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.

Prophylactic anticoagulants for people hospitalised with COVID-19

Abstract: Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a serious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The primary manifestation is respiratory insufficiency that can also be related to diffuse pulmonary microthrombosis in people with COVID-19. This disease also causes thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis, arterial thrombosis, catheter thrombosis, and disseminated intravascular coagulopathy. Recent studies have indicated a worse prognosis for people with COVID-19 who developed thromboembolism. Anticoagulants are medications used in the prevention and treatment of venous or arterial thromboembolic events. Several drugs are used in the prophylaxis and treatment of thromboembolic events, such as heparinoids (heparins or pentasaccharides), vitamin K antagonists and direct anticoagulants. Besides their anticoagulant properties, heparinoids have an additional anti-inflammatory potential, that may affect the clinical evolution of people with COVID-19. Some practical guidelines address the use of anticoagulants for thromboprophylaxis in people with COVID-19, however, the benefit of anticoagulants for people with COVID-19 is still under debate. Objectives To assess the effects of prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention, on mortality and the need for respiratory support in people hospitalised with COVID-19. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and IBECS databases, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and medRxiv preprint database from their inception to 20 June 2020. We also checked reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cohort studies that compared prophylactic anticoagulants (heparin, vitamin K antagonists, direct anticoagulants, and pentasaccharides) versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention for the management of people hospitalised with COVID-19. We excluded studies without a comparator group. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and need for additional respiratory support. Secondary outcomes were mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, adverse events, length of hospital stay and quality of life. Data collection and analysis We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias for non-randomised studies (NRS) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We reported results narratively. Main results We identified no RCTs or quasi-RCTs that met the inclusion criteria. We included seven retrospective NRS (5929 participants), three of which were available as preprints. Studies were conducted in China, Italy, Spain and the USA. All of the studies included people hospitalised with COVID-19, in either intensive care units, hospital wards or emergency departments. The mean age of participants (reported in 6 studies) ranged from 59 to 72 years. Only three included studies reported the follow-up period, which varied from 8 to 35 days. The studies did not report on most of our outcomes of interest: need for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, DVT, pulmonary embolism, adverse events, and quality of life. Anticoagulants (all types) versus no treatment (6 retrospective NRS, 5685 participants) One study reported a reduction in all-cause mortality (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.66; 2075 participants). One study reported a reduction in mortality only in a subgroup of 395 people who required mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.89). Three studies reported no differences in mortality (adjusted OR 1.64, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.92; 449 participants; unadjusted OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.76 to 3.64; 154 participants and adjusted risk ratio (RR) 1.15, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.57; 192 participants). One study reported zero events in both intervention groups (42 participants). The overall risk of bias for all-cause mortality was critical and the certainty of the evidence was very low. One NRS reported bleeding events in 3% of the intervention group and 1.9% of the control group (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.71; 2773 participants; low-certainty evidence). Therapeutic-dose anticoagulants versus prophylactic-dose anticoagulants (1 retrospective NRS, 244 participants) The study reported a reduction in all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.46) and a lower absolute rate of death in the therapeutic group (34.2% versus 53%). The overall risk of bias for all-cause mortality was serious and the certainty of the evidence was low. The study also reported bleeding events in 31.7% of the intervention group and 20.5% of the control group (OR 1.8, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.37; low-certainty evidence). Ongoing studies We found 22 ongoing studies in hospital settings (20 RCTs, 14,730 participants; 2 NRS, 997 participants) in 10 different countries (Australia (1), Brazil (1), Canada (2), China (3), France (2), Germany (1), Italy (4), Switzerland (1), UK (1) and USA (6)). Twelve ongoing studies plan to report mortality and six plan to report additional respiratory support. Thirteen studies are expected to be completed in December 2020 (6959 participants), eight in July 2021 (8512 participants), and one in December 2021 (256 participants). Four of the studies plan to include 1000 participants or more. Authors' conclusions There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the risks and benefits of prophylactic anticoagulants for people hospitalised with COVID-19. Since there are 22 ongoing studies that plan to evaluate more than 15,000 participants in this setting, we will add more robust evidence to this review in future updates.

