Dataset Information

Terlipressin for the treatment of acute variceal bleeding: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND AIM:Acute variceal bleeding (AVB) is life-threatening. We aimed to systematically review the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of terlipressin for AVB in liver cirrhosis. METHODS:We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. The reference list was also hand-searched. Using a random-effect model, we combined the data obtained according to the different time points when the events developed. Odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were calculated. Quality of evidence was evaluated by the GRADE methodology. RESULTS:Thirty randomized controlled trials with 3344 patients were included. Compared with no vasoactive drug, terlipressin significantly improved the control of bleeding within 48?hours (OR?=?2.94, P?=?.0008) and decreased the in-hospital mortality (OR?=?0.31, P?=?.008). Compared with somatostatin, terlipressin had a significantly higher risk of complications (OR?=?2.44, P?=?.04). Compared with octreotide, terlipressin had a significantly inferior control of bleeding within 24?hours (OR?=?0.37, P?=?.007). Compared with vasopressin, terlipressin had a significantly lower risk of complications (OR?=?0.15, P?=?.02). Compared with terlipressin combined with endoscopic variceal ligation, terlipressin alone had significantly higher 5-day treatment failure (OR?=?14.46, P?=?.01) and transfusion requirements within 49 to 120?hours (WMD?=?1.20, P?=?.002). No outcome was significantly different between terlipressin and sclerotherapy. Compared with balloon tamponade, terlipressin significantly decreased the 30-day rebleeding (OR?=?0.05, P?=?.001) and transfusion requirements (WMD?=?-2.70, P?=?.02). Quality of evidence was very low to moderate. CONCLUSION:Our findings were in accordance with the current recommendations regarding terlipressin for the treatment of AVB in cirrhosis. However, due to low quality of evidence, further studies are recommended.

SUBMITTER: Zhou X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6283114 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Terlipressin for the treatment of acute variceal bleeding: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Zhou Xinmiao X Tripathi Dhiraj D Song Tingxue T Shao Lichun L Han Bing B Zhu Jia J Han Dan D Liu Fufang F Qi Xingshun X

Medicine 20181101 48

<h4>Background and aim</h4>Acute variceal bleeding (AVB) is life-threatening. We aimed to systematically review the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of terlipressin for AVB in liver cirrhosis.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. The reference list was also hand-searched. Using a random-effect model, we combined the data obtained according to the different time points when the events developed. Odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean differen ...[more]

PMID: 30508958

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionCatecholamines are the most used vasopressors in vasodilatory shock. However, the development of adrenergic hyposensitivity and the subsequent loss of catecholamine pressor activity necessitate the search for other options. Our aim was to evaluate the effects of vasopressin and its analog terlipressin compared with catecholamine infusion alone in vasodilatory shock.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of publications between 1966 and 2011 was performed. The Medline and CENTRAL databases were searched for studies on vasopressin and terlipressin in critically ill patients. The meta-analysis was limited to randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of vasopressin and/or terlipressin compared with catecholamine in adult patients with vasodilatory shock. The assessed outcomes were: overall survival, changes in the hemodynamic and biochemical variables, a decrease of catecholamine requirements, and adverse events.ResultsNine trials covering 998 participants were included. A meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model showed a reduction in norepinephrine requirement among patients receiving terlipressin or vasopressin infusion compared with control (standardized mean difference, -1.58 (95% confidence interval, -1.73 to -1.44); P < 0.0001). Overall, vasopressin and terlipressin, as compared with norepinephrine, reduced mortality (relative risk (RR), 0.87 (0.77 to 0.99); P = 0.04). Vasopressin compared with norepinephrine decreased mortality in adult patients (RR, 0.87 (0.76 to 1.00); P = 0.05) and in patients with septic shock (42.5% vs. 49.2%, respectively; RR, 0.87 (0.75 to 1.00); P = 0.05; number needed to treat, 1 to 15). There was no difference in adverse events between the vasopressin and control groups (RR, 0.98 (0.65 to 1.47); P = 0.92).ConclusionsVasopressin use in vasodilatory shock is safe, associated with reduced mortality, and facilitates weaning of catecholamines. In patients with septic shock, use of vasopressin compared with norepinephrine may also decrease mortality.

Project description:Some studies have indicated the efficacy of quetiapine in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).The purpose of this study was to systematically review the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of quetiapine in adult patients with GAD.The SCOPUS, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched in April 2015. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of GAD were considered to be included in this meta-analysis. All RCTs of quetiapine in GAD patients providing endpoint outcomes relevant to severity of anxiety, response rate, remission rate, overall discontinuation rate, or discontinuation rate due to adverse events were included. The version reports from suitable clinical studies were explored, and the important data were extracted. Measurement for efficacy outcomes consisted of the mean-changed scores of the rating scales for anxiety, and response rate.A total of 2,248 randomized participants in three RCTs were included. The pooled mean-changed score of the quetiapine-treated group was greater than that of the placebo-treated group and comparable to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Unfortunately, the response and the remission rates in only 50 and 150 mg/day of quetiapine-XR (extended-release) were better than those of the placebo. Their response and remission rates were comparable to SSRIs. The rates of pooled overall discontinuation and discontinuation due to adverse events of quetiapine-XR were greater than placebo. Only the overall discontinuation rate of quetiapine-XR at 50 and 150 mg/day and the discontinuation rate due to adverse events of quetiapine-XR at 50 mg/day were comparable to SSRIs.Based on this meta-analysis, quetiapine-XR is efficacious in the treatment of GAD in adult patients. Despite its low acceptability and tolerability, the use of 50-150 mg/day quetiapine-XR for adult GAD patients may be considered as an alternative treatment. Further well-defined studies should be conducted to warrant these outcomes.

Project description:Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a distinctive modality commonly used by osteopathic physicians to complement their conventional treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. Previous reviews and meta-analyses of spinal manipulation for low back pain have not specifically addressed OMT and generally have focused on spinal manipulation as an alternative to conventional treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.Computerized bibliographic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, OSTMED, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were supplemented with additional database and manual searches of the literature. Six trials, involving eight OMT vs control treatment comparisons, were included because they were randomized controlled trials of OMT that involved blinded assessment of low back pain in ambulatory settings. Data on trial methodology, OMT and control treatments, and low back pain outcomes were abstracted by two independent reviewers. Effect sizes were computed using Cohen's d statistic and meta-analysis results were weighted by the inverse variance of individual comparisons. In addition to the overall meta-analysis, stratified meta-analyses were performed according to control treatment, country where the trial was conducted, and duration of follow-up. Sensitivity analyses were performed for both the overall and stratified meta-analyses.Overall, OMT significantly reduced low back pain (effect size, -0.30; 95% confidence interval, -0.47 - -0.13; P = .001). Stratified analyses demonstrated significant pain reductions in trials of OMT vs active treatment or placebo control and OMT vs no treatment control. There were significant pain reductions with OMT regardless of whether trials were performed in the United Kingdom or the United States. Significant pain reductions were also observed during short-, intermediate-, and long-term follow-up.OMT significantly reduces low back pain. The level of pain reduction is greater than expected from placebo effects alone and persists for at least three months. Additional research is warranted to elucidate mechanistically how OMT exerts its effects, to determine if OMT benefits are long lasting, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.

Dataset Information

Terlipressin for the treatment of acute variceal bleeding: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Publications

Terlipressin for the treatment of acute variceal bleeding: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets