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.

Systemic antibiotics for treating diabetic foot infections

Abstract: Background Foot infection is the most common cause of non-traumatic amputation in people with diabetes. Most diabetic foot infections (DFIs) require systemic antibiotic therapy and the initial choice is usually empirical. Although there are many antibiotics available, uncertainty exists about which is the best for treating DFIs. Objectives To determine the effects and safety of systemic antibiotics in the treatment of DFIs compared with other systemic antibiotics, topical foot care or placebo. Search methods In April 2015 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE, and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched in the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE; The Cochrane Library), the Health Technology Assessment database (HTA; The Cochrane Library), the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS-EED; The Cochrane Library), unpublished literature in OpenSIGLE and ProQuest Dissertations and on-going trials registers. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of systemic antibiotics (oral or parenteral) in people with a DFI. Primary outcomes were clinical resolution of the infection, time to its resolution, complications and adverse effects. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data. Risk ratios (RR) were estimated for dichotomous data and, when sufficient numbers of comparable trials were available, trials were pooled in a meta-analysis. Main results We included 20 trials with 3791 participants. Studies were heterogenous in study design, population, antibiotic regimens, and outcomes. We grouped the sixteen different antibiotic agents studied into six categories: 1) anti-pseudomonal penicillins (three trials); 2) broad-spectrum penicillins (one trial); 3) cephalosporins (two trials); 4) carbapenems (four trials); 5) fluoroquinolones (six trials); 6) other antibiotics (four trials). Only 9 of the 20 trials protected against detection bias with blinded outcome assessment. Only one-third of the trials provided enough information to enable a judgement about whether the randomisation sequence was adequately concealed. Eighteen out of 20 trials received funding from pharmaceutical industry-sponsors. The included studies reported the following findings for clinical resolution of infection: there is evidence from one large trial at low risk of bias that patients receiving ertapenem with or without vancomycin are more likely to have resolution of their foot infection than those receiving tigecycline (RR 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.99; 955 participants). It is unclear if there is a difference in rates of clinical resolution of infection between: 1) two alternative anti-pseudomonal penicillins (one trial); 2) an anti-pseudomonal penicillin and a broad-spectrum penicillin (one trial) or a carbapenem (one trial); 3) a broad-spectrum penicillin and a second-generation cephalosporin (one trial); 4) cephalosporins and other beta-lactam antibiotics (two trials); 5) carbapenems and anti-pseudomonal penicillins or broad-spectrum penicillins (four trials); 6) fluoroquinolones and anti-pseudomonal penicillins (four trials) or broad-spectrum penicillins (two trials); 7) daptomycin and vancomycin (one trial); 8) linezolid and a combination of aminopenicillins and beta-lactamase inhibitors (one trial); and 9) clindamycin and cephalexin (one trial). Carbapenems combined with anti-pseudomonal agents produced fewer adverse effects than anti-pseudomonal penicillins (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.84; 1 trial). An additional trial did not find significant differences in the rate of adverse events between a carbapenem alone and an anti-pseudomonal penicillin, but the rate of diarrhoea was lower for participants treated with a carbapenem (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.93; 1 trial). Daptomycin produced fewer adverse effects than vancomycin or other semi-synthetic penicillins (RR 0.61, 95%CI 0.39 to 0.94; 1 trial). Linezolid produced more adverse effects than ampicillin-sulbactam (RR 2.66; 95% CI 1.49 to 4.73; 1 trial), as did tigecycline compared to ertapenem with or without vancomycin (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.60; 1 trial). There was no evidence of a difference in safety for the other comparisons. Authors' conclusions The evidence for the relative effects of different systemic antibiotics for the treatment of foot infections in diabetes is very heterogeneous and generally at unclear or high risk of bias. Consequently it is not clear if any one systemic antibiotic treatment is better than others in resolving infection or in terms of safety. One non-inferiority trial suggested that ertapenem with or without vancomycin is more effective in achieving clinical resolution of infection than tigecycline. Otherwise the relative effects of different antibiotics are unclear. The quality of the evidence is low due to limitations in the design of the included trials and important differences between them in terms of the diversity of antibiotics assessed, duration of treatments, and time points at which outcomes were assessed. Any further studies in this area should have a blinded assessment of outcomes, use standardised criteria to classify severity of infection, define clear outcome measures, and establish the duration of treatment.

Benzodiazepine receptor antagonists for acute and chronic hepatic encephalopathy.