Supportive Therapy for Schizophrenia

Abstract: Background Supportive therapy is often used in everyday clinical care and in evaluative studies of other treatments. Objectives To review the effects of supportive therapy compared with standard care, or other treatments in addition to standard care for people with schizophrenia. Search methods For this update, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register of trials (November 2012). Selection criteria All randomised trials involving people with schizophrenia and comparing supportive therapy with any other treatment or standard care. Data collection and analysis We reliably selected studies, quality rated these and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we estimated the risk ratio (RR) using a fixed-effect model with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where possible, we undertook intention-to-treat analyses. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) fixed-effect with 95% CIs. We estimated heterogeneity (I2 technique) and publication bias. We used GRADE to rate quality of evidence. Main results Four new trials were added after the 2012 search. The review now includes 24 relevant studies, with 2126 participants. Overall, the evidence was very low quality. We found no significant differences in the primary outcomes of relapse, hospitalisation and general functioning between supportive therapy and standard care. There were, however, significant differences favouring other psychological or psychosocial treatments over supportive therapy. These included hospitalisation rates (4 RCTs, n = 306, RR 1.82 CI 1.11 to 2.99, very low quality of evidence), clinical improvement in mental state (3 RCTs, n = 194, RR 1.27 CI 1.04 to 1.54, very low quality of evidence) and satisfaction of treatment for the recipient of care (1 RCT, n = 45, RR 3.19 CI 1.01 to 10.7, very low quality of evidence). For this comparison, we found no evidence of significant differences for rate of relapse, leaving the study early and quality of life. When we compared supportive therapy to cognitive behavioural therapy CBT), we again found no significant differences in primary outcomes. There were very limited data to compare supportive therapy with family therapy and psychoeducation, and no studies provided data regarding clinically important change in general functioning, one of our primary outcomes of interest. Authors' conclusions There are insufficient data to identify a difference in outcome between supportive therapy and standard care. There are several outcomes, including hospitalisation and general mental state, indicating advantages for other psychological therapies over supportive therapy but these findings are based on a few small studies where we graded the evidence as very low quality. Future research would benefit from larger trials that use supportive therapy as the main treatment arm rather than the comparator.

Ipratropium bromide versus short acting beta-2 agonists for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Abstract: Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a condition associated with high morbidity, mortality and cost to the community. Patients often report symptomatic improvement with short-acting beta-2 agonists (SABA) and anticholinergic bronchodilator medications, and both are recommended in COPD guidelines. These medications have different mechanisms of action and therefore could have an additive effect when combined. Objectives To compare the relative efficacy and safety of regular long term use (at least four weeks) of ipratropium bromide and short- acting beta-2 agonist therapy in patients with stable COPD. Search methods The Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials was searched. Bibliographies were checked to identify relevant cross-references. Drug companies were contacted for relevant trial data. The searches are current to July 2008. Selection criteria All randomised controlled trials comparing at least 4 weeks of treatment with an anticholinergic agent (ipratropium bromide) alone or in combination with a beta-2 agonist (short acting) versus the beta-2 agonist alone, delivered via metered dose inhaler or nebuliser, in non-asthmatic adult subjects with stable COPD. Data collection and analysis Data extraction and study quality assessment was performed independently by three reviewers. Authors of studies and relevant manufacturers were contacted if data were missing. Main results Eleven studies (3912 participants) met the inclusion criteria of the review. Small benefits of ipratropium over a short-acting beta-2 agonist were demonstrated on lung function outcomes. There were small benefits in favour of ipratropium on quality of life (HRQL), as well as a reduction in the requirement for oral steroids. Combination therapy with ipratropium plus a short-acting beta-2 agonist conferred benefits over a short-acting beta-2 agonist alone in terms of post-bronchodilator lung function. There was no significant benefit of combination therapy in subjective improvements in HRQL, but again there was a reduction in the requirement for oral steroids. Authors' conclusions The available data from the trials included in this review suggest that the advantage of regular long term use of ipratropium alone or in combination with a short-acting beta-2 agonist or over a beta-2 agonist alone are small, if the aim is to improve lung function, symptoms and exercise tolerance. Until further data are available, the strategy of providing a short-acting beta-2 agonist on a PRN basis, and then either continuing with the short-acting beta-2 agonist regularly or conducting an "n of 1" trial of regular beta-2 agonist or regular anticholinergic to determine the treatment that gives the best relief of symptoms (and continuing with it), would seem cost effective. This strategy does need formal evaluation. Patient preference is also important, as is the relative importance of avoiding the use of systemic corticosteroids.

