Dataset Information

Pharmacological Treatments for Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Incidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome is rising rapidly, and optimal pharmacotherapy may meaningfully reduce length of treatment.

Objective

To compare pharmacological therapies for neonatal abstinence syndrome.

Data sources

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of Medline (1946-June 2018), Embase (1974-June 2018), Cochrane CENTRAL (1966-June 2018), Web of Science (1900-June 2018), and ClinicalTrials.gov (June 2018).

Study selection

Randomized clinical trials of pharmacological treatments for neonatal abstinence syndrome alone or in combination with adjuvant treatments. Abstract, title, and full-text screening were conducted independently by 2 reviewers (T.D. and C.G.).

Data extraction and synthesis

Data extraction was conducted independently by 2 reviewers (T.D. and C.G.) according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-Network Meta-Analyses guidelines. Quality was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and data were pooled with fixed-effect models as a result of the low number of trials that were included in the analysis.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was the length of treatment. The length of stay, need for adjuvant therapy, and adverse events were considered as secondary outcomes.

Results

Eighteen trials (N?=?1072) were eligible for inclusion. The treatments that were included in the length of treatment analysis were buprenorphine, clonidine, diluted tincture of opium and clonidine, diluted tincture of opium, morphine, methadone, and phenobarbital. Sublingual buprenorphine was considered the optimal treatment for a reduction in the length of treatment (days: mean difference vs morphine, -12.75 [95% CI, -17.97 to -7.58]; median rank, 1 [3-1]) and length of stay (days: mean difference vs morphine, -11.43 [95% CI, -16.95 to -5.82]; median rank, 1 [3-1]) but not the need for adjuvant treatment (odds ratio vs morphine, 1.23 [95% CI, 0.46-3.44]; median rank, 3 [5-1]). The results were robust to bias but sensitive to imprecision.

Conclusions and relevance

The current evidence suggests that buprenorphine is the optimal treatment for neonatal abstinence treatment, but limitations are considerable and wide-scale adoption requires a large multisite trial. Morphine, which is considered standard of care in most hospitals, was the lowest-ranked opioid for length of treatment and length of stay.

SUBMITTER: Disher T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6439896 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pharmacological Treatments for Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Disher Timothy T Gullickson Courtney C Singh Balpreet B Cameron Chris C Boulos Leah L Beaubien Louis L Campbell-Yeo Marsha M

JAMA pediatrics 20190301 3

<h4>Importance</h4>Incidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome is rising rapidly, and optimal pharmacotherapy may meaningfully reduce length of treatment.<h4>Objective</h4>To compare pharmacological therapies for neonatal abstinence syndrome.<h4>Data sources</h4>Systematic review and network meta-analysis of Medline (1946-June 2018), Embase (1974-June 2018), Cochrane CENTRAL (1966-June 2018), Web of Science (1900-June 2018), and ClinicalTrials.gov (June 2018).<h4>Study selection</h4>Randomized cli ...[more]

PMID: 30667476

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Rising incidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) is straining perinatal care systems. Newborns with NAS traditionally receive care in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), but rooming-in with mother and family has been proposed to reduce the use of pharmacotherapy, length of stay (LOS), and cost. Objective:To systematically review and meta-analyze if rooming-in is associated with improved outcomes for newborns with NAS. Data Sources:MEDLINE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched from inception through June 25, 2017. Study Selection:This investigation included randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, quasi-experimental studies, and before-and-after quality improvement investigations comparing rooming-in vs standard NICU care for newborns with NAS. Data Extraction and Synthesis:Two independent investigators reviewed studies for inclusion. A random-effects model was used to pool dichotomous outcomes using risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI. The study evaluated continuous outcomes using weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% CI. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was newborn treatment with pharmacotherapy. Secondary outcomes included LOS, inpatient cost, and harms from treatment, including in-hospital adverse events and readmission rates. Results:Of 413 publications, 6 studies (n?=?549 [number of patients]) met inclusion criteria. In meta-analysis of 6 studies, there was consistent evidence that rooming-in is preferable to NICU care for reducing both the use of pharmacotherapy (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19-0.71; I2?=?85%) and LOS (WMD, -10.41 days; 95% CI, -16.84 to -3.98 days; I2?=?91%). Sensitivity analysis resolved the heterogeneity for the use of pharmacotherapy, significantly favoring rooming-in (RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.18-0.57; I2?=?13%). Three studies reported that inpatient costs were lower with rooming-in; however, significant heterogeneity precluded quantitative analysis. Qualitative analysis favored rooming-in over NICU care for increasing breastfeeding rates and discharge home in familial custody, but few studies reported on these outcomes. Rooming-in was not associated with higher rates of readmission or in-hospital adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance:Opioid-exposed newborns rooming-in with mother or other family members appear to be significantly less likely to be treated with pharmacotherapy and have substantial reductions in LOS compared with those cared for in NICUs. Rooming-in should be recommended as a preferred inpatient care model for NAS.

