Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy of vasoactive medications in patients with septic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Catecholamines, especially norepinephrine, are the most frequently used vasopressors for treating patients with septic shock. During the recent decades, terlipressin, vasopressin V1A agonist, and even Ca2+ sensitizer were increasingly used by physicians. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of such different kinds of vasoactive medications on mortality among patients with septic shock. METHODS:Relevant randomized controlled trials were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials updated to February 22, 2018. A network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of different types of vasoactive medications. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, hospital and ICU length of stay (LOS), and adverse events were also assessed. RESULTS:A total of 43 trials with 5767 patients assessing 17 treatment modalities were included. Treatments ranking based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve values from largest to smallest were NE/DB 85.9%, TP 75.1%, NE/EP 74.6%, PI 74.1%, EP 72.5%, VP 66.1%, NE 59.8%, PE 53.0%, DA 42.1%, DX 38.2%, SP 27.0%, PA 24.3%, EX 22.8%, LE 21.5%, and DB 13.3% for 28-day mortality. Treatments ranking for ICU mortality were TP/NE 86.4%, TP 80.3%, TP/DB/NE 65.7%, VP/NE 62.8%, NE 57.4%, VP 56.5%, PE 48.4%, DA 33.0%, PA 27.5%, LE 22.1%, and DB 9.9%. The incidence of myocardial infarction was reported with NE/EP 3.33% (n?=?1 of 30), followed by EP 3.11% (n?=?5 of 161), and then VP 3.10% (n?=?19 of 613), NE 3.03% (n?=?43 of 1417), DA 2.21% (n?=?19 of 858), NE/DB 2.01% (n?=?4 of 199), LE 1.16% (n?=?3 of 258), and PA 0.39% (n?=?1 of 257). The incidence of arrhythmia was reported with DA 26.01% (n?=?258 of 992), followed by EP 22.98% (n?=?37 of 161), and then NE/DB 20.60% (n?=?41 of 199), NE/EP 20.0% (n?=?6 of 30), NE 8.33% (n?=?127 of 1525), LE 5.81% (n?=?15 of 258), PA 2.33% (n?=?6 of 257), and VP 1.67% (n?=?10 of 600). CONCLUSIONS:The use of norepinephrine plus dobutamine was associated with lower 28-day mortality for septic shock, especially among patients with lower cardiac output.

SUBMITTER: Cheng L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6518735 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative efficacy of vasoactive medications in patients with septic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Cheng Lu L Yan Jing J Han Shutang S Chen Qiuhua Q Chen Mingqi M Jiang Hua H Lu Jun J

Critical care (London, England) 20190514 1

<h4>Background</h4>Catecholamines, especially norepinephrine, are the most frequently used vasopressors for treating patients with septic shock. During the recent decades, terlipressin, vasopressin V1A agonist, and even Ca<sup>2+</sup> sensitizer were increasingly used by physicians. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of such different kinds of vasoactive medications on mortality among patients with septic shock.<h4>Methods</h4>Relevant randomized controlled trials were identified ...[more]

PMID: 31088524

Similar Datasets

Project description:What Is Known and Objective. To reevaluate the benefits and risks of corticosteroid treatment in adult patients with septic shock. Methods. This study was performed based on PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of corticosteroids versus placebo were retrieved from PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central RCTs, and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 1980 to April 2018. We also conducted a trial sequential analysis to indicate the possibility of type I or II errors and calculate the information size. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE) was applying to assess the certainty of evidence at the primary outcome level. Results. Twenty-one RCTs were identified and analyzed. Patients treated with corticosteroid had a 7% reduction in relative risk in 28-day all-cause mortality compared to controls (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99). However, there were no significant differences for the intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09) or in-hospital mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.11). Corticosteroids shortened the length of ICU stay by 1.04 days (RR -1.04, 95% CI -1.72 to -0.36) and the length of hospital stay by 2.49 days (RR -2.49, 95% CI -4.96 to -0.02). Corticosteroids increased the risk of hyperglycemia (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.16) but not gastroduodenal bleeding (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.37) or superinfection (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.15). However, some date on secondary outcomes were unavailable because they were not measured or not reported in the included studies which may cause a lack of power or selective outcome reporting. The information size was calculated at 10044 patients. Trial sequential analysis showed that the meta-analysis was conclusive and the risk of type 2 error was minimal. What Is New and Conclusion. Corticosteroids are likely to be effective in reducing 28-day mortality and attenuating septic shock without increasing the rate of life-threatening complications. TSA showed that the risk of type II error in this meta-analysis was minimal and the result was conclusive.

Project description:Background:Given the severity of pulmonary heart disease and the wide utilization of Chinese herbal injections, this network meta-analysis was devised to assess the comparative efficacy of seven Chinese herbal injections (Ciwujia injection, Dazhuhongjingtan injection, Huangqi injection, Shenfu injection, Shengmai injection, Shenmai injection, and Shenqi Fuzheng injection) that were combined with Western medicines in the treatment of pulmonary heart disease. Methods:A literature search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Chinese Biological Medicine Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, and the Chinese Scientific Journal Database from their inception to July14, 2019. This network meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with a priori eligibility criteria and methodological quality recommendations. Data analysis was performed with WinBUGS 1.4.3 and Stata 13.0 software focusing on clinical effectiveness rate, arterial blood gas analysis, hemorheology and hemodynamic indexes and right ventricular dimensions. In addition to the odds ratio or mean difference in various outcomes, the ranking probability of interventions calculated by the surface under the cumulative ranking area curve was demonstrated. The surface under the cumulative ranking area was equal to the rank of the intervention and was aimed to assess the best intervention. Results:Ultimately, 118 randomized controlled trials including 10,085 patients were included. Integrating the outcome results, all eligible Chinese herbal injections plus Western medicines were superior to Western medicines alone, especially Shenfu injection+ Western medicines, Shenmai injection+ Western medicines, and Shenqi Fuzheng injection+ Western medicines. Regarding safety, the drip rate was an essential element for clinicians to consider during treatment. Conclusions:In conclusion, Shenfu injection+ Western medicines, Shenmai injection+ Western medicines and Shenqi Fuzheng injection+ Western medicines may be potential optimal treatments for pulmonary heart disease. A larger sample size and high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm and support this network meta-analysis.

Project description:Background:Considering the limitations of broad-spectrum antiviral drugs for the treatment of herpangina and the extensive exploration of Chinese herbal injections (CHIs), systematic evaluation of the efficacy of different CHIs in the treatment of herpangina is a key imperative. In this study, we performed a network meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of CHIs, including Reduning injection (RDN), Shuanghuanglian injection (SHL), Tanreqing injection (TRQ), Xiyanping injection (XYP), and Yanhuning injection (YHN), in the treatment of herpangina. Methods:A systematic literature review including studies published before December 17, 2018, was conducted in several databases. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data were analyzed using STATA 13.0 and WinBUGS 1.4.3 software. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probability values were applied to rank the examined treatments. Clustering analysis was performed to compare the effects of CHIs between two different outcomes. Results:A total of 72 eligible randomized controlled trials involving 8,592 patients and five CHIs were included. All patients were under the age of 15 years, and most were under 7 years. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that RDN, XYP, and YHN had significantly better treatment performance than ribavirin. SHL (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.09-0.34) and TRQ (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.10-0.31) were obviously superior to ribavirin with respect to total clinical effectiveness. The results of SUCRA and cluster analysis indicated that RDN is the best intervention with respect to total clinical effectiveness, antipyretic time, and blebs disappearing time. Fifty-four studies described adverse drug reactions/adverse drug events (ADRs/ADEs), and 32 studies reported ADRs/ADEs in detail. Conclusions:CHIs were found to be superior to ribavirin in terms of treatment performance and may be beneficial for patients with herpangina. RDN had the potential to be the best CHI with respect to all outcome measures. More evidence is needed to assess the safety aspects of CHIs.

Project description:BackgroundMany recent studies have investigated the role of drug interventions for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. However, an important question has been raised about how to select the effective and secure medications for COVID-19 patients. The aim of this analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of the various medications available for severe and non-severe COVID-19 patients based on randomized placebo-controlled trials (RPCTs).MethodsWe did an updated network meta-analysis. We searched the databases from inception until July 31, 2021, with no language restrictions. We included RPCTs comparing 49 medications and placebo in the treatment of severe and non-severe patients (aged 18 years or older) with COVID-19 infection. We extracted data on the trial and patient characteristics, and the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality, the ratios of virological cure, and treatment-emergent adverse events. Odds ratio (OR) and their 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as effect estimates.ResultsFrom 3,869 publications, we included 61 articles related to 73 RPCTs (57 in non-severe COVID-19 patients and 16 in severe COVID-19 patients), comprising 20,680 patients. The mean sample size was 160 (interquartile range 96-393) in this study. The median duration of follow-up drugs intervention was 28 days (interquartile range 21-30). For increase in virological cure, we only found that proxalutamide (OR 9.16, 95% CI 3.15-18.30), ivermectin (OR 6.33, 95% CI 1.22-32.86), and low dosage bamlanivimab (OR 5.29, 95% CI 1.12-24.99) seemed to be associated with non-severe COVID-19 patients when compared with placebo, in which proxalutamide seemed to be better than low dosage bamlanivimab (OR 5.69, 95% CI 2.43-17.65). For decrease in all-cause mortality, we found that proxalutamide (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.09-0.19), imatinib (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25-0.96), and baricitinib (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42-0.82) seemed to be associated with non-severe COVID-19 patients; however, we only found that immunoglobulin gamma (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08-0.89) was related to severe COVID-19 patients when compared with placebo. For change in treatment-emergent adverse events, we only found that sotrovimab (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.13-0.34) was associated with non-severe COVID-19 patients; however, we did not find any medications that presented a statistical difference when compared with placebo among severe COVID-19 patients.ConclusionWe conclude that marked variations exist in the efficacy and safety of medications between severe and non-severe patients with COVID-19. It seems that monoclonal antibodies (e.g., low dosage bamlanivimab, baricitinib, imatinib, and sotrovimab) are a better choice for treating severe or non-severe COVID-19 patients. Clinical decisions to use preferentially medications should carefully consider the risk-benefit profile based on efficacy and safety of all active interventions in patients with COVID-19 at different levels of infection.

Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy of vasoactive medications in patients with septic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Publications

Comparative efficacy of vasoactive medications in patients with septic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets