Project description:BackgroundThe frequency of skin ulceration makes an important contributor to the morbidity burden in people with sickle cell disease. Many treatment options are available to the healthcare professional, although it is uncertain which treatments have been assessed for effectiveness in people with sickle cell disease. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review.ObjectivesTo assess the clinical effectiveness and harms of interventions for treating leg ulcers in people with sickle cell disease.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register. We searched LILACS (1982 to January 2020), ISI Web of Knowledge (1985 to January 2020), and the Clinical Trials Search Portal of the World Health Organization (January 2020). We checked the reference lists of all the trials identified. We also contacted those groups or individuals who may have completed relevant randomised trials in this area. Date of the last search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 13 January 2020; date of the last search of the Cochrane Wounds Group Trials Register: 17 February 2017.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials of interventions for treating leg ulcers in people with sickle cell disease compared to placebo or an alternative treatment.Data collection and analysisTwo authors independently selected studies for inclusion. All three authors independently assessed the risk of bias of the included studies and extracted data. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.Main resultsSix studies met the inclusion criteria (198 participants with 250 ulcers). Each trial investigated a different intervention and within this review we have grouped these as systemic pharmaceutical interventions (L-cartinine, arginine butyrate, isoxsuprine) and topical pharmaceutical interventions (Solcoseryl® cream, arginine-glycine-aspartic acid (RGD) peptide dressing and topical antibiotics). No trials on non-pharmaceutical interventions were included in the review. All trials had an overall unclear or high risk of bias, and drug companies sponsored four of them. We were unable to pool findings due to the heterogeneity in outcome definitions, and inconsistency between the units of randomisation and analysis. Three interventions reported on the change in ulcer size (arginine butyrate, RGD peptide, L-cartinine). Of these, only arginine butyrate showed a reduction of ulcer size compared with a control group, mean reduction -5.10 cm² (95% CI -9.65 to -0.55), but we are uncertain whether this reduces ulcer size compared to standard care alone as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low. Three trials reported on complete leg ulcer closure (isoxsuprine, arginine butyrate, RGD peptide matrix; very low quality of evidence). None reported a clinical benefit. No trial reported on: the time to complete ulcer healing; ulcer-free survival following treatment for sickle cell leg ulcers; quality of life measures; incidence of amputation or harms.Authors' conclusionsGiven the very low quality of the evidence identified in this updated Cochrane Review we are uncertain whether any of the assessed pharmaceutical interventions reduce ulcer size or result in leg ulcer closure in treated participants compared to controls. However, this intervention was assessed as having a high risk of bias due to inadequacies in the single trial report. Other included studies were also assessed as having an unclear or high risk of bias. The harm profile of the all interventions remains inconclusive.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care providers manage the majority of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), although the most effective chronic disease management (CDM) strategies for these patients are unknown. We assessed the efficacy of CDM interventions used by primary care providers managing patients with CKD.MethodsThe Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central databases were systematically searched (inception to November 2014) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing education-based and computer-assisted CDM interventions targeting primary care providers managing patients with CKD in the community. The efficacy of CDM interventions was assessed using quality indicators [use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), proteinuria measurement and achievement of blood pressure (BP) targets] and clinical outcomes (change in BP and glomerular filtration rate). Two independent reviewers evaluated studies for inclusion, quality and extracted data. Random effects models were used to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences for outcomes of interest.ResultsFive studies (188 clinics; 494 physicians; 42 852 patients with CKD) were included. Two studies compared computer-assisted intervention strategies with usual care, two studies compared education-based intervention strategies with computer-assisted intervention strategies and one study compared both these intervention strategies with usual care. Compared with usual care, computer-assisted CDM interventions did not increase the likelihood of ACEI/ARB use among patients with CKD {pooled OR 1.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-1.21]; I2 = 0.0%}. Similarly, education-related CDM interventions did not increase the likelihood of ACEI/ARB use compared with computer-assisted CDM interventions [pooled OR 1.12 (95% CI 0.77-1.64); I2 = 0.0%]. Inconsistencies in reporting methods limited further pooling of data.ConclusionsTo date, there have been very few randomized trials testing CDM interventions targeting primary care providers with the goal of improving care of people with CKD. Those conducted to date have shown minimal impact, suggesting that other strategies, or multifaceted interventions, may be required to enhance care for patients with CKD in the community.

Dataset Information

Interventions for chronic kidney disease in people with sickle cell disease.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets