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.

Oral versus intravenous antibiotic treatment for febrile neutropenia in cancer patients

Abstract: Background Fever occurring in a neutropenic patient remains a common life-threatening complication of cancer chemotherapy. The common practice is to admit the patient to hospital and treat him or her empirically with intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotics. Oral therapy could be an alternative approach for selected patients. Objectives To compare the efficacy of oral antibiotics versus intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy in febrile neutropenic cancer patients. Search methods The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 1) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1966 to January week 4, 2013), EMBASE (1980 to 2013 week 4) and LILACS (1982 to 2007). We searched several databases for ongoing trials. We checked the conference proceedings of the Interscience Conference of Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC) (1995 to 2007), and all references of included studies and major reviews were scanned. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral antibiotic(s) to intravenous antibiotic(s) for the treatment of neutropenic cancer patients with fever. The comparison between the two could be started initially (initial oral) or following an initial course of intravenous antibiotic treatment (sequential). Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and methodological quality and extracted data. Data concerning mortality, treatment failures and adverse events were extracted from the included studies assuming an 'intention-to-treat' basis for the outcome measures whenever possible. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated for dichotomous data. Risk of bias assessment was also made in line with methodology of The Cochrane Collaboration. Main results Twenty-two trials (3142 episodes in 2372 patients) were included in the analyses. The mortality rate was similar when comparing oral to intravenous antibiotic treatment (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.68, 9 trials, 1392 patients, median mortality 0, range 0% to 8.8%). Treatment failure rates were also similar (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.06, all trials). No significant heterogeneity was shown for all comparisons but adverse events. The effect was stable in a wide range of patients. Quinolones alone or combined with another antibiotic were used with comparable results. Adverse reactions, mostly gastrointestinal, were more common with oral antibiotics. Authors' conclusions Based on the present data, oral treatment is an acceptable alternative to intravenous antibiotic treatment in febrile neutropenic cancer patients (excluding patients with acute leukaemia) who are haemodynamically stable, without organ failure, and do not have pneumonia, infection of a central line or a severe soft-tissue infection. The wide CI for mortality allows the present use of oral treatment in groups of patients with an expected low risk for mortality, and further research should be aimed at clarifying the definition of low risk patients.

Neuraminidase inhibitors for influenza: a systematic review and meta-analysis of regulatory and mortality data.

Abstract: © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2016. Background: Neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) are stockpiled and recommended by public health agencies for treating and preventing seasonal and pandemic influenza. They are used clinically worldwide. Objectives: To (1) describe the potential benefits and harms of NIs for influenza in all age groups by reviewing all clinical study reports (CSRs) of published and unpublished randomised, placebo-controlled trials and regulatory comments; and (2) determine the effect of oseltamivir (Tamiflu®, Roche) treatment on mortality in patients with 2009A/H1N1 influenza. Methods: We searched trial registries, electronic databases and corresponded with regulators and sponsors to identify randomised trials of NIs. We requested full CSRs and accessed regulators’ comments. We included only those trials for which we had CSRs. To examine the effects of oseltamivir on 2009A/H1N1 influenza mortality, we requested individual patient data (IPD) from corresponding authors of all included observational studies. Results: Effect of oseltamivir and zanamivir (Relenza®, GlaxoSmithKline) in the prevention and treatment of influenza: Oseltamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults by 16.8 hours [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.4 to 25.1 hours]. Zanamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults by 0.60 days (95% CI 0.39 to 0.81 days). Oseltamivir reduced unverified pneumonia in adult treatment [risk difference (RD) 1.00%, 95% CI 0.22% to 1.49%]; similar findings were observed with zanamivir prophylaxis in adults (RD 0.32%, 95% CI 0.09% to 0.41%). Oseltamivir treatment of adults increased the risk of nausea (RD 3.66%, 95% CI 0.90% to 7.39%) and vomiting (RD 4.56%, 95% CI 2.39% to 7.58%). In the treatment of children, oseltamivir induced vomiting (RD 5.34%, 95% CI 1.75% to 10.29%). Both oseltamivir and zanamivir prophylaxis reduced the risk of symptomatic influenza in individuals (oseltamivir RD 3.05%, 95% CI 1.83% to 3.88%; zanamivir RD 1.98%, 95% CI 0.98% to 2.54%) and in households (oseltamivir RD 13.6%, 95% CI 9.52% to 15.47%; zanamivir RD 14.84%, 95% CI 12.18% to 16.55%). Oseltamivir increased psychiatric adverse events in the combined on- and off-treatment periods (RD 1.06%, 95% CI 0.07% to 2.76%) and the risk of headaches while on treatment (RD 3.15%, 95% CI 0.88% to 5.78%). Effect of oseltamivir on mortality in patients with 2009A/H1N1 influenza: Analysis of summary data of 30 studies as well as IPD of four studies showed evidence of time-dependent bias. After adjusting for time-dependent bias and potential confounding variables, competing risks analysis of the IPD showed insufficient evidence that oseltamivir reduced the risk of mortality (hazard ratio 1.03, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.65). Conclusions: Oseltamivir and zanamivir cause small reductions in the time to first alleviation of influenza symptoms in adults. The use of oseltamivir increases the risk of nausea, vomiting, psychiatric events in adults and vomiting in children. Oseltamivir has no protective effect on mortality among patients with 2009A/H1N1 influenza. Prophylaxis with either NI may reduce symptomatic influenza in individuals and in households. The balance between benefits and harms should be considered when making decisions about use of NIs for either prophylaxis or treatment of influenza.

