Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of low-dose versus high-dose hydrocortisone to treat hypotension in neonates: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT:

Background

Impaired adrenal function is a well-described entity in critically ill term and preterm neonates with systemic hypotension. The standard treatment for neonatal hypotension includes volume expanders and vasopressors. Recent evidence supports the use of glucocorticoids for the primary or rescue treatment of neonatal hypotension associated with impaired adrenal function. However, inconsistency regarding the prescribed dosing regimen to provide the best balance between efficacy and safety in this vulnerable population remains an area of concern.

Methods

We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate low-dosing compared with high-dosing regimens of hydrocortisone for the treatment of hypotension in critically ill term, preterm and very low birth weight neonates. Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science will be searched from inception to November 2021. Study screening and selection will be completed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. Our primary outcomes will be (1) an improvement in end-organ perfusion, defined as an increase in blood pressure along with an increase in urine output or a reduction in serum lactate and (2) mortality prior to discharge. Our secondary outcomes will be the development of (1) major neurosensory abnormality, (2) bronchopulmonary dysplasia and (3) the occurrence of adverse events.

Discussion

Hydrocortisone may be beneficial in the treatment of hypotension associated with impaired adrenal function among critically ill neonates. However, its optimal dosing to balance desired efficacy with the risk of adverse events is yet to be determined. Our systematic review and meta-analysis aims to address this evidence gap, providing valuable knowledge for a large audience, including guideline developers, policy-makers and clinicians.

PROSPERO registration number

This protocol is submitted for registration to the international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews (PROSPERO, awaiting registration number).

SUBMITTER: Sushko K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8671989 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLymphangioleiomyomatosis is a rare disease caused by unregulated activation of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signalling pathway. Sirolimus showed efficacy in a phase 3 trial of patients with lymphangioleiomyomatosis, but the optimal dose remains unclear.MethodsWe investigated the efficacy and safety of low-dose compared with conventional-dose sirolimus. Clinical data of 39 patients with lymphangioleiomyomatosis (mean age, 34.8 years; median treatment period, 29.6 months) who received sirolimus were retrospectively reviewed. Low-dose sirolimus was defined as any dose that maintained mean blood trough levels lower than those maintained with conventional doses (5-15 ng/mL).ResultsFifty-one percent of patients received low-dose therapy. The rate of decline in lung function decreased after treatment in the whole group (forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1], - 0.12 ± 0.47 [before] vs. 0.24 ± 0.48% predicted/month [after], p = 0.027; diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide [DLco], - 0.33 ± 0.61 vs. 0.03 ± 0.26% predicted/month, p = 0.006) compared with before treatment. In the low-dose group, the rate of decline in FEV1 (- 0.08 ± 0.38 [before] vs. 0.19 ± 0.51% predicted/month [after], p = 0.264) and DLco (-0.13 ± 0.62 vs. 0.02 ± 0.28% predicted/month, p = 0.679) showed a numeric trend towards improvement after treatment; however, the conventional-dose group showed significant improvement in FEV1 (- 0.26 ± 0.54 [before] vs. 0.22 ± 0.38 [after] % predicted/month, p = 0.024) and DLco (- 0.55 ± 0.58 vs. 0.04 ± 0.25% predicted/month, p = 0.002) after treatment. Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 89.7% of patients and the most common AEs was hypercholesterolaemia (43.6%), followed by stomatitis (35.9%). The occurrences of AE were similar between the low- and conventional-dose groups (85.0% vs. 94.7%, p = 0.605).ConclusionsLow-dose sirolimus may stabilise lung function decline in lymphangioleiomyomatosis patients, but its efficacy appears to be inferior to that of conventional-dose sirolimus.

