Cochrane Collaboration

About: Cochrane Collaboration is a nonprofit organization based out in Oxford, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Systematic review & Randomized controlled trial. The organization has 1995 authors who have published 3928 publications receiving 382695 citations.

Benzodiazepines for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Acute psychotic illness, especially when associated with agitated or violent behaviour, can require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. In several countries, clinicians often use benzodiazepines (either alone or in combination with antipsychotics) for this outcome. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effects of benzodiazepines, alone or in combination with antipsychotics, when compared with placebo or antipsychotics, alone or in combination with antihistamines, to control disturbed behaviour and reduce psychotic symptoms. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (January 2012), inspected reference lists of included and excluded studies and contacted authors of relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing benzodiazepines alone or in combination with any antipsychotics, versus antipsychotics alone or in combination with any other antipsychotics, benzodiazepines or antihistamines, for people with acute psychotic illnesses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We reliably selected studies, quality assessed them and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of relative risk (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) between groups. If heterogeneity was identified, this was explored using a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 trials with a total of n = 1968 participants. There was no significant difference for most outcomes in the one trial that compared benzodiazepines with placebo, although there was a higher risk of no improvement in people receiving placebo in the medium term (one to 48 hours) (n = 102, 1 RCT, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.97, very low quality evidence). There was no difference in the number of participants who had not improved in the medium term when benzodiazepines were compared with antipsychotics (n = 308, 5 RCTs, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.42, low quality evidence); however, people receiving benzodiazepines were less likely to experience extrapyramidal effects (EPS) in the medium term (n = 536, 8 RCTs, RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.39, moderate quality of evidence). Data comparing combined benzodiazepines and antipsychotics versus benzodiazepines alone did not yield any significant results. When comparing combined benzodiazepines/antipsychotics (all studies compared haloperidol) with the same antipsychotics alone (haloperidol), there was no difference between groups in improvement in the medium term (n = 155, 3 RCTs, RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.70, very low quality evidence) but sedation was more likely in people who received the combination therapy (n = 172, 3 RCTs, RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.67, very low quality evidence). However, more participants receiving combined benzodiazepines and haloperidol had not improved by medium term when compared to participants receiving olanzapine (n = 60,1 RCT, RR 25.00, 95% CI 1.55 to 403.99, very low quality evidence) or ziprasidone (n = 60, 1 RCT, RR 4.00, 95% CI 1.25 to 12.75very low quality evidence). When haloperidol and midazolam were compared with olanzapine, there was some evidence the combination was superior in terms of improvement, sedation and behaviour. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from trials for the use of benzodiazepines alone is not good. There were relatively little good data and most trials are too small to highlight differences in either positive or negative effects. Adding a benzodiazepine to other drugs does not seem to confer clear advantage and has potential for adding unnecessary adverse effects. Sole use of older antipsychotics unaccompanied by anticholinergic drugs seems difficult to justify. Much more high quality research is needed in this area. Language: en

The incidence of mild and severe hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with sulfonylureas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using sulfonylurea derivatives or insulin may experience hypoglycaemia. However, recent data regarding the incidence of hypoglycaemia are scarce. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the proportion of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus that experience hypoglycaemia when treated with sulfonylurea or insulin. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials that compared incretin-based drugs to sulfonylureas or insulin and assessed hypoglycaemia incidence in the latter therapies. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were performed to study possible associations with potential risk factors for hypoglycaemia. Data of 25 studies were extracted, 22 for sulfonylurea and 3 for insulin. Hypoglycaemia with glucose ≤3.1 mmol/L or ≤2.8 mmol/L was experienced by 10.1% [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.3-13.8%] and 5.9% (95% CI 2.5-13.4%) of patients with any sulfonylurea treatment. Severe hypoglycaemia was experienced by 0.8% (95% CI 0.5-1.3%) of patients. Hypoglycaemia with glucose ≤3.1 mmol/L and severe hypoglycaemia occurred least frequently with gliclazide: in 1.4% (95% CI 0.8-2.4%) and 0.1% (95% CI 0-0.7%) of patients, respectively. None of the risk factors were significant in a stepwise multivariate meta-regression analysis. Too few studies had insulin as comparator, so these data could not be meta-analysed. The majority of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus on sulfonylurea therapy in clinical trials remain free of any relevant hypoglycaemia. Gliclazide was associated with the lowest risk of hypoglycaemia. Because participants in randomized controlled trials differ from the general population, care should be taken when translating these data into clinical practice.

Meta-analysis of prophylactic or empirical antifungal treatment versus placebo or no treatment in patients with cancer complicated by neutropenia

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine whether antifungal agents given prophylactically or empirically decrease morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer complicated by neutropenia. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of randomised trials of amphotericin B, various lipid soluble formulations of amphotericin B (for example, AmBisome), fluconazole, ketoconazole, miconazole, or itraconazole compared with placebo or no treatment. SETTING: Trials conducted anywhere in the world. SUBJECTS: Patients with cancer complicated by neutropenia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality, invasive fungal infection (defined as positive blood culture, oesophageal candidiasis, or lung or deep tissue infection), and colonisation. RESULTS: 24 trials with 2758 randomised patients were reviewed; the total number of deaths was 434. Prophylactic or empirical treatment with antifungals as a group bad no effect on mortality (odds ratio 0.92; 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.14). Amphotericin B decreased mortality significantly (0.58; 0.37 to 0.93) but the studies were small and the difference in number of deaths was only 15. Antifungal treatment decreased the incidence of invasive fungal infection (0.47; 0.35 to 0.64) and fungal colonisation (0.45; 0.30 to 0.69). For every 73 patients treated (95% confidence interval to 48 to 158) one case of fungal invasion was prevented in surviving patients. CONCLUSIONS: There seems to be no survival benefit of antifungal agents given prophylactically or empirically to patients with cancer complicated by neutropenia. These agents should be restricted to patients with proved infection and those in randomised trials. A large, definitive placebo controlled trial of amphotericin B is needed.

Zanamivir for influenza in adults and children

Abstract: Objectives To describe the potential benefits and harms of zanamivir. Design Systematic review of clinical study reports of randomised placebo controlled trials and regulatory information Data sources Clinical study reports, trial registries, electronic databases, regulatory archives, and correspondence with manufacturers. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised placebo controlled trials in adults and children who had confirmed or suspected exposure to natural influenza. Main outcome measures Time to first alleviation of symptoms, influenza outcomes and complications, admissions to hospital, and adverse events in the intention to treat (ITT) population. Results We included 28 trials in stage 1 (judgment of appropriate study design) and 26 in stage 2 (formal analysis). For treatment of adults, zanamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms of influenza-like illness by 0.60 days (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.81, P<0.001, I2=9%), which equates to an average 14.4 hours’ reduction, or a 10% reduction in mean duration of symptoms from 6.6 days to 6.0 days. Time to first alleviation of symptoms was shorter in all participants when any relief drugs were allowed compared with no use. Zanamivir did not reduce the risk of self reported investigator mediated pneumonia (risk difference 0.17%, −0.73% to 0.70%) or radiologically confirmed pneumonia (−0.06%, −6.56% to 2.11%) in adults. The effect on pneumonia in children was also not significant (0.56%, −1.64% to 1.04%). There was no significant effect on otitis media or sinusitis in both adults and children, with only a small effect noted for bronchitis in adults (1.80%, 0.65% to 2.80%), but not in children. There were no data to assess effects on admissions in adults and children. Zanamivir tended to be well tolerated. In zanamivir prophylaxis studies, symptomatic influenza in individuals was significantly reduced (1.98%, (0.98% to 2.54%); reducing event rates from 3.26% to 1.27%, which means 51 people need to be treated to prevent one influenza case (95% confidence interval, 40 to 103). In contrast, the prophylaxis effect on asymptomatic influenza cases was not significant in individuals (risk difference 0.14%, −1.10% to 1.10%) or in households (1.32%, −2.20% to 3.84%). In households treated prophylactically there was an effect on symptomatic influenza (14.84%, 12.18% to 16.55%), but this was based on only two small studies including 824 participants. Prophylaxis in adults reduced unverified pneumonia (0.32%, 0.09% to 0.41%; NNTB (number needed to treat to benefit) 311, 244 to 1086) but had no effect on pneumonia in children or on bronchitis or sinusitis in adults or children (risk difference 0.32%, 0.09% to 0.41%; NNTB 311, 244 to 1086). Conclusions Based on a full assessment of all trials conducted, zanamivir reduces the time to symptomatic improvement in adults (but not in children) with influenza-like illness by just over half a day, although this effect might be attenuated by symptom relief medication. Zanamivir also reduces the proportion of patients with laboratory confirmed symptomatic influenza. We found no evidence that zanamivir reduces the risk of complications of influenza, particularly pneumonia, or the risk of hospital admission or death. Its harmful effects were minor (except for bronchospasm), perhaps because of low bioavailability.

Is case management effective in reducing the risk of unplanned hospital admissions for older people? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract: Background. Case management is a collaborative practice involving coordination of care by a range of health professionals, both within the community and at the interface of primary and secondary care. It has been promoted as a way of reducing unplanned admissions in older people. Objective. The objective was to systematically review evidence from randomized controlled trials regarding the effectiveness of case management in reducing the risk of unplanned hospital admissions in older people. Methods. Eighteen databases were searched from inception to June 2010. Relevant websites were searched with key words and reference lists of included studies checked. A risk-of-bias tool was used to assess included studies and data extraction performed using customized tables. The primary outcome of interest was enumeration of unplanned hospital admission or readmissions. Results. Eleven trials of case management in the older population were included. Risk of bias was generally low. Six were trials of hospital-initiated case management. Three were suitable for meta-analysis, of which two showed a reduction in unplanned admissions. Overall, there was no statistically significant reduction in unplanned admissions [relative rate: 0.71 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.49 to 1.03)]. Three trials reported reduced length of stay. Five trials were of community-initiated case management. None showed a reduction in unplanned admissions. Three were suitable for meta-analysis [mean difference in unplanned admissions: 0.05 (95% CI: −0.04 to 0.15)]. Conclusions. The identified trials included a range of case management interventions. Nine of the 11 trials showed no reduction of unplanned hospital admissions with case management compared with the same with usual care.