Surgery for nasal polyposis in cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a life-shortening, autosomal recessive disease that leads to abnormal electrolyte concentration in exocrine secretions. Secretion stasis in paranasal sinuses determines chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and nasal polyposis. Endoscopic sinus surgery is used to open the sinuses and allow medical treatment to work properly. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of sinus surgery alone or in combination with medical treatment (non-surgical) compared to medical treatment (non-surgical) alone on both nasal and pulmonary function in people with CF diagnosed with CRS with nasal polyposis. Further, to evaluate the impact of sinus surgery (with or without medical treatment) on hospitalization rates, use of antibiotics and pulmonary exacerbation rates. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and hand searching of journals and conference abstract books. Date of last search: 4 July 2022. We also searched other databases (Pubmed, Embase, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Virtual Health Library and ClinicalTrials.gov). Date of last search: 18 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing groups who underwent endoscopic sinus surgery and groups with medical treatment alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and evaluated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. They contacted the authors of the included study for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 66 publications relating to 50 studies from electronic searches. Only one study fulfilled the inclusion criteria, and only limited information was available. In this study, 28 participants aged 19 to 28 years were randomized in equal numbers to either nasal irrigation alone or nasal irrigation with surgery (endoscopic polypectomy with extended sinusotomy). The certainty of the evidence was very low according to the GRADE approach. We are uncertain whether, compared to medical treatment alone, the addition of surgical intervention improves nasal symptoms, or reduces bacterial colonization, the use of antibiotics and pulmonary exacerbations. We are also uncertain whether the addition of surgery to medical treatment leads to changes in pulmonary function. There was one episode of bleeding during surgery that was corrected during the procedure with no further consequences. The study did not report on survival. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Very low-certainty evidence means we are not certain if endoscopic sinus surgery to treat chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis in cystic fibrosis is effective. Future research should be multicentric to increase the number of participants and increase statistical power. Adequate randomization and allocation concealment are important to guarantee that the groups are similar. Blinding, however, may not be possible in an ethical trial; even without blinding, results can achieve high-level evidence if the outcomes used are objective parameters. Future research should follow participants of all ages for at least 12 months to evaluate the evolution of nasal polyposis, its recurrence and how symptoms may return. We also consider mortality an important outcome to be assessed. Future clinical research should consider the effects of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulators, a new group of drugs that may affect the development of nasal polyps.

Prophylactic anticoagulants for non-hospitalised people with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted healthcare systems worldwide. Multiple reports on thromboembolic complications related to COVID-19 have been published, and researchers have described that people with COVID-19 are at high risk for developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). Anticoagulants have been used as pharmacological interventions to prevent arterial and venous thrombosis, and their use in the outpatient setting could potentially reduce the prevalence of vascular thrombosis and associated mortality in people with COVID-19. However, even lower doses used for a prophylactic purpose may result in adverse events such as bleeding. It is important to consider the evidence for anticoagulant use in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparators, placebo or no intervention, or non-pharmacological interventions in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 18 April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment, another active comparator, or non-pharmacological interventions in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. We included studies that compared anticoagulants with a different dose of the same anticoagulant. We excluded studies with a duration of under two weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, VTE (deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE)), and major bleeding. Our secondary outcomes were DVT, PE, need for hospitalisation, minor bleeding, adverse events, and quality of life. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs with up to 90 days of follow-up (short term). Data were available for meta-analysis from 1777 participants. Anticoagulant compared to placebo or no treatment Five studies compared anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment and provided data for three of our outcomes of interest (all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and adverse events). The evidence suggests that prophylactic anticoagulants may lead to little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 3.61; 5 studies; 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably reduce VTE from 3% in the placebo group to 1% in the anticoagulant group (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.85; 4 studies; 1259 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 50; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in major bleeding (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.78; 5 studies; 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulants probably result in little or no difference in DVT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.46; 3 studies; 1009 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably reduce the risk of PE from 2.7% in the placebo group to 0.7% in the anticoagulant group (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.79; 3 studies; 1009 participants; NNTB 50; moderate-certainty evidence). Anticoagulants probably lead to little or no difference in reducing hospitalisation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.75; 4 studies; 1459 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may lead to little or no difference in adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.90 to 6.72; 5 studies, 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulant compared to a different dose of the same anticoagulant One study compared anticoagulant (higher-dose apixaban) with a different (standard) dose of the same anticoagulant and reported five relevant outcomes. No cases of all-cause mortality, VTE, or major bleeding occurred in either group during the 45-day follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose apixaban compared to standard-dose apixaban may lead to little or no difference in reducing the need for hospitalisation (RR 1.89, 95% CI 0.17 to 20.58; 1 study; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence) or in the number of adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.54; 1 study; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulant compared to antiplatelet agent One study compared anticoagulant (apixaban) with antiplatelet agent (aspirin) and reported five relevant outcomes. No cases of all-cause mortality or major bleeding occurred during the 45-day follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Apixaban may lead to little or no difference in VTE (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.65; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence), need for hospitalisation (RR 3.20, 95% CI 0.13 to 77.85; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence), or adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 2.13, 95% CI 0.40 to 11.46; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported on quality of life or investigated anticoagulants compared to a different anticoagulant, or anticoagulants compared to non-pharmacological interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low- to moderate-certainty evidence from five RCTs that prophylactic anticoagulants result in little or no difference in major bleeding, DVT, need for hospitalisation, or adverse events when compared with placebo or no treatment in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. Low-certainty evidence indicates that prophylactic anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality when compared with placebo or no treatment, but moderate-certainty evidence indicates that prophylactic anticoagulants probably reduce the incidence of VTE and PE. Low-certainty evidence suggests that comparing different doses of the same prophylactic anticoagulant may result in little or no difference in need for hospitalisation or adverse events. Prophylactic anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in risk of VTE, hospitalisation, or adverse events when compared with antiplatelet agents (low-certainty evidence). Given that there were only short-term data from one study, these results should be interpreted with caution. Additional trials of sufficient duration are needed to clearly determine any effect on clinical outcomes.

Digital technology for delivering and monitoring exercise programs for people with cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Although exercise is recommended as part of the cystic fibrosis (CF) therapeutic routine, adherence to exercise is still limited. Digital health technologies can provide easy-to-access health information and may help improve healthcare and outcomes in individuals with long-term conditions. However, its effects for delivering and monitoring exercise programs in CF have not yet been synthesized. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of digital health technologies for delivering and monitoring exercise programs, increasing adherence to exercise regimens, and improving key clinical outcomes in people with CF. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 21 November 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of digital health technologies for delivering or monitoring exercise programs in CF. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. physical activity, 2. self-management behavior, and 3. pulmonary exacerbations. Our secondary outcomes were 4. usability of technologies, 5. quality of life, 6. lung function, 7. muscle strength, 8. exercise capacity, 9. physiologic parameters, and 10. ADVERSE EVENTS: We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four parallel RCTs (three single-center and one multicenter with 231 participants aged six years or older). The RCTs evaluated different modes of digital health technologies with distinct purposes, combined with diverse interventions. We identified important methodologic concerns in the RCTs, including insufficient information on the randomization process, blinding of outcome assessors, balance of non-protocol interventions across groups, and whether the analyses performed corrected for bias due to missing outcome data. Non-reporting of results may also be a concern, especially because some planned outcome results were reported incompletely. Furthermore, each trial had a small number of participants, resulting in imprecise effects. These limitations on the risk of bias, and on the precision of effect estimates resulted in overall low- to very low-certainty evidence. We undertook four comparisons and present the findings for our primary outcomes below. There is no information on the effectiveness of other modes of digital health technologies for monitoring physical activity or delivering exercise programs in people with CF, on adverse events related to the use of digital health technologies either for delivering or monitoring exercise programs in CF, and on their long-term effects (more than one year). Digital health technologies for monitoring physical activity Wearable fitness tracker plus personalized exercise prescription compared to personalized exercise prescription alone One trial (40 adults with CF) evaluated this outcome, but did not report data for any of our primary outcomes. Wearable fitness tracker plus text message for personalized feedback and goal setting compared to wearable fitness tracker alone The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of a wearable fitness tracker plus text message for personalized feedback and goal setting, compared to wearable technology alone on physical activity measured by step count at six-month follow-up (mean difference [MD] 675.00 steps, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2406.37 to 3756.37; 1 trial, 32 participants). The same study measured pulmonary exacerbation rates and reported finding no difference between groups. Web-based application to record, monitor, and set goals on physical activity plus usual care compared to usual care alone Using a web-based application to record, monitor, and set goals on physical activity plus usual care may result in little to no difference on time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity measured via accelerometry compared to usual care alone at six-month follow-up (MD -4 minutes/day, 95% CI -37 to 29; 1 trial, 63 participants). Low certainty-evidence from the same trial suggests that the intervention may result in little to no difference on pulmonary exacerbations during 12 months of follow-up (median 1 respiratory hospitalization, interquartile range [IQR] 0 to 3) versus control (median 1 respiratory hospitalization, IQR 0 to 2; P = 0.6). Digital health technologies for delivering exercise programs Web-based versus face-to-face exercise delivery The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of web-based compared to face-to-face exercise delivery on adherence to physical activity as assessed by the number of participants who completed all exercise sessions after three months of intervention (risk ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.23; 1 trial, 51 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of an exercise program plus the use of a wearable fitness tracker integrated with a social media platform compared with exercise prescription alone and on the effects of receiving a wearable fitness tracker plus text message for personalized feedback and goal setting, compared to a wearable fitness tracker alone. Low-certainty evidence suggests that using a web-based application to record, monitor, and set goals on physical activity plus usual care may result in little to no difference in time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, total time spent in activity, pulmonary exacerbations, quality of life, lung function, and exercise capacity compared to usual care alone. Regarding the use of digital health technologies for delivering exercise programs in CF, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of using a wearable fitness tracker plus personalized exercise prescription compared to personalized exercise prescription alone. Further high-quality RCTs, with blinded outcome assessors, reporting the effects of digital health technologies on clinically important outcome measures, such as physical activity participation and intensity, self-management behavior, and the occurrence of pulmonary exacerbations in the long term are needed. The results of six ongoing RCTs identified through our searches may help clarify the effects of different modes of digital health technologies for delivering and monitoring exercise programs in people with CF.

Pharmacological treatment for central sleep apnoea in adults.