Abstract: BACKGROUND The pathogenesis of hepatic encephalopathy is unknown. It has been suggested that liver failure leads to the accumulation of substances that bind to a receptor-complex in the brain resulting in neural inhibition which may progress to coma. Several trials have assessed benzodiazepine receptor antagonists for hepatic encephalopathy, but the results are conflicting. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the efficacy and safety of benzodiazepine receptor antagonists for patients with acute or chronic hepatic encephalopathy. SEARCH STRATEGY Eligible trials were identified through The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, reference lists of relevant articles, authors of trials, and the pharmaceutical company known to produce benzodiazepine receptor antagonists. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised trials comparing any benzodiazepine receptor antagonist versus placebo or no intervention for hepatic encephalopathy were included, regardless of language or publication status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Trial inclusion and data extraction were made independently by two contributors. Depending on the presence or absence of significant heterogeneity (P<0.1) a random or fixed effect model was used. Potential causes for heterogeneity were explored by sensitivity analyses. MAIN RESULTS Twelve randomised trials with 765 patients were included. Eight trials used a crossover design. All trials were double-blind and assessed flumazenil versus placebo. Data on all outcomes could not be extracted from all trials. The included patients had a favourable prognosis (341/370 (92%) survived in the flumazenil group versus 325/356 (91%) in the placebo group). Flumazenil had no significant effect on full recovery (two trials), survival (nine trials), or on the occurrence of adverse events (five trials). However, flumazenil was associated with a significant effect on improvement of hepatic encephalopathy compared to placebo at the end of treatment (103/346 (30%) versus 23/332 (7 %), risk difference 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.28, five trials). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS Flumazenil had no significant effect on recovery or survival from hepatic encephalopathy. However, flumazenil had a significant effect on short-term improvement of hepatic encephalopathy in some patients with chronic liver disease and a highly favourable prognosis. Considering the fluctuating nature of hepatic encephalopathy, future trials should use a parallel design and assess if treatment with flumazenil leads to a sustained improvement or increased recovery and survival. Until this has been demonstrated, flumazenil may be considered for patients with chronic liver disease and hepatic encephalopathy, but cannot be recommended for routine clinical use.

Addition of intravenous beta2‐agonists to inhaled beta2‐agonists for acute asthma

Abstract: Beta2-agonist drugs are used for the treatment of asthma and work by opening the airways to help people breathe more easily. Beta2-agonists can be given to people in two different ways – intravenously (directly thorough a vein) and via an inhaler. Inhalers are one of the most important treatments for people with acute severe asthma. The question this review considered was whether treatment would offer additional benefit if patients received these drugs both ways (by breathing them via an inhaler and receiving them directly through a vein) than by just inhaling them alone. This review examined all the randomised controlled trials on the use of intravenous beta2-agonists in addition to inhaled beta2-agonists with existing standard care (such as steroids either taken as tablets of by injection) in severe acute asthma. The authors found three trials involving 104 people (75 children and 29 adults) with acute asthma. There was no significant difference in adults receiving intravenous beta-agonists as well as standard care in the one small trial considering this comparison. We also looked at length of stay in the emergency department. Two reported shorter recovery time or quicker discharge from the emergency department in patients also receiving intravenous beta-agonists. One trial reported that more children experienced tremor if they had received injected beta-agonists whereas another trial, with adults, reported no significant difference in adverse effects. As there are so few trials and so few included patients we cannot be sure about the reliability of these findings. This review found that until more, larger, high quality clinical trials in this area are conducted it is not possible to judge whether there is any enhanced benefit using additional intravenous beta2-agonists in children or adults with severe acute asthma compared with inhaled beta2-agonists alone.

