BackgroundIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a respiratory disorder with a poor prognosis. Our objective is to assess the comparative effectiveness of 22 approved or studied IPF drug treatments.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to 2 April 2021. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for adult patients with IPF receiving one or more of 22 drug treatments. Pairs of reviewers independently identified randomised trials that compared one or more of the target medical treatments in patients with IPF. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for network meta-analysis. We calculated pooled relative risk (RR) ratios and presented direct or network estimates with 95% credibility intervals (95% CI), within the GRADE framework.ResultsWe identified 48 (10 326 patients) eligible studies for analysis. Nintedanib [RR 0.69 (0.44 to 1.1), pirfenidone [RR 0.63 (0.37 to 1.09); direct estimate), and sildenafil [RR (0.44 (0.16 to 1.09)] probably reduce mortality (all moderate certainty). Nintedanib (2.92% (1.51 to 4.14)), nintedanib+sildenafil (157 mL (–88.35 to 411.12)), pirfenidone (2.47% (–0.1 to 5)), pamrevlumab (4.3% (0.5 to 8.1)) and pentraxin (2.74% (1 to 4.83)) probably reduce decline of overall forced vital capacity (all moderate certainty). Only sildenafil probably reduces acute exacerbation and hospitalisations (moderate certainty). Corticosteroids+azathioprine+N-acetylcysteine increased risk of serious adverse events versus placebo (high certainty).Conclusion and relevanceFuture guidelines should consider sildenafil for IPF and further research needs to be done on promising IPF treatments such as pamrevlumab and pentraxin as phase 3 trials are completed.
OBJECTIVE: Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Evidence examining commonly used drug treatments remains uncertain. We assessed the comparative effectiveness of inpatient treatments for HRS by performing a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Pairs of reviewers independently identified eligible RCTs that enrolled patients with type 1 or 2 HRS. Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data. DATA SYNTHESIS: We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool for RCTs and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach. Our main outcomes are all-cause mortality, HRS reversal, and serious adverse events. Of 3,079 citations, we included 26 RCTs examining 1,736 patients. Based on pooled analysis, terlipressin increases HRS reversal compared with placebo (142 reversals per 1,000 [95% CI, >87.7 to >210.9]; high certainty). Norepinephrine (112.7 reversals per 1,000 [95% CI, 52.6 to >192.3]) may increase HRS reversal compared with placebo (low certainty). The effect of midodrine+octreotide (67.8 reversals per 1,000 [95% CI, <2.8 to >177.4]; very low) on HRS reversal is uncertain. Terlipressin may reduce mortality compared with placebo (93.7 fewer deaths [95% CI, 168.7 to <12.5]; low certainty). Terlipressin probably increases the risk of serious adverse events compared with placebo (20.4 more events per 1,000 [95% CI, <5.1 to >51]; moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Terlipressin increases HRS reversal compared with placebo. Terlipressin may reduce mortality. Until access to terlipressin improves, initial norepinephrine administration may be more appropriate than initial trial with midodrine+octreotide. Our review has the potential to inform future guideline and practice in the treatment of HRS.
Intermittent hemodialysis remains a cornerstone of extracorporeal KRT in the intensive care unit, either as a first-line therapy for AKI or a second-line therapy when patients transition from a continuous or prolonged intermittent therapy. Intermittent hemodialysis is usually provided 3 days per week in this setting on the basis that no clinical benefits have been demonstrated with more frequent hemodialysis. This should not detract from the importance of continually assessing and refining the hemodialysis prescription (including the need for extra treatments) according to dynamic changes in extracellular volume and other parameters, and ensuring that an adequate dose of hemodialysis is being delivered to the patient. Compared with other KRT modalities, the cardinal challenge encountered during intermittent hemodialysis is hemodynamic instability. This phenomenon occurs when reductions in intravascular volume, as a consequence of ultrafiltration and/or osmotic shifts, outpace compensatory plasma refilling from the extravascular space. Myocardial stunning, triggered by intermittent hemodialysis, and independent of ultrafiltration, may also contribute. The hemodynamic effect of intermittent hemodialysis is likely magnified in patients who are critically ill due to an inability to mount sufficient compensatory physiologic responses in the context of multiorgan dysfunction. Of the many interventions that have undergone testing to mitigate hemodynamic instability related to KRT, the best evidence exists for cooling the dialysate and raising the dialysate sodium concentration. Unfortunately, the evidence supporting routine use of these and other interventions is weak owing to poor study quality and limited sample sizes. Intermittent hemodialysis will continue to be an important and commonly used KRT modality for AKI in patients with critical illness, especially in jurisdictions where resources are limited. There is an urgent need to harmonize the definition of hemodynamic instability related to KRT in clinical trials and robustly test strategies to combat it in this vulnerable patient population.
Purpose Corticosteroids are standard of care for patients with severe COVID-19. However, the optimal dose is uncertain. We compare higher doses of corticosteroids with lower doses in patients with COVID-19. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MedRxiv, and Web of Science from inception to January 7, 2022, for trials that randomized patients with severe-to-critical COVID-19 to corticosteroids, standard care, or placebo. Reviewers, working in duplicate, screened references, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using a modified version of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. We performed a dose-response meta-analysis and used the GRADE framework to assess the certainty of evidence. We present our results in absolute risk difference (RD) per 1000 with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results We included 19 trials, with 9,609 patients. We show that, compared to lower-dose corticosteroids, higher-dose corticosteroids probably reduce mortality (RD 14.8 fewer deaths per 1000 [95% CI 6.0 to 27.9 fewer]; moderate certainty), may reduce the need for mechanical ventilation (RD 10.4 fewer per 1000 [95% CI 19.2 fewer to 3.6 more]; low certainty) and may reduce risk of nosocomial infections (16.7 fewer infections per 1000 [95% CI 5.4 to 25.0 fewer]; low certainty). Conclusions Relatively higher doses of corticosteroids may be beneficial in patients with severe-to-critical COVID-19 without increasing the risk of nosocomial infections.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.