BACKGROUND: The term central sleep apnoea (CSA) encompasses diverse clinical situations where a dysfunctional drive to breathe leads to recurrent respiratory events, namely apnoea (complete absence of ventilation) and hypopnoea sleep (insufficient ventilation) during sleep. Studies have demonstrated that CSA responds to some extent to pharmacological agents with distinct mechanisms, such as sleep stabilisation and respiratory stimulation. Some therapies for CSA are associated with improved quality of life, although the evidence on this association is uncertain. Moreover, treatment of CSA with non-invasive positive pressure ventilation is not always effective or safe and may result in a residual apnoea-hypopnoea index. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatment compared with active or inactive controls for central sleep apnoea in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 30 August 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel and cross-over randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any type of pharmacological agent compared with active controls (e.g. other medications) or passive controls (e.g. placebo, no treatment or usual care) in adults with CSA as defined by the International Classification of Sleep Disorders 3rd Edition. We did not exclude studies based on the duration of intervention or follow-up. We excluded studies focusing on CSA due to periodic breathing at high altitudes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were central apnoea-hypopnoea index (cAHI), cardiovascular mortality and serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were quality of sleep, quality of life, daytime sleepiness, AHI, all-cause mortality, time to life-saving cardiovascular intervention, and non-serious adverse events. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included four cross-over RCTs and one parallel RCT, involving a total of 68 participants. Mean age ranged from 66 to 71.3 years and most participants were men. Four trials recruited people with CSA associated with heart failure, and one study included people with primary CSA. Types of pharmacological agents were acetazolamide (carbonic anhydrase inhibitor), buspirone (anxiolytic), theophylline (methylxanthine derivative) and triazolam (hypnotic), which were given for between three days and one week. Only the study on buspirone reported a formal evaluation of adverse events. These events were rare and mild. No studies reported serious adverse events, quality of sleep, quality of life, all-cause mortality, or time to life-saving cardiovascular intervention. Carbonic anhydrase inhibitors versus inactive control Results were from two studies of acetazolamide versus placebo (n = 12) and acetazolamide versus no acetazolamide (n = 18) for CSA associated with heart failure. One study reported short-term outcomes and the other reported intermediate-term outcomes. We are uncertain whether carbonic anhydrase inhibitors compared to inactive control reduce cAHI in the short term (mean difference (MD) -26.00 events per hour, 95% CI -43.84 to -8.16; 1 study, 12 participants; very low certainty). Similarly, we are uncertain whether carbonic anhydrase inhibitors compared to inactive control reduce AHI in the short term (MD -23.00 events per hour, 95% CI -37.70 to 8.30; 1 study, 12 participants; very low certainty) or in the intermediate term (MD -6.98 events per hour, 95% CI -10.66 to -3.30; 1 study, 18 participants; very low certainty). The effect of carbonic anhydrase inhibitors on cardiovascular mortality in the intermediate term was also uncertain (odds ratio (OR) 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.48; 1 study, 18 participants; very low certainty). Anxiolytics versus inactive control Results were based on one study of buspirone versus placebo for CSA associated with heart failure (n = 16). The median difference between groups for cAHI was -5.00 events per hour (IQR -8.00 to -0.50), the median difference for AHI was -6.00 events per hour (IQR -8.80 to -1.80), and the median difference on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale for daytime sleepiness was 0 points (IQR -1.0 to 0.00). Methylxanthine derivatives versus inactive control Results were based on one study of theophylline versus placebo for CSA associated with heart failure (n = 15). We are uncertain whether methylxanthine derivatives compared to inactive control reduce cAHI (MD -20.00 events per hour, 95% CI -32.15 to -7.85; 15 participants; very low certainty) or AHI (MD -19.00 events per hour, 95% CI -30.27 to -7.73; 15 participants; very low certainty). Hypnotics versus inactive control Results were based on one trial of triazolam versus placebo for primary CSA (n = 5). Due to very serious methodological limitations and insufficient reporting of outcome measures, we were unable to draw any conclusions regarding the effects of this intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support the use of pharmacological therapy in the treatment of CSA. Although small studies have reported positive effects of certain agents for CSA associated with heart failure in reducing the number of respiratory events during sleep, we were unable to assess whether this reduction may impact the quality of life of people with CSA, owing to scarce reporting of important clinical outcomes such as sleep quality or subjective impression of daytime sleepiness. Furthermore, the trials mostly had short-term follow-up. There is a need for high-quality trials that evaluate longer-term effects of pharmacological interventions.

Anticoagulants for people hospitalised with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The primary manifestation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is respiratory insufficiency that can also be related to diffuse pulmonary microthrombosis and thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, or arterial thrombosis. People with COVID-19 who develop thromboembolism have a worse prognosis. Anticoagulants such as heparinoids (heparins or pentasaccharides), vitamin K antagonists and direct anticoagulants are used for the prevention and treatment of venous or arterial thromboembolism. Besides their anticoagulant properties, heparinoids have an additional anti-inflammatory potential. However, the benefit of anticoagulants for people with COVID-19 is still under debate. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention in people hospitalised with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and IBECS databases, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and medRxiv preprint database from their inception to 14 April 2021. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified, and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cohort studies that compared prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention for the management of people hospitalised with COVID-19. We excluded studies without a comparator group and with a retrospective design (all previously included studies) as we were able to include better study designs. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and necessity for additional respiratory support. Secondary outcomes were mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, adverse events, length of hospital stay and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used Cochrane RoB 1 to assess the risk of bias for RCTs, ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias for non-randomised studies (NRS) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We meta-analysed data when appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies (16,185 participants) with participants hospitalised with COVID-19, in either intensive care units, hospital wards or emergency departments. Studies were from Brazil (2), Iran (1), Italy (1), and the USA (1), and two involved more than country. The mean age of participants was 55 to 68 years and the follow-up period ranged from 15 to 90 days. The studies assessed the effects of heparinoids, direct anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists, and reported sparse data or did not report some of our outcomes of interest: necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life. Higher-dose versus lower-dose anticoagulants (4 RCTs, 4647 participants) Higher-dose anticoagulants result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16, 4489 participants; 4 RCTs) and increase minor bleeding (RR 3.28, 95% CI 1.75 to 6.14, 1196 participants; 3 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (high-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants probably reduce pulmonary embolism (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70, 4360 participants; 4 RCTs), and slightly increase major bleeding (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.80, 4400 participants; 4 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in deep vein thrombosis (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.03, 3422 participants; 4 RCTs), stroke (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.03, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), major adverse limb events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99, 1176 participants; 2 RCTs), myocardial infarction (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.55, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), atrial fibrillation (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.70, 562 participants; 1 study), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.24, 2789 participants; 2 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether higher-dose anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Anticoagulants versus no treatment (3 prospective NRS, 11,538 participants) Anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence is very uncertain due to two study results being at critical and serious risk of bias (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.74, 8395 participants; 3 NRS; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, stroke, myocardial infarction and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Ongoing studies We found 62 ongoing studies in hospital settings (60 RCTs, 35,470 participants; 2 prospective NRS, 120 participants) in 20 different countries. Thirty-five ongoing studies plan to report mortality and 26 plan to report necessity for additional respiratory support. We expect 58 studies to be completed in December 2021, and four in July 2022. From 60 RCTs, 28 are comparing different doses of anticoagulants, 24 are comparing anticoagulants versus no anticoagulants, seven are comparing different types of anticoagulants, and one did not report detail of the comparator group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When compared to a lower-dose regimen, higher-dose anticoagulants result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality and increase minor bleeding in people hospitalised with COVID-19 up to 30 days. Higher-dose anticoagulants possibly reduce pulmonary embolism, slightly increase major bleeding, may result in little to no difference in hospitalisation time, and may result in little to no difference in deep vein thrombosis, stroke, major adverse limb events, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, or thrombocytopenia.  Compared with no treatment, anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence comes from non-randomised studies and is very uncertain. It is unclear whether anticoagulants have any effect on the remaining outcomes compared to no anticoagulants (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Although we are very confident that new RCTs will not change the effects of different doses of anticoagulants on mortality and minor bleeding, high-quality RCTs are still needed, mainly for the other primary outcome (necessity for additional respiratory support), the comparison with no anticoagulation, when comparing the types of anticoagulants and giving anticoagulants for a prolonged period of time.

Enzyme replacement therapy with galsulfase for mucopolysaccharidosis type VI.

BACKGROUND: Mucopolysaccharidosis type VI (MPS VI) or Maroteaux-Lamy syndrome is a rare genetic disorder caused by the deficiency of arylsulphatase B. The resultant accumulation of dermatan sulphate causes lysosomal damage. The clinical symptoms are related to skeletal dysplasia (i.e. short stature and degenerative joint disease). Other manifestations include cardiac disease, impaired pulmonary function, ophthalmological complications, hepatosplenomegaly, sinusitis, otitis, hearing loss and sleep apnea. Intellectual impairment is generally absent. Clinical manifestation is typically by two or three years of age; however, slowly progressive cases may not present until adulthood. Enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) with galsulfase is considered a new approach for treating MPS VI. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of treating MPS VI by ERT with galsulfase compared to other interventions, placebo or no intervention. SEARCH METHODS: Eletronic searches were performed on the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Inborn Errors of Metabolism Trials Register. Date of the latest search:  09 June 2021. Further searches of the following databases were also performed: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, the Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. Date of the latest search: 20 August 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled clinical studies of ERT with galsulfase compared to other interventions or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened the studies, assessed the risk of bias, extracted data and assessed the certainty of the the evidence using the GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: One study was included involving 39 participants who received either ERT with galsulfase (recombinant human arylsulphatase B) or placebo. This small study was considered overall to have an unclear risk of bias in relation to the design and implementation of the study, since the authors did not report how both the allocation generation and concealment were performed. Given the very low certainty of the evidence, we are uncertain whether at 24 weeks there was a difference between groups in relation to the 12-minute walk test, mean difference (MD) of 92.00 meters (95% confidence interval (CI) 11.00 to 172.00), or the three-minute stair climb, MD 5.70 (95% CI -0.10 to 11.50). In relation to respiratory tests, we are uncertain whether galsulfase makes any difference as compared to placebo in forced vital capacity in litres (FVC (L) (absolute change in baseline), given the very low certainty of the evidence. Cardiac function was not reported in the included study. We found that galsulfase, as compared to placebo, may decrease urinary glycosaminoglycan levels at 24 weeks, MD -227.00 (95% CI -264.00 to -190.00) (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether there are differences between the galsulfase and placebo groups in relation to adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). In general, the dose of galsulfase was well tolerated and there were no differences between groups. These events include drug-related adverse events, serious and severe adverse events, those during infusion, drug-related adverse events during infusion, and deaths. More infusion-related reactions were observed in the galsulfase group and were managed with interruption or slowing of infusion rate or administration of antihistamines or corticosteroids drugs. No deaths occurred during the study.   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review are based only on one small study (a 24-week randomised phase of the study and prior to the open-label extension). We are uncertain whether galsulfase is more effective than placebo, for treating people with MPS VI, in relation to the 12-minute walk test or the three-minute stair climb, as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low. We found that galsulfase may reduce urinary glycosaminoglycans levels. We are also uncertain whether there are any differences between treatment groups in relation to cardiac or pulmonary functions, liver or spleen volume, overnight apnea-hypopnea, height and weight, quality of life and adverse effects. Further studies are needed to obtain more information on the long-term effectiveness and safety of ERT with galsulfase.