Heroin maintenance for chronic heroin dependents

Abstract: BACKGROUND Dependent heroin users are characterised by the persistence of use in spite of the difficulties they experience with health, law, social achievements and personal relationships. The present review will consider maintenance treatment in which the patients enter programs of pharmacological administration tailored to achieve patient stabilisation. Many medications have been used for this purpose such as: Methadone, Buprenorphine and LAAM. The present review will focus on maintenance treatment through the prescription of heroin. OBJECTIVES To assess the efficacy and acceptability of heroin maintenance versus methadone or other substitution treatments for opioid dependence, in retaining patients in treatment; reducing the use of illicit substances and improving health and social functioning. SEARCH STRATEGY The Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL) issue 4, 2002; MEDLINE (on Silver Platter) 1966-2002; EMBASE (on OVID) 1980-2000 and CINAHL till 2000 were searched. There was no language or publication year restrictions. Many researchers were contacted for information. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials of heroin (alone or combined with methadone) maintenance treatment compared with any other pharmacological treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The trials were independently assessed for inclusion and methodological quality by the reviewers. Data were extracted independently and double checked. Studies were not pooled together because of heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS 2400 references were obtained and 20 studies were eligible, 4 met the inclusion criteria for a total of 577 patients. The studies included could not be analysed cumulatively because of heterogeneity of interventions and outcomes considered. Two studies compared injected heroin to oral methadone for 1 year (270 patients) but considered different outcomes; one study compared injected heroin and methadone to oral methadone for 6 months (51 patients); and one compared inhaled heroin and methadone to oral methadone for 1 year (235 patients). Retention in treatment: in two studies there was no statistical difference between groups; one study (N=90) had a RR=2.49 (95% CI 1.51-4.10) in favour of heroin; one study (N=235) had a RR 0.79 (95%CI 0.68-0.90) in favour of methadone. Relapse to illegal heroin use, based on self report: in one study the proportion of people still using heroin were 64% in the heroin group, 59% methadone group; in the other study the RR was 0.33 (95%CI 0.15-0.72) in favour of heroin. The remaining studies did not provide the data. Criminal offence: one of the two studies which provided details about this showed the potential of heroin prescription in reducing the risk of being charged RR 0.32 (95% CI 0.14-0.78). Social functioning: the two studies reporting this outcome did not show statistical difference between intervention groups. The two most recent studies considered criminal offence and social functioning as part of a multidomain outcome measure and showed higher improvement among those treated with heroin plus methadone over those on methadone only. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS No definitive conclusions about the overall effectiveness of heroin prescription is possible because of non-comparability of the experimental studies available to be included in this review. Results favouring heroin treatment come from studies conducted in countries where the treatment system is comprehensive and easy accessible Methadone Maintenance Treatment at effective dosages is available. In those studies heroin prescription was addressed to patients who had failed previous methadone treatments.

Interventions for treating persistent and intractable hiccups in adults.

Abstract: Background Persistent and intractable hiccups (typically defined as lasting for more than 48 hours and one month respectively) can be of serious detriment to a patient's quality of life, although they are relatively uncommon. A wide range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions have been used for the treatment of persistent and intractable hiccups. However, there is little evidence as to which interventions are effective or harmful. Objectives The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions used in the treatment of persistent and intractable hiccups of any aetiology in adults. Search methods Studies were identified from the following databases: CENTRAL, CDSR, DARE, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO and SIGLE (last search March 2012). The search strategy for all the databases searched was based on the MEDLINE search strategy presented in Appendix 1. No additional handsearching of journals was undertaken. Investigators who are known to be carrying out research in this area were contacted for unpublished data or knowledge of the grey literature. Selection criteria Studies eligible for inclusion in this review were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs). Inclusion criteria: adults (over 18 years old) diagnosed with persistent or intractable hiccups (hiccups lasting more than 48 hours), treated with any pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention. Exclusion criteria: less than ten participants; no assessment of change in hiccup frequency or intensity in outcome measures. Data collection and analysis Two independent review authors assessed each abstract and title for relevance. Disagreement on eligibility was resolved by discussion. Where no abstract was available the full paper was obtained and assessed. We obtained full copies of the studies which met the inclusion criteria for further assessment. Two review authors independently collected data from each appropriate study and entered them into the software Review Manager 5. Two independent review authors assessed the risk of bias using the RevMan 5 'Risk of bias' table following guidance from the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2009). Main results A total of four studies (305 participants) met the inclusion criteria. All of these studies sought to determine the effectiveness of different acupuncture techniques in the treatment of persistent and intractable hiccups. All four studies had a high risk of bias, did not compare the intervention with placebo, and failed to report side effects or adverse events for either the treatment or control groups. Due to methodological differences we were unable to perform a meta-analysis of the results. No studies investigating pharmacological interventions for persistent and intractable hiccups met the inclusion criteria. Authors' conclusions There is insufficient evidence to guide the treatment of persistent or intractable hiccups with either pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions. The paucity of high quality studies indicate a need for randomised placebo-controlled trials of both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments. As the symptom is relatively rare, trials would need to be multi-centred and possibly multi-national.