DESIGN: Systematic literature review.
DATA SOURCES: Seven databases were searched from inception to 31 August 2020. A focused search was performed to supplement the results.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies which reported either healthcare resource utilisation or costs associated with HSV-related healthcare, including screening, diagnosis and treatment of genital HSV infection and neonatal herpes prevention and treatment.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the Larg and Moss's checklist. All data were summarised narratively.
RESULTS: Out of 11 443 articles, 38 were included. Most studies (35/38, 94.6%) were conducted in high-income countries, primarily the United States, and were more often related to the prevention or management of neonatal herpes (n=21) than HSV genital ulcer disease (n=17). Most analyses were conducted before 2010. There was substantial heterogeneity in the reporting of HSV-related healthcare resource utilisation, with 74%-93% individuals who sought care for HSV, 11.6%-68.4% individuals who received care, while neonates with herpes required a median of 6-34 hospitalisation days. The costs reported were similarly heterogeneous, with wide variation in methodology, assumptions and outcome measures between studies. Cost for screening ranged from US$7-100, treatment ranged from US$0.53-35 for an episodic therapy, US$240-2580 yearly for suppressive therapy, while hospitalisation for neonatal care ranged from US$5321-32 683.
CONCLUSIONS: A paucity of evidence exists on healthcare resource utilisation and costs associated with HSV infection, especially among low-income and middle-income countries. Future research is needed on costs and healthcare utilisation patterns to improve overall understanding of the global economic burden of HSV.
METHODS: We searched 14 electronic databases from their inception until November 2015 for articles describing the use of herbal or dietary supplements in G6PD deficient individuals. Additional publications were identified from manually searching textbooks, conference abstracts and the grey literature. All study designs were included as long as they contained clinical information. These gathered findings were summarized narratively.
RESULTS: Thirty-two publications met inclusion criteria. These reported on 10 herbal and dietary supplements. Overall evidence linking haemolysis to a herbal/dietary supplement was only found for henna. No evidence of harm was observed for vitamin C, vitamin E, vitamin K, Gingko biloba and α-lipoic acid.
CONCLUSIONS: The review showed that there was insufficient evidence to contravene the use of most herbal or dietary products at therapeutic doses in G6PD deficient subjects.
OBJECTIVES: We determined the proportion of PIOs in neonatal RCTs included in Cochrane Neonatal reviews.
METHODS: We extracted up to 5 outcomes from each RCT included in Cochrane Neonatal reviews published until January 2018, with independent determination of PIOs among authors followed by a discussion leading to a consensus. We defined PIOs as outcomes that matter to patient care, such as clinical events or physiological or laboratory parameters that are widely used to guide management.
RESULTS: Among 6,832 outcomes extracted from 1,874 RCTs included in 276 reviews, 5,349 (78.3%) were considered PIOs; 461 studies (24.5%) included 5 or more PIOs, 1,278 (68.2%) included 1-4 PIOs, while 135 (7.2%) had no PIO included. PIOs were observed more often among dichotomous than among continuous outcomes (94.9 vs. 61.5%; RR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.50-1.58), and more among subjective than among objective outcomes (95.9 vs. 76.8%; RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.22-1.28). Newer studies were more likely to have a greater number of PIOs (adjusted OR: 1.033 [95% CI: 1.025-1.041] with each publication year).
CONCLUSIONS: The large and increasing representation of PIOs over the years suggests an improving awareness by neonatal trialists of the need to incorporate important outcomes in order to justify the utilization of resources. Further research should explore the reasons for non-inclusion or non-reporting of PIOs in a small proportion of RCTs.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of skin antisepsis as part of CVC care for reducing catheter-related BSIs, catheter colonisation, and patient mortality and morbidities.
SEARCH METHODS: In May 2016 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Epub Ahead of Print); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trial registries for ongoing and unpublished studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed any type of skin antiseptic agent used either alone or in combination, compared with one or more other skin antiseptic agent(s), placebo or no skin antisepsis in patients with a CVC in place.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the studies for their eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We expressed our results in terms of risk ratio (RR), absolute risk reduction (ARR) and number need to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies were eligible for inclusion, but only 12 studies contributed data, with a total of 3446 CVCs assessed. The total number of participants enrolled was unclear as some studies did not provide such information. The participants were mainly adults admitted to intensive care units, haematology oncology units or general wards. Most studies assessed skin antisepsis prior to insertion and regularly thereafter during the in-dwelling period of the CVC, ranging from every 24 h to every 72 h. The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed due to wide variation in their risk of bias. Most trials did not adequately blind the participants or personnel, and four of the 12 studies had a high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data.Three studies compared different antisepsis regimens with no antisepsis. There was no clear evidence of a difference in all outcomes examined, including catheter-related BSI, septicaemia, catheter colonisation and number of patients who required systemic antibiotics for any of the three comparisons involving three different antisepsis regimens (aqueous povidone-iodine, aqueous chlorhexidine and alcohol compared with no skin antisepsis). However, there were great uncertainties in all estimates due to underpowered analyses and the overall very low quality of evidence presented.There were multiple head-to-head comparisons between different skin antiseptic agents, with different combinations of active substance and base solutions. The most frequent comparison was chlorhexidine solution versus povidone-iodine solution (any base). There was very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision) that chlorhexidine may reduce catheter-related BSI compared with povidone-iodine (RR of 0.64, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.99; ARR 2.30%, 95% CI 0.06 to 3.70%). This evidence came from four studies involving 1436 catheters. None of the individual subgroup comparisons of aqueous chlorhexidine versus aqueous povidone-iodine, alcoholic chlorhexidine versus aqueous povidone-iodine and alcoholic chlorhexidine versus alcoholic povidone-iodine showed clear differences for catheter-related BSI or mortality (and were generally underpowered). Mortality was only reported in a single study.There was very low quality evidence that skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine may also reduce catheter colonisation relative to povidone-iodine (RR of 0.68, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.84; ARR 8%, 95% CI 3% to 12%; ; five studies, 1533 catheters, downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness and inconsistency).Evaluations of other skin antiseptic agents were generally in single, small studies, many of which did not report the primary outcome of catheter-related BSI. Trials also poorly reported other outcomes, such as skin infections and adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is not clear whether cleaning the skin around CVC insertion sites with antiseptic reduces catheter related blood stream infection compared with no skin cleansing. Skin cleansing with chlorhexidine solution may reduce rates of CRBSI and catheter colonisation compared with cleaning with povidone iodine. These results are based on very low quality evidence, which means the true effects may be very different. Moreover these results may be influenced by the nature of the antiseptic solution (i.e. aqueous or alcohol-based). Further RCTs are needed to assess the effectiveness and safety of different skin antisepsis regimens in CVC care; these should measure and report critical clinical outcomes such as sepsis, catheter-related BSI and mortality.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of animal-assisted therapy for people with dementia.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS: the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register on 5 September 2019. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of major healthcare databases, trial registries, and grey literature sources. We also searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), ISI Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO's trial registry portal.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised trials, and randomised cross-over trials that compared AAT versus no AAT, AAT using live animals versus alternatives such as robots or toys, or AAT versus any other active intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methods of Cochrane Dementia. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We expressed our results using mean difference (MD), standardised mean difference (SMD), and risk ratio (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) where appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs from 10 reports. All nine studies were conducted in Europe and the US. Six studies were parallel-group, individually randomised RCTs; one was a randomised cross-over trial; and two were cluster-RCTs that were possibly related where randomisation took place at the level of the day care and nursing home. We identified two ongoing trials from trial registries. There were three comparisons: AAT versus no AAT (standard care or various non-animal-related activities), AAT using live animals versus robotic animals, and AAT using live animals versus the use of a soft animal toy. The studies evaluated 305 participants with dementia. One study used horses and the remainder used dogs as the therapy animal. The duration of the intervention ranged from six weeks to six months, and the therapy sessions lasted between 10 and 90 minutes each, with a frequency ranging from one session every two weeks to two sessions per week. There was a wide variety of instruments used to measure the outcomes. All studies were at high risk of performance bias and unclear risk of selection bias. Our certainty about the results for all major outcomes was very low to moderate. Comparing AAT versus no AAT, participants who received AAT may be slightly less depressed after the intervention (MD -2.87, 95% CI -5.24 to -0.50; 2 studies, 83 participants; low-certainty evidence), but they did not appear to have improved quality of life (MD 0.45, 95% CI -1.28 to 2.18; 3 studies, 164 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no clear differences in all other major outcomes, including social functioning (MD -0.40, 95% CI -3.41 to 2.61; 1 study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence), problematic behaviour (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.30; 3 studies, 142 participants; very-low-certainty evidence), agitation (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.10; 3 studies, 143 participants; very-low-certainty evidence), activities of daily living (MD 4.65, 95% CI -16.05 to 25.35; 1 study, 37 participants; low-certainty evidence), and self-care ability (MD 2.20, 95% CI -1.23 to 5.63; 1 study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no data on adverse events. Comparing AAT using live animals versus robotic animals, one study (68 participants) found mixed effects on social function, with longer duration of physical contact but shorter duration of talking in participants who received AAT using live animals versus robotic animals (median: 93 seconds with live versus 28 seconds with robotic for physical contact; 164 seconds with live versus 206 seconds with robotic for talk directed at a person; 263 seconds with live versus 307 seconds with robotic for talk in total). Another study showed no clear differences between groups in behaviour measured using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (MD -6.96, 95% CI -14.58 to 0.66; 78 participants; low-certainty evidence) or quality of life (MD -2.42, 95% CI -5.71 to 0.87; 78 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no data on the other outcomes. Comparing AAT using live animals versus a soft toy cat, one study (64 participants) evaluated only social functioning, in the form of duration of contact and talking. The data were expressed as median and interquartile ranges. Duration of contact was slightly longer in participants in the AAT group and duration of talking slightly longer in those exposed to the toy cat. This was low-certainty evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-certainty evidence that AAT may slightly reduce depressive symptoms in people with dementia. We found no clear evidence that AAT affects other outcomes in this population, with our certainty in the evidence ranging from very-low to moderate depending on the outcome. We found no evidence on safety or effects on the animals. Therefore, clear conclusions cannot yet be drawn about the overall benefits and risks of AAT in people with dementia. Further well-conducted RCTs are needed to improve the certainty of the evidence. In view of the difficulty in achieving blinding of participants and personnel in such trials, future RCTs should work on blinding outcome assessors, document allocation methods clearly, and include major patient-important outcomes such as affect, emotional and social functioning, quality of life, adverse events, and outcomes for animals.
