effects, and hierarchical Bayesian. PROSPERO ID: CRD42019122993.Results:We identified nine randomized controlled trials and 16 observational studies. The fixed-effect model suggested a 0.99 probability that switch was the better strategy for increasing odds of a clinically meaningful improvement in ACR50 [odds ratio (OR): 1.35 (95% credible interval (CI): 0.96–1.81)]. The fixed-effect model also suggested that switch was associated with lower rates of withdrawal for any reasons [OR: 0.53 (95% CI: 0.40–0.68)]. The random-effects and hierarchical Bayesian models suggested additional uncertainty as they considered more variability than the fixed-effect model.Discussion:Results suggest that switching to a drug with a different MOA is more effective and associated with lower rates of withdrawal than cycling to a different TNFi after failure of first-line TNFi. Further trials that directly compare cycling with switching are warranted to better assess comparative efficacy.Plain language summary Assessment of the effectiveness of different drug treatment strategies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an analysis of the published literature Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic disease in which inflammation affects joints along with the entire body; this may cause significant pain, joint damage, physical disability, a decreased quality of life, and an increased risk of death.Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) are a common choice as first-line drugs to treat RA. Although they are effective in many patients, therapy with a TNFi is not successful within the first year of treatment in approximately one-third of patients due to either a lack of efficacy or safety issues.When TNFi therapy is unsuccessful, the options are to “cycle” to another TNFi or to “switch” to another drug with a different mechanism of action (MOA). Further studies are needed to help doctors decide the best treatment strategy for their patients when treatment with an initial TNFi fails.This study analyzed 25 published studies in which patients were either “cycled” to another TNFi or “switched” to a drug with a different MOA after unsuccessful treatment with an initial TNFi.The results showed that “switching” to a drug with a different MOA was a better treatment strategy than “cycling” to another TNFi; “switching” increased the chance of clinically meaningful improvement in disease status and lowered the chance of having to stop treatment for any reason.

Active conventional treatment and three different biological treatments in early rheumatoid arthritis: phase IV investigator initiated, randomised, observer blinded clinical trial

ObjectiveTo evaluate and compare benefits and harms of three biological treatments with different modes of action versus active conventional treatment in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis.DesignInvestigator initiated, randomised, open label,...

Iron chelators for acute stroke.

Stroke isthe second leading cause of death and a major cause of morbidity worldwide. Retrospective clinical and animal studies have demonstrated neuroprotective effects ofiron chelatorsin people with haemorrhagic or ischaemic stroke.This is the first update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2012. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of iron-chelating drugs in people with acute stroke. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (2 September 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2019, Issue 9; 2 September 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (2 September 2019), Embase Ovid (2 September 2019), and Science Citation Index (2 September 2019). We also searched ongoing trials registers. We includedrandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of iron chelators versus no iron chelators or placebo for the treatment of acute stroke, including subarachnoid haemorrhage. Two review authors independently screened the search results. We obtained the full texts of potentially relevant studies and evaluated them for eligibility.Weassessedrisk of biasusing the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of evidence usingthe GRADE approach. Two RCTs (333 participants) were eligible for inclusion; both compared the iron-chelating agent deferoxamine against placebo. Both studies evaluated participants with spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage. We assessed one study to have a low risk of bias; the other study had potential sources of bias. The limited and heterogeneous data did not allow for meta-analysis of the outcome parameters. The evidence suggests that administration of deferoxaminemay resultin little to no difference indeaths (8% in placebo vs 8% in deferoxamine at 180 days; 1 RCT, 291 participants; low-certainty evidence). These RCTs suggest that there may be little to no difference in good functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0 to 2) between groups at 30, 90 and 180 days (placebo vs deferoxamine: 67% vs 57% at 30 days and 36% vs 45% at 180 days; 2 RCTs, 333 participants; low-certainty evidence). One RCT suggests that administration of deferoxamine may not increase the number of serious adverse events or deaths(placebo vs deferoxamine: 33% vs 27% at 180 days; risk ratio 0.81, 95 % confidence interval 0.57 to 1.16; 1 RCT, 291 participants; low-certainty evidence). No data were available on any deaths within the treatment period. Deferoxaminemay result in little to no difference in the evolution of National Institute of Health Stroke Scale scores from baseline to90 days (placebo vs deferoxamine:13 to 4 vs 13 to 3; P = 0.37; 2 RCTs, 333 participants; low-certainty evidence). Deferoxamine may slightly reduce relative oedemasurrounding intracerebral haemorrhage at 15 days (placebo vs deferoxamine: 1.91 vs 10.26; P = 0.042; 2 RCTs, 333 participants; low-certainty evidence). Neither study reported quality of life. We identified two eligible RCTs for assessment. We could not demonstrate any benefit for the use of iron chelators in spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage. The addedvalue of iron-chelating therapy in people with ischaemic stroke or subarachnoid haemorrhage remainsunknown.

Interferon \u03b2-1a (IFN\u03b2-1a) in COVID-19 patients (INTERCOP): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundPharmacological therapies of proven efficacy in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are still lacking. We have identified IFNβ-1a as the most promising drug to be repurposed for COVID-19. The rationale relies on the evidence of IFNβ anti-viral activity in vitro against SARS-CoV-2 and animal models resembling SARS-CoV-2 infection and on a recent clinical trial where IFNβ was indicated as the key component of a successful therapeutic combination.MethodsThis is a randomized, controlled, open-label, monocentric, phase II trial (INTERCOP trial). One hundred twenty-six patients with positive swab detection of SARS-CoV-2, radiological signs of pneumonia, and mild-to-moderate disease will be randomized 2:1 to IFNβ-1a in addition to standard of care vs standard of care alone. No other anti-viral drugs will be used as part of the regimens, both in the control and the intervention arms. IFNβ-1a will be administered subcutaneously at the dose of 44 mcg (equivalent to 12 million international units) three times per week, at least 48 h apart, for a total of 2 weeks. The primary outcome is the time to negative conversion of SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swabs. Secondary outcomes include improvement or worsening in a clinical severity score measured on a 7-point ordinal scale (including transfer to intensive care unit and death), oxygen- and ventilator-free days, mortality, changes in pulmonary computed tomography severity score, hospital stay duration, reduction of viral load measured on nasopharyngeal swabs, number of serious adverse events, and changes in biochemical markers of organ dysfunction. Exploratory outcomes include blood cell counts, cytokine and inflammatory profile, peripheral mRNA expression profiles of interferon-stimulated genes, and antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and to IFNβ-1a. INTERCOP is the first study to specifically investigate the clinical benefits of IFNβ-1a in COVID-19 patients.DiscussionPotential implications of this trial are multifaceted: should the primary outcome be fulfilled and the treatment be safe, one may envisage that IFNβ-1a be used to reduce the infectivity of patients with mild-to moderate disease. In case IFNβ-1a reduced the duration of hospital stay and/or ameliorated the clinical status, it may become a cornerstone of COVID-19 treatment.Trial registrationEudraCT 2020-002458-25. Registered on May 11, 2020ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04449380

A systematic review and meta-analysis of selected toxicity endpoints of alpelisib.

Purpose: Alpelisib is a first-in-class α-specific phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of patients with estrogen receptor–positive metastatic breast cancer. High absolute risk (AR) of relevant toxicities has been observed with this treatment. This meta-analysis aimed to improve the precision of the estimated AR of selected adverse events (AEs) associated with this new agent.Materials and Methods: A literature search was conducted in August 2019 to identify trials analyzing the anti-tumor efficacy and toxicity profile of alpelisib. Heterogeneity was assessed by using I2 statistics. Data were analyzed using random effect meta-analyses for AR. Eleven trials and 511 patients were included.Results: There was no evidence of heterogeneity between studies regarding the AR of most AEs except for all-grade weight loss and grade 3–4 stomatitis. The number of serious AEs was clearly reported in only one study, of which the most common was hyperglycemia; the most common all-grade AEs were hyperglycemia (59%), diarrhea (56%), nausea (44%), and rash (38%). Grade 3/4 hyperglycemia and rash occurred in 28% and 10% of patients, respectively. No treatment-associated deaths were observed, and 18% of patients had to stop treatment due to toxicities.Conclusions: Alpelisib is associated with clinically relevant AEs that can lead to treatment discontinuation. The most common AE was hyperglycemia. No treatment-related deaths were observed.

Midwifery continuity of care versus standard maternity care for women at increased risk of preterm birth: A hybrid implementation-effectiveness, randomised controlled pilot trial in the UK.