Prophylactic anticoagulants for people hospitalised with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a serious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The primary manifestation is respiratory insufficiency that can also be related to diffuse pulmonary microthrombosis in people with COVID-19. This disease also causes thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis, arterial thrombosis, catheter thrombosis, and disseminated intravascular coagulopathy. Recent studies have indicated a worse prognosis for people with COVID-19 who developed thromboembolism. Anticoagulants are medications used in the prevention and treatment of venous or arterial thromboembolic events. Several drugs are used in the prophylaxis and treatment of thromboembolic events, such as heparinoids (heparins or pentasaccharides), vitamin K antagonists and direct anticoagulants. Besides their anticoagulant properties, heparinoids have an additional anti-inflammatory potential, that may affect the clinical evolution of people with COVID-19. Some practical guidelines address the use of anticoagulants for thromboprophylaxis in people with COVID-19, however, the benefit of anticoagulants for people with COVID-19 is still under debate. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention, on mortality and the need for respiratory support in people hospitalised with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and IBECS databases, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and medRxiv preprint database from their inception to 20 June 2020. We also checked reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cohort studies that compared prophylactic anticoagulants (heparin, vitamin K antagonists, direct anticoagulants, and pentasaccharides) versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention for the management of people hospitalised with COVID-19. We excluded studies without a comparator group. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and need for additional respiratory support. Secondary outcomes were mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, adverse events, length of hospital stay and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias for non-randomised studies (NRS) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We reported results narratively. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no RCTs or quasi-RCTs that met the inclusion criteria. We included seven retrospective NRS (5929 participants), three of which were available as preprints. Studies were conducted in China, Italy, Spain and the USA. All of the studies included people hospitalised with COVID-19, in either intensive care units, hospital wards or emergency departments. The mean age of participants (reported in 6 studies) ranged from 59 to 72 years. Only three included studies reported the follow-up period, which varied from 8 to 35 days. The studies did not report on most of our outcomes of interest: need for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, DVT, pulmonary embolism, adverse events, and quality of life. Anticoagulants (all types) versus no treatment (6 retrospective NRS, 5685 participants) One study reported a reduction in all-cause mortality (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.66; 2075 participants). One study reported a reduction in mortality only in a subgroup of 395 people who required mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.89). Three studies reported no differences in mortality (adjusted OR 1.64, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.92; 449 participants; unadjusted OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.76 to 3.64; 154 participants and adjusted risk ratio (RR) 1.15, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.57; 192 participants). One study reported zero events in both intervention groups (42 participants). The overall risk of bias for all-cause mortality was critical and the certainty of the evidence was very low. One NRS reported bleeding events in 3% of the intervention group and 1.9% of the control group (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.71; 2773 participants; low-certainty evidence). Therapeutic-dose anticoagulants versus prophylactic-dose anticoagulants (1 retrospective NRS, 244 participants) The study reported a reduction in all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.46) and a lower absolute rate of death in the therapeutic group (34.2% versus 53%). The overall risk of bias for all-cause mortality was serious and the certainty of the evidence was low. The study also reported bleeding events in 31.7% of the intervention group and 20.5% of the control group (OR 1.8, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.37; low-certainty evidence). Ongoing studies We found 22 ongoing studies in hospital settings (20 RCTs, 14,730 participants; 2 NRS, 997 participants) in 10 different countries (Australia (1), Brazil (1), Canada (2), China (3), France (2), Germany (1), Italy (4), Switzerland (1), UK (1) and USA (6)). Twelve ongoing studies plan to report mortality and six plan to report additional respiratory support. Thirteen studies are expected to be completed in December 2020 (6959 participants), eight in July 2021 (8512 participants), and one in December 2021 (256 participants). Four of the studies plan to include 1000 participants or more. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the risks and benefits of prophylactic anticoagulants for people hospitalised with COVID-19. Since there are 22 ongoing studies that plan to evaluate more than 15,000 participants in this setting, we will add more robust evidence to this review in future updates.

Calcium supplementation during pregnancy for preventing hypertensive disorders and related problems.

BACKGROUND: Pre-eclampsia and eclampsia are common causes of serious morbidity and death. Calcium supplementation may reduce the risk of pre-eclampsia, and may help to prevent preterm birth. This is an update of a review last published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of calcium supplementation during pregnancy on hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and related maternal and child outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (18 September 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised trials, comparing high-dose calcium supplementation (at least 1 g daily of calcium) during pregnancy with placebo. For low-dose calcium we included quasi-randomised trials, trials without placebo, trials with cointerventions and dose comparison trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two researchers independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Two researchers assessed the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 studies (18,064 women). We assessed the included studies as being at low risk of bias, although bias was frequently difficult to assess due to poor reporting and inadequate information on methods.High-dose calcium supplementation (≥ 1 g/day) versus placeboFourteen studies examined this comparison, however one study contributed no data. The 13 studies contributed data from 15,730 women to our meta-analyses. The average risk of high blood pressure (BP) was reduced with calcium supplementation compared with placebo (12 trials, 15,470 women: risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.81; I² = 74%). There was also a reduction in the risk of pre-eclampsia associated with calcium supplementation (13 trials, 15,730 women: average RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.65; I² = 70%; low-quality evidence). This effect was clear for women with low calcium diets (eight trials, 10,678 women: average RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.65; I² = 76%) but not those with adequate calcium diets. The effect appeared to be greater for women at higher risk of pre-eclampsia, though this may be due to small-study effects (five trials, 587 women: average RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.42). These data should be interpreted with caution because of the possibility of small-study effects or publication bias. In the largest trial, the reduction in pre-eclampsia was modest (8%) and the CI included the possibility of no effect.The composite outcome maternal death or serious morbidity was reduced with calcium supplementation (four trials, 9732 women; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98). Maternal deaths were no different (one trial of 8312 women: one death in the calcium group versus six in the placebo group). There was an anomalous increase in the risk of HELLP syndrome in the calcium group (two trials, 12,901 women: RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.05 to 6.82, high-quality evidence), however, the absolute number of events was low (16 versus six).The average risk of preterm birth was reduced in the calcium supplementation group (11 trials, 15,275 women: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.97; I² = 60%; low-quality evidence); this reduction was greatest amongst women at higher risk of developing pre-eclampsia (four trials, 568 women: average RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.83; I² = 60%). Again, these data should be interpreted with caution because of the possibility of small-study effects or publication bias. There was no clear effect on admission to neonatal intensive care. There was also no clear effect on the risk of stillbirth or infant death before discharge from hospital (11 trials, 15,665 babies: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.09).One study showed a reduction in childhood systolic BP greater than 95th percentile among children exposed to calcium supplementation in utero (514 children: RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.91). In a subset of these children, dental caries at 12 years old was also reduced (195 children, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.87).Low-dose calcium supplementation (< 1 g/day) versus placebo or no treatmentTwelve trials (2334 women) evaluated low-dose (usually 500 mg daily) supplementation with calcium alone (four trials) or in association with vitamin D (five trials), linoleic acid (two trials), or antioxidants (one trial). Most studies recruited women at high risk for pre-eclampsia, and were at high risk of bias, thus the results should be interpreted with caution. Supplementation with low doses of calcium reduced the risk of pre-eclampsia (nine trials, 2234 women: RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.52). There was also a reduction in high BP (five trials, 665 women: RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.74), admission to neonatal intensive care unit (one trial, 422 women, RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.99), but not preterm birth (six trials, 1290 women, average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.03), or stillbirth or death before discharge (five trials, 1025 babies, RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.67).High-dose (=/> 1 g) versus low-dose (< 1 g) calcium supplementationWe included one trial with 262 women, the results of which should be interpreted with caution due to unclear risk of bias. Risk of pre-eclampsia appeared to be reduced in the high-dose group (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.96). No other differences were found (preterm birth: RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.08; eclampsia: RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.53; stillbirth: RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.83). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High-dose calcium supplementation (≥ 1 g/day) may reduce the risk of pre-eclampsia and preterm birth, particularly for women with low calcium diets (low-quality evidence). The treatment effect may be overestimated due to small-study effects or publication bias. It reduces the occurrence of the composite outcome 'maternal death or serious morbidity', but not stillbirth or neonatal high care admission. There was an increased risk of HELLP syndrome with calcium supplementation, which was small in absolute numbers.The limited evidence on low-dose calcium supplementation suggests a reduction in pre-eclampsia, hypertension and admission to neonatal high care, but needs to be confirmed by larger, high-quality trials.

Physical Activity Interventions in Faith-Based Organizations: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To review and assess the effectiveness of physical activity interventions delivered in faith-based organizations. DATA SOURCE: We searched the Cochrane Library, DoPHER, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, WHO ICTRP, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases until January 2016, without restriction of language or publication date. STUDY INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials investigating physical activity interventions for adults delivered in faith-based organizations. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed study methodological quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: We used relative risk and mean difference with 95% confidence interval to estimate the effect of the interventions on measures of physical activity, physical fitness, and health. RESULTS: The review included 18 studies. Study participants were predominantly female, and the majority of trials were conducted in the United States. Study heterogeneity did not allow us to conduct meta-analyses. Although interventions delivered in faith-based organizations increased physical activity and positively influenced measures of health and fitness in participants, the quality of the evidence was very low. CONCLUSION: Faith-based organizations are promising settings to promote physical activity, consequently addressing health disparities. However, high-quality randomized clinical trials are needed to adequately assess the effectiveness of interventions delivered in faith-based organizations.

Is surgical debridement necessary in the diabetic foot treated with photodynamic therapy?

Background: Diabetic patients are susceptible to developing foot ulcers with serious complications such as osteomyelitis and amputations. Treatment approaches are still empirical and the benefit of usual procedures such as surgical debridement has not been properly evaluated. Photodynamic Therapy (PDT) is a non-invasive and highly efficient method for the treatment of the diabetic foot, being able to eradicate the infection and to stimulate healing, decreasing considerably the amputation risk. In the day-to-day practice of our service, we have been faced with the question whether debridement is necessary before PDT. In here, we designed a study to answer that question. Methods: Patients were divided in two groups: In one of the groups (n = 17), debridement was performed before PDT and in the other (n = 40) only PDT treatment was performed. PDT sessions were performed once a week in all patients until healing was achieved, as indicated by visual inspection as well as by radiographic and laboratory exams. At the start of the study, the two groups had no statistical differences concerning their clinical features: average age, gender, insulin use, diabetes mellitus onset time and previous amputations. Results: PDT was effective in the treatment of 100% of the patients showing no relapses after one year of follow up. The group submitted to PDT without previous debridement had a statistically significant (p = 0.036, Mann-Whitney) shorter cure time (29 days, ~27%). Conclusion: Our data indicates that debridement is not necessary in the treatment of diabetic foot in patients that have enough peripheral arterial perfusion. In addition, we reproduced previous studies confirming that PDT is an efficient, safe, simple and affordable treatment method for the diabetic foot.

Effectiveness and safety of procalcitonin evaluation for reducing mortality in adults with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock.

BACKGROUND: Serum procalcitonin (PCT) evaluation has been proposed for early diagnosis and accurate staging and to guide decisions regarding patients with sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock, with possible reduction in mortality. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of serum PCT evaluation for reducing mortality and duration of antimicrobial therapy in adults with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 7); MEDLINE (1950 to July 2015); Embase (Ovid SP, 1980 to July 2015); Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS via BIREME, 1982 to July 2015); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; EBSCO host, 1982 to July 2015), and trial registers (ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov and CenterWatch, to July 2015). We reran the search in October 2016. We added three studies of interest to a list of 'Studies awaiting classification' and will incorporate these into formal review findings during the review update. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing PCT-guided decisions in at least one of the comparison arms for adults (≥ 18 years old) with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock, according to international definitions and irrespective of the setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted study data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. We conducted meta-analysis with random-effects models for the following primary outcomes: mortality and time spent receiving antimicrobial therapy in hospital and in the intensive care unit (ICU), as well as time spent on mechanical ventilation and change in antimicrobial regimen from a broad to a narrower spectrum. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 trials with 1215 participants. Low-quality evidence showed no significant differences in mortality at longest follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.01; I2 = 10%; 10 trials; N = 1156), at 28 days (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; four trials; N = 316), at ICU discharge (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.11; I2 = 49%; three trials; N = 506) and at hospital discharge (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.27; I2 = 0%; seven trials; N = 805; moderate-quality evidence). However, mean time receiving antimicrobial therapy in the intervention groups was -1.28 days (95% CI to -1.95 to -0.61; I2 = 86%; four trials; N = 313; very low-quality evidence). No primary study has analysed the change in antimicrobial regimen from a broad to a narrower spectrum. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Up-to-date evidence of very low to moderate quality, with insufficient sample power per outcome, does not clearly support the use of procalcitonin-guided antimicrobial therapy to minimize mortality, mechanical ventilation, clinical severity, reinfection or duration of antimicrobial therapy of patients with septic conditions.

Nipple- and areola-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy and areola-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer are still questionable. It is estimated that the local recurrence rates following nipple-sparing mastectomy are very similar to breast-conserving surgery followed by radiotherapy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy and areola-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer in women. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (via OVID) and LILACS (via Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde [BVS]) using the search terms "nipple sparing mastectomy" and "areola-sparing mastectomy". Also, we searched the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. All searches were conducted on 30th September 2014 and we did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) however if there were no RCTs, we expanded our criteria to include non-randomised comparative studies (cohort and case-control studies). Studies evaluated nipple-sparing and areola-sparing mastectomy compared to modified radical mastectomy or skin-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (BS and RR) performed data extraction and resolved disagreements. We performed descriptive analyses and meta-analyses of the data using Review Manager software. We used Cochrane's risk of bias tool to assess studies, and adapted it for non-randomised studies, and we evaluated the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 cohort studies, evaluating a total of 6502 participants undergoing 7018 procedures: 2529 underwent a nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), 818 underwent skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) and 3671 underwent traditional mastectomy, also known as modified radical mastectomy (MRM). No participants underwent areola-sparing mastectomy. There was a high risk of confounding for all reported outcomes. For overall survival, the hazard ratio (HR) for NSM compared to SSM was 0.70 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.73; 2 studies; 781 participants) and the HR for NSM compared to MRM was 0.72 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.13; 2 studies, 1202 participants). Local recurrence was evaluated in two studies, the HR for NSM compared to MRM was 0.28 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.68; 2 studies, 1303 participants). The overall risk of complications was different in NSM when compared to other types of mastectomy in general (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82, 2 studies, P = 0.03; 1067 participants). With respect to skin necrosis, there was no evidence of a difference with NSM compared to other types of mastectomy, but the confidence interval was wide (RR 4.22, 95% CI 0.59 to 30.03, P = 0.15; 4 studies, 1948 participants). We observed no difference among the three types of mastectomy with respect to the risk of local infection (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.09, P = 0.91, 2 studies; 496 participants). Meta-analysis was not possible when assessing cosmetic outcomes and quality of life, but in general the NSM studies reported a favourable aesthetic result and a gain in quality of life compared with the other types of mastectomy. The quality of evidence was considered very low for all outcomes due to the high risk of selection bias and wide confidence intervals. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings from these observational studies of very low-quality evidence were inconclusive for all outcomes due to the high risk of selection bias.

Statins for aortic valve stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Aortic valve stenosis is the most common type of valvular heart disease in the USA and Europe. Aortic valve stenosis is considered similar to atherosclerotic disease. Some studies have evaluated statins for aortic valve stenosis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of statins in aortic valve stenosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS - IBECS, Web of Science and CINAHL Plus. These databases were searched from their inception to 24 November 2015. We also searched trials in registers for ongoing trials. We used no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing statins alone or in association with other systemic drugs to reduce cholesterol levels versus placebo or usual care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcomes were severity of aortic valve stenosis (evaluated by echocardiographic criteria: mean pressure gradient, valve area and aortic jet velocity), freedom from valve replacement and death from cardiovascular cause. Secondary outcomes were hospitalisation for any reason, overall mortality, adverse events and patient quality of life.Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The GRADE methodology was employed to assess the quality of result findings and the GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager 5.3 to create a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs with 2360 participants comparing statins (1185 participants) with placebo (1175 participants). We found low-quality evidence for our primary outcome of severity of aortic valve stenosis, evaluated by mean pressure gradient (mean difference (MD) -0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.88 to 0.80; participants = 1935; studies = 2), valve area (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.14; participants = 127; studies = 2), and aortic jet velocity (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.14; participants = 155; study = 1). Moderate-quality evidence showed no effect on freedom from valve replacement with statins (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06; participants = 2360; studies = 4), and no effect on muscle pain as an adverse event (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.09; participants = 2204; studies = 3; moderate-quality evidence). Low- and very low-quality evidence showed uncertainty around the effect of statins on death from cardiovascular cause (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.15; participants = 2297; studies = 3; low-quality evidence) and hospitalisation for any reason (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.84; participants = 155; study = 1; very low-quality evidence). None of the four included studies reported on overall mortality and patient quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Result findings showed uncertainty surrounding the effect of statins for aortic valve stenosis.The quality of evidence from the reported outcomes ranged from moderate to very low. These results give support to European and USA guidelines (2012 and 2014, respectively) that so far there is no clinical treatment option for aortic valve stenosis.