The Accuracy of Physical Diagnostic Tests for Assessing Meniscal Lesions of the Knee: A Meta­Analysis

Abstract: OBJECTIVE. Our systematic review summarizes the evidence about the accuracy of physical diagnostic tests for assessing meniscal lesions of the knee. SEARCH STRATEGY. We performed a literature search of MEDLINE (1966-1999) and EMBASE 1988- 1999) with additional reference tracking. SELECTION CRITERIA. Articles written in English, French, German, or Dutch that addressed the accuracy of at least one physical diagnostic test for meniscus injury with arthrotomy, arthroscopy, or magnetic resonance imaging as the gold standard were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS. Two reviewers independently selected studies, assessed the rnethodologic quality, and abstracted data using a standardized protocol. MAIN RESULTS. Thirteen studies (of 402) met the inclusion criteria. The results of the index and reference tests were assessed independently (blindly) of each other in only 2 studies, and in all studies verification bias seemed to be present. The study results were highly heterogeneous. The summary receiver operating characteristic curves of the assessment of joint effusion, the McMurray test, and joint line tenderness indicated little discriminative power for these tests. Only the predictive value of a positive McMurray test was favorable. CONCLUSIONS. The methodologic quality )f studies addressing the diagnostic accuracy of meniscal tests was poor, and the results were highly heterogeneous. The poor characteristics indicate that these tests are of little value for clinical practice.

Intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin) versus ranibizumab (Lucentis) for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration: a safety review

Abstract: Aim To conduct a systematic review in order to compare adverse effects (AE) and the reporting of harm in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs evaluating intravitreal ranibizumab and bevacizumab in age-related macular degeneration. Methods Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched with no limitations of language and year of publication. Studies which compared bevacizumab or ranibizumab as monotherapy with any other control group were included. Case series were included if they met predefined quality standards. Results The 2 year results of phase III trials evaluating ranibizumab show that the rates of serious ocular AE were low (≤2.1%) but indicate major safety concerns (RR 3.13, 95% CI 1.10 to 8.92). A possible signal with regard to thromboembolic events (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.77) and a significant increase in non-ocular haemorrhage (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.55) were also noted. In contrast to ranibizumab trials, the RCTs evaluating bevacizumab are of limited value. The main shortcomings are small sample sizes and an apparent lack of rigorous monitoring for AE. A critical assessment of the large number of published case series evaluating bevacizumab also shows that no reliable conclusions on safety can be drawn using this study design. Therefore, any perception that intravitreal bevacizumab injections are not associated with major ocular or systemic AE are not supported by reliable data. Conclusion The bevacizumab studies show too many methodological limitations to rule out any major safety concerns. Higher evidence from ranibizumab trials suggests signals for an increased ocular and systemic vascular and haemorrhagic risk which warrants further investigation.

Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a clinical practice guideline

Abstract: ### What you need to know What is the role of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in prostate cancer? An expert panel produced these recommendations based on a linked systematic review.1 The review was triggered by a large scale, cluster randomised trial on PSA screening in men without a previous diagnosis of prostate cancer published in 2018 (box 1).2 It found no difference between one-time PSA screening and standard practice in prostate cancer mortality but found an increase in the detection of low risk prostate cancer after a median follow-up of 10 years. Box 1 ### Results of the CAP Randomized Clinical Trial2 This cluster-randomised trial of 419 582 British men was published in March 2018. After a median follow-up of 10 years, there was no significant difference in prostate cancer-specific mortality in men receiving care by general practices randomised to a single PSA screening intervention compared with men receiving care … RETURN TO TEXT