Project description:BackgroundPharmacological treatments for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) are empirically used. However, the quantitative comparative effectiveness and safety of multiple pharmacological treatments is lacking.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched from inception to March 22, 2022. Randomised controlled trials comparing two or more oral pharmacological treatments for patients with CP/CPPS were included. Title, abstract, and full-text screening were independently screened by four reviewers. Primary outcomes were efficacy (the National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index [NIH-CPSI] total score, pain score, urinary score, and quality of life score [QoL]) and safety (adverse events). This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020184106.Findings25 studies (3514 patients) assessed 26 treatments. Low to very low quality evidence indicated that doxazosin (Mean difference [MD], -11.4, 95% Credible interval [CrI], -17.5 to -5.1) and the doxazosin, ibuprofen, and thiocolchicoside combination (MD, -11.6, CrI, -18.1 to -5.3) were significantly more effective than placebo in the NIH-CPSI total score. Other NIH-CPSI relative outcomes (pain, urinary, and QoL scores) showed a similar pattern. Low and very low quality evidence suggested that combination treatment including doxazosin, ibuprofen, and thiocolchicoside (odds ratios [OR], 3.2, CrI, 0.5 to 19.3) and the tamsulosin and dapoxetine combination (OR, 6.0, CrI, 0.7 to 67.3) caused more adverse events. In half of all comparisons regarding NIH-CPSI pain scores and quality of life scores, heterogeneity was minimal or low. Heterogeneity was high in both NIH-CPSI total symptom scores (I2 = 78.0%) and pain scores (I2 = 87. 0%) for tamsulosin versus placebo. There was also high heterogeneity in NIH-CPSI urine scores for the combination of tamsulosin and ciprofloxacin versus tamsulosin (I2 = 66.8%), tamsulosin and levofloxacin versus tamsulosin (I2 = 93.3%), and tamsulosin versus placebo (I2 = 83%).InterpretationPharmacological treatments have little evidence supporting efficacy in CP/CPPS. Future studies could personalise therapy for individuals according to specific symptoms and identify non-pharmacological targets for CP/CPPS.FundingDr Jiani Wu received funding for this project from the China Association for Science and Technology (2017QNRC001), the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences (ZZ13-YQ-027), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82105037).

Project description:BackgroundThere is still no approved medication for the core symptoms of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This network meta-analysis investigated pharmacological and dietary-supplement treatments for ASD.MethodsWe searched for randomized-controlled-trials (RCTs) with a minimum duration of seven days in ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, WHO-ICTRP (from inception up to July 8, 2018), CENTRAL and PubMed (up to November 3, 2021). The co-primary outcomes were core symptoms (social-communication difficulties-SCD, repetitive behaviors-RB, overall core symptoms-OCS) measured by validated scales and standardized-mean-differences (SMDs). Associated symptoms, e.g., irritability/aggression and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms, dropouts and important side-effects, were investigated as secondary outcomes. Studies in children/adolescents and adults were analyzed separately in random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses.ResultsWe analyzed data for 41 drugs and 17 dietary-supplements, from 125 RCTs (n = 7450 participants) in children/adolescents and 18 RCTs (n = 1104) in adults. The following medications could improve at least one core symptom domain in comparison with placebo: aripiprazole (k = 6 studies in analysis, SCD: SMD = 0.27 95% CI [0.09, 0.44], RB: 0.48 [0.26, 0.70]), atomoxetine (k = 3, RB:0.49 [0.18, 0.80]), bumetanide (k = 4, RB: 0.35 [0.09, 0.62], OCS: 0.61 [0.31, 0.91]), and risperidone (k = 4, SCM: 0.31 [0.06, 0.55], RB: 0.60 [0.29, 0.90]; k = 3, OCS: 1.18 [0.75, 1.61]) in children/adolescents; fluoxetine (k = 1, RB: 1.20 [0.45, 1.96]), fluvoxamine (k = 1, RB: 1.04 [0.27, 1.81]), oxytocin (k = 6, RB:0.41 [0.16, 0.66]) and risperidone (k = 1, RB: 0.97 [0.21,1.74]) in adults. There were some indications of improvement by carnosine, haloperidol, folinic acid, guanfacine, omega-3-fatty-acids, probiotics, sulforaphane, tideglusib and valproate, yet imprecise and not robust. Confidence in these estimates was very low or low, except moderate for oxytocin. Medications differed substantially in improving associated symptoms, and in their side-effect profiles.LimitationsMost of the studies were inadequately powered (sample sizes of 20-80 participants), with short duration (8-13 weeks), and about a third focused on associated symptoms. Networks were mainly star-shaped, and there were indications of reporting bias. There was no optimal rating scale measuring change in core symptoms.ConclusionsSome medications could improve core symptoms, although this could be likely secondary to the improvement of associated symptoms. Evidence on their efficacy and safety is preliminary; therefore, routine prescription of medications for the core symptoms cannot be recommended. Trial registration PROSPERO-ID CRD42019125317.