Project description:Background and purposeThe recanalization rate after intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) is not enough and there is still the possibility of re-occlusion. We aim to investigate the effectiveness and safety of infusing tirofiban after IVT.MethodsWe performed a prospective controlled study of 60 patients with acute non-cardiogenic ischemic stroke who were hospitalized in Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital from January 2018 to December 2019. The patients were divided into 2 groups: those who received tirofiban for 24 h after IVT (rt-PA + T group) and those who did not receive postprocedural intravenous tirofiban (rt-PA group). The rt-PA + T group received low-dose rt-PA (0.6 mg/kg). The rt-PA group received standard dose rt-PA (0.9 mg/kg). The main outcome measure were safety, included the symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), any ICH, severe systemic bleeding, and mortality. The secondary outcome measure is curative efficacy which were evaluated by the 7d-NIHSS score and functional outcomes at 90 days. During hospitalization, the deterioration of neurological function was recorded.ResultsAll patients completed the follow-up with complete data, there were 30 patients in each of groups. The general characteristics between the two group patients had no statistically significant differences. Compared with the rt-PA + T group and the rt-PA group, in terms of safety, the rates of the sICH, severe systemic bleeding, and mortality in both groups were 0, and there was no statistically significant difference in the rates of any ICH between the two groups (10.0% vs. 3.3%, P = 0.306). In terms of efficacy, the rate of the early neurological deterioration events (END) was no statistical significance (0 vs. 6.6%, P = 0.246). There was no significant difference in the NIHSS score between the two groups before the IVT, and also at 24 h, however, the 7d-NIHSS score was lower in the rt-PA + T group compared with the rt-PA group (2.33 ± 1.85 vs. 4.80 ± 4.02, P = 0.004). At 90 days, 83.3% of patients in the rt-PA + T group had favorable functional outcomes compared with 60.0% of patients in the rt-PA group (P = 0.045).ConclusionsLow-dose rt-PA combined with tirofiban in acute non-cardiogenic ischemic stroke did not increase the risk of ICH, and mortality, and it was associated with neurological improvement.Trial registrationThe trial has been registered at the ChiCTR and identified as ChiCTR1800014666 (28/01/2018).

Project description:IntroductionThe benefits and risks of low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with septic shock have been investigated in numerous randomised controlled trials and trial-level meta-analyses. Yet, the routine use of this treatment remains controversial. To overcome the limitations of previous meta-analyses inherent to the use of aggregate data, we will perform an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) on the effect of hydrocortisone with or without fludrocortisone compared with placebo or usual care on 90-day mortality and other outcomes in patients with septic shock.Methods and analysisTo assess the benefits and risks of hydrocortisone, with or without fludrocortisone for adults with septic shock, we will search major electronic databases from inception to September 2020 (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature), complimented by a search for unpublished trials. The primary analysis will compare hydrocortisone with or without fludrocortisone to placebo or no treatment in adult patients with septic shock. Secondary analyses will compare hydrocortisone to placebo (or usual care), hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone to placebo (or usual care), and hydrocortisone versus hydrocortisone plus fludrocortisone. The primary outcome will be all cause mortality at 90 days. We will conduct both one-stage IPDMA using mixed-effect models and machine learning with targeted maximum likelihood analyses. We will assess the risk of bias related to unshared data and related to the quality of individual trial.Ethics and disseminationThis IPDMA will use existing data from completed randomised clinical trials and will comply with the ethical and regulatory requirements regarding data sharing for each of the component trials. The findings of this study will be submitted for publication in a peer-review journal with straightforward policy for open access.Prospero registration numberCRD42017062198.

Project description:ObjectiveWe aimed to further investigate the efficacy and safety of low-dose NOACs by performing a meta-analysis of cohort studies.BackgroundMeta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that low-dose non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) showed inferior efficacy compared with standard-dose NOACs, although they are still frequently prescribed for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in the clinical practice.MethodsCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, and MEDLINE were systematically searched from the inception to September 9, 2021, for cohort studies that compared the efficacy and/or safety of low-dose NOACs in patients with AF. The primary outcomes were ischemic stroke and major bleeding, and the secondary outcomes were mortality, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and gastrointestinal hemorrhage (GH). Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated with the random-effect model.ResultsTwenty-five publications involving 487856 patients with AF were included. Compared with standard-dose NOACs, low-dose NOACs had comparable risks of ischemic stroke (HR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.11), major bleeding (HR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.28), ICH (HR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.36), and GH (HR = 1.11, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.33), except for a higher risk of mortality (HR = 1.41, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.65). Compared with warfarin, low-dose NOACs were associated with lower risks of ischemic stroke (HR = 0.72, 95% CI .67 to 0.78), mortality (HR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.77), major bleeding (HR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.79), ICH (HR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.77), and GH (HR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.95).ConclusionsLow-dose NOACs were comparable to standard-dose NOACs considering risks of ischemic stroke, major bleeding, ICH, and GH, and they were superior to warfarin. Low-dose NOACs might be prescribed effectively and safely for patients with AF. Considering limitations, further well-designed prospective studies are foreseen.