Assisted Breathing with a Diaphragm Pacing System: A Systematic Review

Purpose@#Patients with respiratory failure associated with neurological dysfunction often require mechanical ventilator support, which poses increased economic burden and ventilator-associated complications. A diaphragm pacing system (DPS) is an implanted device that provides respiratory support for such patients. In this systematic review, we reviewed the literature to assess the safety and efficacy of DPS for patients with respiratory failure resulting from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or cervical spinal cord injuries. @*Materials and Methods@#The following databases were searched from July 10 to July 30, 2018: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochran library, KoreaMed, Research Information Sharing Service, Korean studies Information Service System, Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, and Korean Medical database. The abstracts and full texts of the searched articles were reviewed by two reviewers. @*Results@#The search keywords generated 197 articles: two randomized controlled trials, two case-control studies, and one case report involving patients with ALS; one cohort study, one case-control study, and two case reports involving patients with cervical spine injury; and one case report involving patients with both conditions were included. The primary outcome was safety profile (complications and adverse event) and efficacy (overall survival and sleep improvement). Complications and adverse events were more common in patients with ALS and spinal cord injury receiving DPS than in controls. Efficacy outcomes were inconsistent across ALS studies. @*Conclusion@#Based on safety and efficacy results, we do not support using DPS to manage respiratory failure in patients with ALS or cervical spine injury.

The Impact of National Surveillance for Liver Cancer: Results from Real-World Setting in Korea

Background/Aims@#The National Liver Cancer Surveillance Program (NLCSP) was established in 2003 to reduce the socioeconomic burden imposed by liver cancer (LC). We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the NLCSP in South Korea with respect to survival benefits and cost, after adjusting for various confounding factors. @*Methods@#We used the National Health Insurance Service claims data linked with the NLCSP from 2004 to 2015. The Cox proportional hazard model and generalized linear model were used to determine the effects of the NLCSP on the early detection of LC, survival, and medical costs. @*Results@#From 2006 to 2010, 66,632 patients (surveillance group: 10,527 and no surveillance group: 56,105) newly diagnosed with LC were included in the study. The odds of the early detection of LC was 1.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.73 to 1.93) times higher among patients who participated in the NLCSP once within the 2-year period prior to the diagnosis of LC than among those who did not participate in the surveillance program. The mortality rate of patients who participated in the NLCSP was 22.0% lower (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.80) than that of those who did not participate. When compared with the group who did not participate in surveillance, the group who participated in the NLCSP had higher total medical costs; however, their cost per day was lower after adjustment during the follow-up period. @*Conclusions@#This study highlights the survival benefit in patients who participated in the NLCSP and the need for continuous improvements of the NLCSP in South Korea.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Long-acting Injectable and Oral Second-generation Antipsychotics for the Treatment of Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of long-acting injectable (LAI) and oral second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) in treating schizophrenia by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library, as well as five Korean databases, were systemically searched to identify studies published from 2000 to 16 April 2015, which compared the efficacy and safety of LAI and oral SGAs. Using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analyses were conducted. In addition, the GRADE (the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was applied to explicitly assess the quality of the evidence. A total of 30 studies including 17 RCTs and 13 observational studies were selected. The group treated with LAI SGAs was characterized by significantly lower relapse rates, longer times to relapse and fewer hospital days, but also by a higher occurrence of extrapyramidal syndrome and prolactin-related symptoms than that in the group treated with oral SGAs. Our findings demonstrate that there is moderate to high level of evidence suggesting that in the treatment of schizophrenia, LAI SGAs have higher efficacy and are associated with higher rates of extrapyramidal syndrome and prolactin-related symptoms. Additionally, the use of LAI SGAs should be combined with appropriate measures to reduce dopamine D2 antagonism-related symptoms.

Comparative efficacy of biological agents in methotrexate-refractory rheumatoid arthritis patients: a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Biological agents (biologics) targeting proinflammatory signaling have emerged as an important treatment option in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Despite the clinical effectiveness of biologics for patients with RA who do not respond to ‘traditional’ disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), there are concerns regarding their cost and long-term safety. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy of various biologics and traditional DMARDs in RA patients refractory to methotrexate (MTX). METHODS: Four DMARDs (hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, MTX, leflunomide) and five anti-tumor necrosis factor drugs (adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, and certolizumab) were selected. A systematic search of published studies was performed from inception through July 2013. Randomized trials of adults with MTX-refractory RA comparing two or more of the selected medications were included. Among 7,938 titles identified, in total, 16 head-to-head trials were selected. Two reviewers independently abstracted the study data and assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias. Comparative efficacy was analyzed using a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC). RESULTS: In total, 9, 4, and 11 studies were included for the outcome measures of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Disease Activity Score 28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) < 2.6 (remission), and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 70 response, respectively. The treatments with the highest efficacy for each outcome measure were certolizumab combined with MTX, golimumab combined with MTX, and certolizumab combined with MTX, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on MTC analysis, using data from published randomized controlled trials, certolizumab and golimumab combined with MTX showed the highest efficacy in the three outcome measures (HAQ, DAS28-ESR < 2.6, and ACR 70 response) in MTX-refractory RA patients.

Comparative efficacy of biological agents in methotrexate-refractory rheumatoid arthritis patients: a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Biological agents (biologics) targeting proinflammatory signaling have emerged as an important treatment option in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Despite the clinical effectiveness of biologics for patients with RA who do not respond to ‘traditional’ disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), there are concerns regarding their cost and long-term safety. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy of various biologics and traditional DMARDs in RA patients refractory to methotrexate (MTX). METHODS: Four DMARDs (hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, MTX, leflunomide) and five anti-tumor necrosis factor drugs (adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, and certolizumab) were selected. A systematic search of published studies was performed from inception through July 2013. Randomized trials of adults with MTX-refractory RA comparing two or more of the selected medications were included. Among 7,938 titles identified, in total, 16 head-to-head trials were selected. Two reviewers independently abstracted the study data and assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias. Comparative efficacy was analyzed using a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC). RESULTS: In total, 9, 4, and 11 studies were included for the outcome measures of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Disease Activity Score 28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) < 2.6 (remission), and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 70 response, respectively. The treatments with the highest efficacy for each outcome measure were certolizumab combined with MTX, golimumab combined with MTX, and certolizumab combined with MTX, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on MTC analysis, using data from published randomized controlled trials, certolizumab and golimumab combined with MTX showed the highest efficacy in the three outcome measures (HAQ, DAS28-ESR < 2.6, and ACR 70 response) in MTX-refractory RA patients.