OBJECTIVES: We described the ROB profile of neonatal RCTs published since the 1950s.
METHODS: We analyzed individual studies within the Cochrane Neonatal reviews published up to December 2016. We extracted the reviewers' judgments on the ROB domains including random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting. We evaluated blinding of personnel in trials in which blinding was considered feasible.
RESULTS: We assessed 1980 RCTs published between 1952 and 2016 from 294 Cochrane Neonatal systematic reviews, with full ROB assessments performed in 848 trials (42.8%). Among the ROB domains, the highest proportion of trials (73%) were judged as satisfactory ("low risk") in handling incomplete outcome data, while fewest trials achieved blinding of outcome assessor (38.4%). In the last 6 decades, a progressive increase has been observed in the proportion of trials that were rated as low risk in random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and selective reporting. However, blinding was achieved in less than half of the trials with no clear improvement across decades (23-44% since the 1980s).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite steady improvement in the overall quality of neonatal RCTs over the last 6 decades, blinding remained unsatisfactory in the majority of the trials.
OBJECTIVES: Our main objective was to assess the effectiveness of antimicrobial impregnation, coating or bonding on CVCs in reducing clinically-diagnosed sepsis, catheter-related blood stream infection (CRBSI), all-cause mortality, catheter colonization and other catheter-related infections in adult participants who required central venous catheterization, along with their safety and cost effectiveness where data were available. We undertook the following comparisons: 1) catheters with antimicrobial modifications in the form of antimicrobial impregnation, coating or bonding, against catheters without antimicrobial modifications and 2) catheters with one type of antimicrobial impregnation against catheters with another type of antimicrobial impregnation. We planned to analyse the comparison of catheters with any type of antimicrobial impregnation against catheters with other antimicrobial modifications, e.g. antiseptic dressings, hubs, tunnelling, needleless connectors or antiseptic lock solutions, but did not find any relevant studies. Additionally, we planned to conduct subgroup analyses based on the length of catheter use, settings or levels of care (e.g. intensive care unit, standard ward and oncology unit), baseline risks, definition of sepsis, presence or absence of co-interventions and cost-effectiveness in different currencies.
SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Anaesthesia, Critical and Emergency Care Review Group (ACE). In the updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (OVID SP; 1950 to March 2015), EMBASE (1980 to March 2015), CINAHL (1982 to March 2015), and other Internet resources using a combination of keywords and MeSH headings. The original search was run in March 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed any type of impregnated catheter against either non-impregnated catheters or catheters with another type of impregnation in adult patients cared for in the hospital setting who required CVCs. We planned to include quasi-RCT and cluster-RCTs, but we identified none. We excluded cross-over studies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently assessed the relevance and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We expressed our results using risk ratio (RR), absolute risk reduction (ARR) and number need to treat to benefit (NNTB) for categorical data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, where appropriate, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS: We included one new study (338 participants/catheters) in this update, which brought the total included to 57 studies with 16,784 catheters and 11 types of impregnations. The total number of participants enrolled was unclear, as some studies did not provide this information. Most studies enrolled participants from the age of 18, including patients in intensive care units (ICU), oncology units and patients receiving long-term total parenteral nutrition. There were low or unclear risks of bias in the included studies, except for blinding, which was impossible in most studies due to the catheters that were being assessed having different appearances. Overall, catheter impregnation significantly reduced catheter-related blood stream infection (CRBSI), with an ARR of 2% (95% CI 3% to 1%), RR of 0.62 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.74) and NNTB of 50 (high-quality evidence). Catheter impregnation also reduced catheter colonization, with an ARR of 9% (95% CI 12% to 7%), RR of 0.67 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.76) and NNTB of 11 (moderate-quality evidence, downgraded due to substantial heterogeneity). However, catheter impregnation made no significant difference to the rates of clinically diagnosed sepsis (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13; moderate-quality evidence, downgraded due to a suspicion of publication bias), all-cause mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07; high-quality evidence) and catheter-related local infections (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.07; 2688 catheters, moderate quality evidence, downgraded due to wide 95% CI).In our subgroup analyses, we found that the magnitudes of benefits for impregnated CVCs varied between studies that enrolled different types of participants. For the outcome of catheter colonization, catheter impregnation conferred significant benefit in studies conducted in ICUs (RR 0.70;95% CI 0.61 to 0.80) but not in studies conducted in haematological and oncological units (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.11) or studies that assessed predominantly patients who required CVCs for long-term total parenteral nutrition (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.34). However, there was no such variation for the outcome of CRBSI. The magnitude of the effects was also not affected by the participants' baseline risks.There were no significant differences between the impregnated and non-impregnated groups in the rates of adverse effects, including thrombosis/thrombophlebitis, bleeding, erythema and/or tenderness at the insertion site.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review confirms the effectiveness of antimicrobial CVCs in reducing rates of CRBSI and catheter colonization. However, the magnitude of benefits regarding catheter colonization varied according to setting, with significant benefits only in studies conducted in ICUs. A comparatively smaller body of evidence suggests that antimicrobial CVCs do not appear to reduce clinically diagnosed sepsis or mortality significantly. Our findings call for caution in routinely recommending the use of antimicrobial-impregnated CVCs across all settings. Further randomized controlled trials assessing antimicrobial CVCs should include important clinical outcomes like the overall rates of sepsis and mortality.
METHODS: A Markov model cohort simulation with a 6-month cycle length to predict acute coronary syndrome, stroke, and heart failure throughout lifetime was performed. A cohort of 399 patients was obtained from two prospective, cluster randomized controlled clinical trials implementing physician-pharmacist collaborative interventions in community-based medical offices in the Midwest, USA. Framingham risk equations and other algorithms were used to predict the vascular diseases. SBP reduction due to the interventions deteriorated until 5 years. Direct medical costs using a payer perspective were adjusted to 2015 dollar value, and the main outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); both were discounted at 3%. The intervention costs were estimated from the trials, whereas the remaining parameters were from published studies. A series of sensitivity analyses including changing patient risks of vascular diseases, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were performed.
RESULTS: The lifetime incremental costs were $26 807.83 per QALY (QALYs gained = 0.14). The intervention provided the greatest benefit for the high-risk patients, moderate benefit for the trial patients, and the lowest benefit for the low-risk patients. If a payer is willing to pay $50 000 per QALY gained, in 48.6% of the time the intervention would be cost-effective.
CONCLUSION: Team-based care such as a physician-pharmacist collaboration appears to be a cost-effective strategy for treating hypertension. The intervention is most cost-effective for high-risk patients.
CONCLUSION: An 8-week duration of treatment with LDV/SOF is highly effective in properly selected patients; greater use of this regimen is recommended. (Hepatology 2017;65:1094-1103).
METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, NHS EED, EconLit, CEA Registry, SciELO, LILACS, CABI-Global Health Database, Popline, World Bank - e-Library, and WHOLIS. Full economic evaluations studies, published from inception to November 2015, evaluating Rotavirus vaccines preventing Rotavirus infections were included. The methods, assumptions, results and conclusions of the included studies were extracted and appraised using WHO guide for standardization of EE of immunization programs.
RESULTS: 104 relevant studies were included. The majority of studies were conducted in high-income countries. Cost-utility analysis was mostly reported in many studies using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per DALY averted or QALY gained. Incremental cost per QALY gained was used in many studies from high-income countries. Mass routine vaccination against rotavirus provided the ICERs ranging from cost-saving to highly cost-effective in comparison to no vaccination among low-income countries. Among middle-income countries, vaccination offered the ICERs ranging from cost-saving to cost-effective. Due to low- or no subsidized price of rotavirus vaccines from external funders, being not cost-effective was reported in some high-income settings.
CONCLUSION: Mass vaccination against rotavirus was generally found to be cost-effective, particularly in low- and middle-income settings according to the external subsidization of vaccine price. On the other hand, it may not be a cost-effective intervention at market price in some high-income settings. This systematic review provides supporting information to health policy-makers and health professionals when considering rotavirus vaccination as a national program.