BackgroundMidwifery continuity of care is the only health system intervention shown to reduce preterm birth (PTB) and improve perinatal survival, but no trial evidence exists for women with identified risk factors for PTB. We aimed to assess feasibility, fidelity, and clinical outcomes of a model of midwifery continuity of care linked with a specialist obstetric clinic for women considered at increased risk for PTB.Methods and findingsWe conducted a hybrid implementation–effectiveness, randomised, controlled, unblinded, parallel-group pilot trial at an inner-city maternity service in London (UK), in which pregnant women identified at increased risk of PTB were randomly assigned (1:1) to either midwifery continuity of antenatal, intrapartum, and postnatal care (Pilot study Of midwifery Practice in Preterm birth Including women’s Experiences [POPPIE] group) or standard care group (maternity care by different midwives working in designated clinical areas). Pregnant women attending for antenatal care at less than 24 weeks' gestation were eligible if they fulfilled one or more of the following criteria: previous cervical surgery, cerclage, premature rupture of membranes, PTB, or late miscarriage; previous short cervix or short cervix this pregnancy; or uterine abnormality and/or current smoker of tobacco. Feasibility outcomes included eligibility, recruitment and attrition rates, and fidelity of the model. The primary outcome was a composite of appropriate and timely interventions for the prevention and/or management of preterm labour and birth. We analysed by intention to treat. Between 9 May 2017 and 30 September 2018, 334 women were recruited; 169 women were allocated to the POPPIE group and 165 to the standard group. Mean maternal age was 31 years; 32% of the women were from Black, Asian, and ethnic minority groups; 70% were in employment; and 46% had a university degree. Nearly 70% of women lived in areas of social deprivation. More than a quarter of women had at least one pre-existing medical condition and multiple risk factors for PTB. More than 75% of antenatal and postnatal visits were provided by a named/partner midwife, and a midwife from the POPPIE team was present at 80% of births. The incidence of the primary composite outcome showed no statistically significant difference between groups (POPPIE group 83.3% versus standard group 84.7%; risk ratio 0.98 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.08]; p = 0.742). Infants in the POPPIE group were significantly more likely to have skin-to-skin contact after birth, to have it for a longer time, and to breastfeed immediately after birth and at hospital discharge. There were no differences in other secondary outcomes. The number of serious adverse events was similar in both groups and unrelated to the intervention (POPPIE group 6 versus standard group 5). Limitations of this study included the limited power and the nonmasking of group allocation; however, study assignment was masked to the statistician and researchers who analysed the data.ConclusionsIn this study, we found that it is feasible to set up and achieve fidelity of a model of midwifery continuity of care linked with specialist obstetric care for women at increased risk of PTB in an inner-city maternity service in London (UK), but there is no impact on most outcomes for this population group. Larger appropriately powered trials are needed, including in other settings, to evaluate the impact of relational continuity and hypothesised mechanisms of effect based on increased trust and engagement, improved care coordination, and earlier referral on disadvantaged communities, including women with complex social factors and social vulnerability.Trial registrationWe prospectively registered the pilot trial on the UK Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database (ID number: 31951, 24 April 2017). We registered the trial on the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) (Number: 37733900, 21 August 2017) and before trial recruitment was completed (30 September 2018) when informed that prospective registration for a pilot trial was also required in a primary clinical trial registry recognised by WHO and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). The protocol as registered and published has remained unchanged, and the analysis conforms to the original plan.

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents as replacement therapy for blood transfusions in critically ill patients with anaemia: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

The primary objectives of this meta-analysis in critically ill adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) were to analyse whether erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) reduced the number of patients receiving red blood cell (RBC) transfusion and resulted in a change in haemoglobin (Hb) concentration. Our secondary objectives were adverse events and mortality. Anaemia is common in ICU patients, and currently, the standard therapy is RBC transfusion, which is known to be associated with adverse events. ESA could potentially reduce the need for RBC transfusion. EMBASE, Cochrane and PubMed were searched up to January 2020. A total of 1357 articles were identified, of which 18 articles met the inclusion criteria for the qualitative synthesis. Eight of these studies were used in the meta-analyses. Comparing ESA vs control group, there was a small reduction in the proportion of patients who received one or more RBC transfusions (relative risk [RR] 0.88; confidence interval [CI] 0.78-1.00, moderate certainty). The change in Hb concentration was trivial (mean difference -0.31 g/dL; CI -0.51 to -0.05, high certainty). The number of serious adverse events (RR 1.02; 0.90-1.15, low certainty) and the overall short-term mortality were similar (RR 0.80; CI 0.61-1.05, low certainty) between the groups. ESA resulted in a small reduction in the proportion of patients transfused and a trivial increase in haemoglobin concentration, both of questionable clinical relevance, without impacting adverse events or mortality. These results do not support the routine use of ESA to treat anaemia in critically ill adults.

Educational interventions to improve outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation-a systematic review.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an emerging epidemic associated with poor mental health and quality of life, as well as morbidity and mortality. Whilst other cardiovascular conditions have demonstrated positive outcomes from educational programmes, this approach is not well integrated in clinical practice in patients with AF. Though evidence in this area is mounting, a thorough overview seems to be lacking. To assess benefits and harms of educational interventions compared with no intervention in adults with AF. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed including the outcomes: Serious adverse events (mortality and readmission), mental health (anxiety and depression), physical capacity, quality of life and self-reported incidence of symptoms of AF. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO were searched between June and august 2018. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was applied for the randomised controlled trials and the Amstar Checklist for the systematic reviews. Eight randomised controlled trials and one non-randomised interventional study were included, with a total of 2388 patients. Comparing with controls patient education was associated with a reduction in: Serious adverse events (Risk Ratio 0.78, CI 95% 0.63-0.97), anxiety with a mean difference of -0.62 (CI 95% -1.21, -0.04) and depression with a mean difference of -0.74 (CI 95% -1.34, -0.14). Health-related quality of life and physical capacity was found to increase after patient education, yet, only one study found statistically significant differences between groups. No differences were observed with regards to self-reported incidence of symptoms of AF. Educational interventions significantly decrease the number of serious adverse events in patients with AF and seem to have a positive impact on mental health and self-reported quality of life. However, the evidence is limited, and more studies are warranted.