Values and preferences for oral antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation: physician and patient perspectives.

Abstract: Background Exploration of values and preferences in the context of anticoagulation therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) remains limited. To better characterize the distribution of patient and physician values and preferences relevant to decisions regarding anticoagulation in patients with AF, we conducted interviews with patients at risk of developing AF and physicians who manage patients with AF. Methods We interviewed 96 outpatients and 96 physicians in a multicenter study and elicited the maximal increased risk of bleeding (threshold risk) that respondents would tolerate with warfarin vs. aspirin to achieve a reduction in three strokes in 100 patients over a 2-year period. We used the probabilistic version of the threshold technique. Results The median threshold risk for both patients and physicians was 10 additional bleeds (10 P = 0.7). In both groups, we observed large variability in the threshold number of bleeds, with wider variability in patients than clinicians [patient range: 0–100, physician range: 0–50]. We observed one cluster of patients and physicians who would tolerate <10 bleeds and another cluster of patients, but not physicians, who would accept more than 35. Conclusions Our findings suggest wide variability in patient and physician values and preferences regarding the trade-off between strokes and bleeds. Results suggest that in individual decision making, physician and patient values and preferences will often be discordant; this mandates tailoring treatment to the individual patient's preferences.

Day care versus in‐patient surgery for age‐related cataract

Abstract: Background Age-related cataract accounts for more than 40% of cases of blindness in the world with the majority of people who are blind from cataract living in lower income countries. With the increased number of people with cataract, it is important to review the evidence on the effectiveness of day care cataract surgery. Objectives To provide authoritative, reliable evidence regarding the safety, feasibility, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of day case cataract extraction by comparing clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, patient satisfaction or a combination of these in cataract operations performed in day care versus in-patient units. Search methods We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2015, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to August 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to August 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 17 August 2015. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials comparing day care and in-patient surgery for age-related cataract. The primary outcome was the achievement of a satisfactory visual acuity six weeks after the operation. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected adverse effects information from the trials. Main results We included two trials. One study was conducted in the USA in 1981 (250 people randomised and completed trial) and one study conducted in Spain in 2001 (1034 randomised, 935 completed trial). Both trials used extracapsular cataract extraction techniques that are not commonly used in higher income countries now. Most of the data in this review came from the larger trial, which we judged to be at low risk of bias.The mean change in visual acuity (in Snellen lines) of the operated eye four months postoperatively was similar in people given day care surgery (mean 4.1 lines standard deviation (SD) 2.3, 464 participants) compared to people treated as in-patients (mean 4.1 lines, SD 2.2, 471 participants) (P value = 0.74). No data were available from either study on intra-operative complications.Wound leakage, intraocular pressure (IOP) and corneal oedema were reported in the first day postoperatively and at four months after surgery. There was an increased risk of high IOP in the day care group in the first day after surgery (risk ratio (RR) 3.33, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.21 to 9.16, 935 participants) but not at four months (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.55, 935 participants). The findings for the other outcomes were inconclusive with wide CIs. There were two cases of endophthalmitis observed at four months in the day care group and none in the in-patient group. The smaller study stated that there were no infections or severe hyphaemas.In a subset of participants evaluated for quality of life (VF14 questionnaire) similar change in quality of life before and four months after surgery was observed (mean change in VF14 score: day care group 25.2, SD 21.2, 150 participants; in-patient group: 23.5, SD 25.7, 155 participants; P value = 0.30). Subjective assessment of patient satisfaction in the smaller study suggested that participants preferred to recuperate at home, were more comfortable in their familiar surroundings and enjoyed the family support that they received at home. Costs were 20% more for the in-patient group and this was attributed to higher costs for overnight stay. Authors' conclusions This review provides evidence that there is cost saving with day care cataract surgery compared to in-patient cataract surgery. Although effects on visual acuity and quality of life appeared similar, the evidence with respect to postoperative complications was inconclusive because the effect estimates were imprecise. Given the wide-spread adoption of day care cataract surgery, future research in cataract clinical pathways should focus on evidence provided by high quality clinical databases (registers), which would enable clinicians and healthcare planners to agree clinical and social indications for in-patient care and so make better use of resources.