Project description:BackgroundBorderline personality disorder (BPD) is a debilitating psychiatric disorder that affects 0.4-3.9% of the population in Western countries. Currently, no medications have been approved by regulatory agencies for the treatment of BPD. Nevertheless, up to 96% of patients with BPD receive at least one psychotropic medication.ObjectivesThe objective of this systematic review was to assess the general efficacy and the comparative effectiveness of different pharmacological treatments for BPD patients.MethodsWe conducted systematic literature searches limited to English language in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO up to April 6, 2021, and searched reference lists of pertinent articles and reviews. Inclusion criteria were (i) patients 13 years or older with a diagnosis of BPD, (ii) treatment with anticonvulsive medications, antidepressants, antipsychotic medications, benzodiazepines, melatonin, opioid agonists or antagonists, or sedative or hypnotic medications for at least 8 weeks, (iii) comparison with placebo or an eligible medication, (iv) assessment of health-relevant outcomes, (v) randomized or non-randomized trials or controlled observational studies. Two investigators independently screened abstracts and full-text articles and graded the certainty of evidence based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. For meta-analyses, we used restricted maximum likelihood random effects models to estimate pooled effects.ResultsOf 12,062 unique records, we included 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with data on 1768 participants. Nineteen RCTs compared pharmacotherapies with placebo; two RCTs assessed active treatments head-to-head. Out of 87 medications in use in clinical practice, we found studies on just nine. Overall, the evidence indicates that the efficacy of pharmacotherapies for the treatment of BPD is limited. Second-generation antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, and antidepressants were not able to consistently reduce the severity of BPD. Low-certainty evidence indicates that anticonvulsants can improve specific symptoms associated with BPD such as anger, aggression, and affective lability but the evidence is mostly limited to single studies. Second-generation antipsychotics had little effect on the severity of specific BPD symptoms, but they improved general psychiatric symptoms in patients with BPD.ConclusionsDespite the common use of pharmacotherapies for patients with BPD, the available evidence does not support the efficacy of pharmacotherapies alone to reduce the severity of BPD.RegistrationPROSPERO registration number, CRD42020194098.

Project description:The goal of nonrestorative or non- and microinvasive caries treatment (fluoride- and nonfluoride-based interventions) is to manage the caries disease process at a lesion level and minimize the loss of sound tooth structure. The purpose of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to summarize the available evidence on nonrestorative treatments for the outcomes of 1) arrest or reversal of noncavitated and cavitated carious lesions on primary and permanent teeth and 2) adverse events. We included parallel and split-mouth randomized controlled trials where patients were followed for any length of time. Studies were identified with MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted the selection of studies, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessments, and assessment of the certainty in the evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Data were synthesized with a random effects model and a frequentist approach. Forty-four trials (48 reports) were eligible, which included 7,378 participants and assessed the effect of 22 interventions in arresting or reversing noncavitated or cavitated carious lesions. Four network meta-analyses suggested that sealants + 5% sodium fluoride (NaF) varnish, resin infiltration + 5% NaF varnish, and 5,000-ppm F (1.1% NaF) toothpaste or gel were the most effective for arresting or reversing noncavitated occlusal, approximal, and noncavitated and cavitated root carious lesions on primary and/or permanent teeth, respectively (low- to moderate-certainty evidence). Study-level data indicated that 5% NaF varnish was the most effective for arresting or reversing noncavitated facial/lingual carious lesions (low certainty) and that 38% silver diamine fluoride solution applied biannually was the most effective for arresting advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface (moderate to high certainty). Preventing the onset of caries is the ultimate goal of a caries management plan. However, if the disease is present, there is a variety of effective interventions to treat carious lesions nonrestoratively.

Dataset Information

Pharmacological Treatments for Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Importance

Objective

Data sources

Study selection

Data extraction and synthesis

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Pharmacological Treatments for Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets