TSA-adjusted Confidence Intervals Research Articles

Volumetric Bone Mineral Density Measured by HR-pQCT in Patients with Psoriasis or Psoriatic Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.

Bone health in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis has been emphasized in recent years. Novel imaging modalities allow investigations into volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) and bone microstructure in psoriatic patients. However, literature regarding vBMD measured by high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (HR-pQCT) is inconclusive. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate vBMD in patients with psoriatic disease. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for relevant observational studies. A random-effects meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed. The pooled mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Five studies with 780 patients were included. Patients with psoriatic disease showed a lower average vBMD than controls (MD −14.90; 95% CI −22.90 to −6.89; TSA-adjusted CI −23.77 to −6.03; I2 = 41%). Trabecular vBMD and cortical vBMD results were inconclusive because of the small sample size. Patients recruited in Asia and those whose vBMD were measured at the distal radius exhibited a lower average vBMD than controls. Further research should clarify the association of psoriasis with bone microstructure and the underlying pathophysiology.

Efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in immunocompetent patients with septic shock.

The use of corticosteroids in septic shock has been studied for many decades but yielded conflicting results. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of corticosteroids in immunocompetent patients with septic shock. Medline via PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were searched from inception to March 2020. Two reviewers independently identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing corticosteroids with a control group for immunocompetent patients with septic shock. Data were abstracted and reported following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Intervention and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The efficacy outcome included mortality and shock reversal. The safety outcomes were infection, gastrointestinal bleeding, and hyperglycemia. Nine RCTs with a total of 1,298 patients were included. Compared with the control group, corticosteroid group did not lower the short-term (28 or 30 days) mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.06, inconsistency [I 2]=0%, trial sequential analysis [TSA]-adjusted CI 0.83 to 1.09, moderate-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids significantly shortened the time to shock reversal compared with the control group (mean difference [MD] -21.56 hours; 95% CI -32.95 to -10.16, I 2=0%; TSA-adjusted CI -33.33 to -9.78, moderate-certainty evidence). The corticosteroid treatment was associated with an increased risk of hyperglycemia but not the infection or gastrointestinal bleeding. The corticosteroid treatment is not associated with lower short- or long- term mortality compared with placebo in immunocompetent patients with septic shock. However, corticosteroids significantly shorten the time to shock reversal without increasing the risk of infection. The patient's immune status should also be considered during clinical treatment and clinical trials in future.

Effect of Extracorporeal Blood Purification on Mortality in Sepsis: A Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

Objective: The objective of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine whether mortality benefit exists for extracorporeal blood purification techniques in sepsis. Data Sources: A systematic search on MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for RCTs was performed. Study Selection: RCTs investigating the effect of extracorporeal blood purification device use on mortality among critically ill septic patients were selected. Data Extraction: Mortality was assessed using Mantel-Haenszel models, and I2 was used for heterogeneity. Data are presented as odds ratios (OR); 95% confidence intervals (CIs); p values; I2. Using the control event mortality proportion, we performed a TSA and calculated the required information size using an anticipated intervention effect of a 14% relative reduction in mortality. Data Synthesis: Thirty-nine RCTs were identified, with 2,729 patients. Fourteen studies used hemofiltration (n = 789), 17 used endotoxin adsorption devices (n = 1,363), 3 used nonspecific adsorption (n = 110), 2 were cytokine removal devices (n = 117), 2 used coupled plasma filtration adsorption (CPFA) (n = 207), 2 combined hemofiltration and perfusion (n = 40), and 1 used plasma exchange (n = 106). On conventional meta-analysis, hemofiltration (OR 0.56 [0.40–0.79]; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%), endotoxin removal devices (OR 0.40 [0.23–0.67], p < 0.001; I2 = 71%), and nonspecific adsorption devices (OR 0.32 [0.13–0.82]; p = 0.02; I2 = 23%) were associated with mortality benefit, but not cytokine removal (OR 0.99 [0.07–13.42], p = 0.99; I2 = 64%), CPFA (OR 0.50 [0.10–2.47]; p = 0.40; I2 = 64%), or combined hemofiltration and adsorption (OR 0.71 [0.13–3.79]; p = 0.69; I2 = 0%). TSA however revealed that based on the number of existing patients recruited for RCTs, neither hemofiltration (TSA-adjusted CI 0.29–1.10), endotoxin removal devices (CI 0.05–3.40), nor nonspecific adsorption devices (CI 0.01–14.31) were associated with mortality benefit. Conclusion: There are inadequate data at present to conclude that the use of extracorporeal blood purification techniques in sepsis is beneficial. Further adequately powered RCTs are required to confirm any potential mortality benefit, which may be most evident in patients at greatest risk of death.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors or histamine 2 receptor antagonists in critically ill adults - a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis

BackgroundProton pump inhibitors (PPI) and histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RA) have been widely used as stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in critically ill patients, however, its efficacy and safety remain unclear. This study aimed to assess the effect of SUP on clinical outcomes in critically ill adults.MethodsLiterature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane database of clinical trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated SUP, with PPI or H2RA, versus placebo or no prophylaxis in critically ill patients from database inception through 1 June 2019. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed in duplicate. The primary outcomes were clinically important gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and overt GI bleeding. Conventional meta-analysis with random-effects model and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed.ResultsTwenty-nine RCTs were identified, of which four RCTs were judged as low risk of bias. Overall, SUP could reduce the incident of clinically important GI bleeding [relative risk (RR) = 0.58; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.42–0.81] and overt GI bleeding (RR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.36–0.63), these results were confirmed by the sub-analysis of trials with low risk of bias, TSA indicated a firm evidence on its beneficial effects on the overt GI bleeding (TSA-adjusted CI: 0.31–0.75), but lack of sufficient evidence on the clinically important GI bleeding (TSA-adjusted CI: 0.23–1.51). Among patients who received enteral nutrition (EN), SUP was associated with a decreased risk of clinically important GI bleeding (RR = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.44–0.85; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.16–2.38) and overt GI bleeding (RR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.42–0.96; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.12–3.35), but these benefits disappeared after adjustment with TSA. Among patients who did not receive EN, SUP had only benefits in reducing the risk of overt GI bleeding (RR = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.25–0.55; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.22–0.63), but not the clinically important GI bleeding (RR = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.04–2.09).ConclusionsSUP has benefits on the overt GI bleeding in critically ill patients who did not receive EN, however, its benefits on clinically important GI bleeding still needs more evidence to confirm.

Low Dose Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin for Thrombosis Prophylaxis: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

International guidelines recommend low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) as first-line pharmacological option for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in many patient categories. Guidance on the optimal prophylactic dose is lacking. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of randomized controlled trials to assess benefits and harms of low-dose LMWH versus placebo or no treatment for thrombosis prophylaxis in patients at risk of VTE. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase were searched up to June 2019. Results were presented as relative risk (RR) with conventional and TSA-adjusted confidence intervals (CI). Forty-four trials with a total of 22,579 participants were included. Six (14%) had overall low risk of bias. Low-dose LMWH was not statistically significantly associated with all-cause mortality (RR 0.99; 95%CI 0.85–1.14; TSA-adjusted CI 0.89–1.16) but did reduce symptomatic VTE (RR 0.62; 95%CI 0.48–0.81; TSA-adjusted CI 0.44–0.89) and any VTE (RR 0.61; 95%CI 0.50–0.75; TSA-adjusted CI 0.49–0.82). Analyses on major bleeding (RR 1.07; 95%CI 0.72–1.59), as well as serious adverse events (SAE) and clinically relevant non-major bleeding were inconclusive. There was very low to moderate-quality evidence that low-dose LMWH for thrombosis prophylaxis did not decrease all-cause mortality but reduced the incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic VTE, while the analysis of the effects on bleeding and adverse events remained inconclusive.

Intermediate Dose Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin for Thrombosis Prophylaxis: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

Different doses of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) are registered and used for thrombosis prophylaxis. We assessed benefits and harms of thrombosis prophylaxis with a predefined intermediate-dose LMWH compared with placebo or no treatment in patients at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). We performed a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (TSA) following The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Embase were searched up to December 2018. Trials were evaluated for risk of bias and quality of evidence was assessed following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Seventy randomized trials with 34,046 patients were included. Eighteen (26%) had overall low risk of bias. There was a small statistically significant effect of LMWH on all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR]: 0.96; TSA-adjusted confidence interval [TSA-adjusted CI]: 0.94-0.98) which disappeared in sensitivity analyses excluding ambulatory cancer patients (RR: 0.99; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.84-1.16). There was moderate-quality evidence for a statistically significant beneficial effect on symptomatic VTE (odds ratio [OR]: 0.59; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.53-0.67; number needed to treat [NNT]: 76; 95% CI: 60-106) and a statistically significant harmful effect on major bleeding (Peto OR: 1.66; TSA-adjusted CI: 1.31-2.10; number needed to harm [NNH]: 212; 95% CI: 142-393). There were no significant intervention effects on serious adverse events. The use of intermediate-dose LMWH for thrombosis prophylaxis compared with placebo or no treatment was associated with a small statistically significant reduction of all-cause mortality that disappeared in sensitivity analyses excluding trials that evaluated LMWH for anticancer treatment. Intermediate-dose LMWH provides benefits in terms of VTE prevention while it increases major bleeding.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors or histamin-2 receptor antagonists in adult intensive care patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Most intensive care unit (ICU) patients receive stress ulcer prophylaxis. We present updated evidence on the effects of prophylactic proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) versus placebo/no prophylaxis on patient-important outcomes in adult ICU patients. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of PPI/H2RA versus placebo/no prophylaxis on mortality, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, serious adverse events (SAEs), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), myocardial ischemia, pneumonia, and Clostridium (Cl.) difficile enteritis in ICU patients. We identified 42 trials randomising 6899 ICU patients; 3 had overall low risk of bias. We did not find an effect of stress ulcer prophylaxis on mortality [relative risk 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.14; TSA-adjusted CI 0.94-1.14], but the occurrence of any GI bleeding was reduced as compared with placebo/no prophylaxis (0.60, 95% CI 0.47-0.77; TSA-adjusted CI 0.36-1.00). The conventional meta-analysis indicated that clinically important GI bleeding was reduced (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48-0.81), but the TSA-adjusted CI 0.35-1.13 indicated lack of firm evidence. The effects of stress ulcer prophylaxis on SAEs, HRQoL, pneumonia, myocardial ischemia and Cl. difficile enteritis are uncertain. In this updated systematic review, we were able to refute a relative change of 20% of mortality. The occurrence of GI bleeding was reduced, but we lack firm evidence for a reduction in clinically important GI bleeding. The effects on SAEs, HRQoL, pneumonia, myocardial ischemia and Cl. difficile enteritis remain inconclusive.

Effects of shorter versus longer storage time of transfused red blood cells in adult ICU patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) are often transfused with red blood cells (RBC). During storage, the RBCs and storage medium undergo changes, which may have clinical consequences. Several trials now have assessed these consequences, and we reviewed the present evidence on the effects of shorter versus longer storage time of transfused RBCs on outcomes in ICU patients. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (TSA) of randomised clinical trials including adult ICU patients transfused with fresher versus older or standard issue blood. We included seven trials with a total of 18,283 randomised ICU patients; two trials of 7504 patients were judged to have low risk of bias. We observed no effects of fresher versus older blood on death (relative risk 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97-1.11; 7349 patients; TSA-adjusted CI 0.93-1.15), adverse events (1.26, 0.76-2.09; 7332 patients; TSA-adjusted CI 0.16-9.87) or post-transfusion infections (1.07, 0.96-1.20; 7332 patients; TSA-adjusted CI 0.90-1.27). The results were unchanged by including trials with high risk of bias. TSA confirmed the results and the required information size was reached for mortality for a relative risk change of 20%. We may be able to reject a clinically meaningful effect of RBC storage time on mortality in transfused adult ICU patients as our trial sequential analyses reject a 10% relative risk change in death when comparing fresher versus older blood for transfusion.

The effects of rhythm control strategies versus rate control strategies for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter: A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

BackgroundAtrial fibrillation and atrial flutter may be managed by either a rhythm control strategy or a rate control strategy but the evidence on the clinical effects of these two intervention strategies is unclear. Our objective was to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of rhythm control strategies versus rate control strategies for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter.MethodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Web of Science, BIOSIS, Google Scholar, clinicaltrials.gov, TRIP, EU-CTR, Chi-CTR, and ICTRP for eligible trials comparing any rhythm control strategy with any rate control strategy in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter published before November 2016. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were stroke and ejection fraction. We performed both random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analysis and chose the most conservative result as our primary result. We used Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) to control for random errors. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed by visual inspection of forest plots and by calculating inconsistency (I2) for traditional meta-analyses and diversity (D2) for TSA. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were conducted to explore the reasons for substantial statistical heterogeneity. We assessed the risk of publication bias in meta-analyses consisting of 10 trials or more with tests for funnel plot asymmetry. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the body of evidence.Results25 randomized clinical trials (n = 9354 participants) were included, all of which were at high risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed that rhythm control strategies versus rate control strategies significantly increased the risk of a serious adverse event (risk ratio (RR), 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02 to 1.18; P = 0.02; I2 = 12% (95% CI 0.00 to 0.32); 21 trials), but TSA did not confirm this result (TSA-adjusted CI 0.99 to 1.22). The increased risk of a serious adverse event did not seem to be caused by any single component of the composite outcome. Meta-analysis showed that rhythm control strategies versus rate control strategies were associated with better SF-36 physical component score (mean difference (MD), 6.93 points; 95% CI, 2.25 to 11.61; P = 0.004; I2 = 95% (95% CI 0.94 to 0.96); 8 trials) and ejection fraction (MD, 4.20%; 95% CI, 0.54 to 7.87; P = 0.02; I2 = 79% (95% CI 0.69 to 0.85); 7 trials), but TSA did not confirm these results. Both meta-analysis and TSA showed no significant differences on all-cause mortality, SF-36 mental component score, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, and stroke.ConclusionsRhythm control strategies compared with rate control strategies seem to significantly increase the risk of a serious adverse event in patients with atrial fibrillation. Based on current evidence, it seems that most patients with atrial fibrillation should be treated with a rate control strategy unless there are specific reasons (e.g., patients with unbearable symptoms due to atrial fibrillation or patients who are hemodynamically unstable due to atrial fibrillation) justifying a rhythm control strategy. More randomized trials at low risk of bias and low risk of random errors are needed.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42016051433

Avoidance versus use of neuromuscular blocking agents for improving conditions during tracheal intubation or direct laryngoscopy in adults and adolescents.

Avoidance versus use of neuromuscular blocking agents for improving conditions during tracheal intubation or direct laryngoscopy in adults and adolescents.

Hepatitis B immunoglobulin during pregnancy for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of hepatitis B virus.

Hepatitis B immunoglobulin during pregnancy for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of hepatitis B virus.

Glucocorticosteroids for sepsis: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Introduction Glucocorticosteroids (steroids) are widely used for sepsis patients. However, the potential benefits and harms of both high and low dose steroids remain unclear. A systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) might shed light on this clinically important question.MethodsA systematic review was conducted according to a published protocol and The Cochrane Handbook methodology including meta-analyses, TSA of randomised clinical trials, and external validity estimation (GRADE). Randomised clinical trials evaluating steroids were included for sepsis patients (systemic inflammatory response syndrome, sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock) aged >18 years. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Cinahl were searched until 18 February 2015. No language restrictions were applied. Primary outcomes were mortality at longest follow-up and serious adverse events.ResultsA total of 35 trials randomising 4682 patients were assessed and reviewed in full text. All trials but two had high risk of bias. No statistically significant effect was found for any dose of steroids versus placebo or no intervention on mortality at maximal follow-up [relative risk (RR) 0.89; TSA adjusted confidence interval (CI) 0.74–1.08]. Two trials with low risk of bias also showed no statistically significant difference (random-effects model RR 0.38, 95 % CI 0.06–2.42). Similar results were obtained in subgroups of trials stratified according to high (>500 mg) or low (≤500 mg) dose hydrocortisone (or equivalent) (RR 0.87; TSA-adjusted CI 0.38–1.99; and RR 0.90; TSA-adjusted CI 0.49–1.67, respectively). There were also no statistically significant effects on serious adverse events other than mortality (RR 1.02; TSA-adjusted CI 0.7–1.48). The effects did not vary according to the degree of sepsis. TSA showed that many more randomised patients are needed before definitive conclusions may be drawn.ConclusionEvidence to support or negate the use of steroids in any dose in sepsis patients is lacking. The results of ongoing and future well-designed, large randomised clinical trials are needed.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00134-015-3899-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.