Enzyme replacement therapy with galsulfase for mucopolysaccharidosis type VI.

BACKGROUND: Mucopolysaccharidosis type VI or Maroteaux-Lamy syndrome is a rare genetic disorder caused by the deficiency of arylsulphatase B. The resultant accumulation of dermatan sulphate causes lysosomal damage.The clinical symptoms are related to skeletal dysplasia (i.e. short stature and degenerative joint disease). Other manifestations include cardiac disease, impaired pulmonary function, ophthalmological complications, hepatosplenomegaly, sinusitis, otitis, hearing loss and sleep apnea. Intellectual impairment is generally absent. Clinical manifestation is typically by two or three years of age; however, slowly progressive cases may not present until adulthood.Enzyme replacement therapy with galsulfase is considered a new approach for treating mucopolysaccharidosis type VI. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of treating mucopolysaccharidosis VI by enzyme replacement therapy with galsulfase compared to other interventions, placebo or no intervention. SEARCH METHODS: Eletronic searches were performed on the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Inborn Errors of Metabolism Trials Register, in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, the Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease and ClinicalTrials.gov. Date of the last search of the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Inborn Errors of Metabolism Trials Register: 05 February 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled clinical studies of enzyme replacement therapy with galsulfase compared to other interventions or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened the studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: One study was included involving 39 participants who received either enzyme replacement therapy with galsulfase (recombinant human arylsulphatase B) or placebo. This small study was considered to be of overall unclear quality, since the authors did not report how both the allocation generation and concealment were performed.The key finding at 24 weeks in the 12-minute walk test was a statistically significant mean difference of 92.00 meters between the two groups in favour of the galsulfase group (95% confidence interval 11.00 to 172.00). While week 24 results for the three-minute stair climb demonstrated some improvement in the treatment group as compared to the placebo group, this was not significant, mean difference 5.70 (95% confidence interval -0.10 to 11.50).A significant decrease in the urinary glycosaminoglycan levels was observed in favour of the galsulfase group at 24 weeks, mean difference -227.00 (95% confidence interval -264.00 to -190.00).In general, the dose of galsulfase was well tolerated and there were no significant differences in relation to adverse events. These events include drug-related adverse events, serious and severe adverse events, those during infusion, drug-related adverse events during infusion, and deaths. More infusion-related reactions were observed in the galsulfase group and were managed with interruption or slowing of infusion rate or administration of antihistamines or corticosteroids drugs. No deaths occurred during the study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of one small study (based on 24-week randomised phase of the study and prior to the open-label extension) demonstrated that galsulfase is more effective than placebo in people with MPS VI, with significant improvements in the 12-minute walk test and a reduction in urinary glycosaminoglycans.There were no significant changes in cardiac or pulmonary functions, liver or spleen volume, overnight apnea-hypopnea, height and weight, quality of life and adverse effects.Further studies are needed to obtain more information on the long-term effectiveness and safety of enzyme replacement therapy with galsulfase.

Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation for acute respiratory failure following upper abdominal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Each year, more than four million abdominal surgeries are performed in the US and over 250,000 in England. Acute respiratory failure, a common complication that can affect 30% to 50% of people after upper abdominal surgery, can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Noninvasive ventilation has been associated with lower rates of tracheal intubation in adults with acute respiratory failure, thus reducing the incidence of complications and mortality. This review compared the effectiveness and safety of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) versus standard oxygen therapy in the treatment of acute respiratory failure after upper abdominal surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV), that is, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or bilevel NPPV, in reducing mortality and the rate of tracheal intubation in adults with acute respiratory failure after upper abdominal surgery, compared to standard therapy (oxygen therapy), and to assess changes in arterial blood gas levels, hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, gastric insufflation, and anastomotic leakage. SEARCH METHODS: The date of the last search was 12 May 2015. We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 5), MEDLINE (Ovid SP, 1966 to May 2015), EMBASE (Ovid SP, 1974 to May 2015); the physiotherapy evidence database (PEDro) (1999 to May 2015); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL, EBSCOhost, 1982 to May 2015), and LILACS (BIREME, 1986 to May 2015). We reviewed reference lists of included studies and contacted experts. We also searched grey literature sources. We checked databases of ongoing trials such as www.controlled-trials.com/ and www.trialscentral.org/. We did not apply language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials involving adults with acute respiratory failure after upper abdominal surgery who were treated with CPAP or bilevel NPPV with, or without, drug therapy as standard medical care, compared to adults treated with oxygen therapy with, or without, standard medical care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected and abstracted data from eligible studies using a standardized form. We evaluated study quality by assessing allocation concealment; random sequence generation; incomplete outcome data; blinding of participants, personnel, and outcome assessors; selective reporting; and adherence to the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. MAIN RESULTS: We included two trials involving 269 participants. The participants were mostly men (67%); the mean age was 65 years. The trials were conducted in China and Italy (one was a multicentre trial). Both trials included adults with acute respiratory failure after upper abdominal surgery. We judged both trials at high risk of bias. Compared to oxygen therapy, CPAP or bilevel NPPV may reduce the rate of tracheal intubation (risk ratio (RR) 0.25; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.83; low quality evidence) with a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome of 11. There was very low quality evidence that the intervention may also reduce ICU length of stay (mean difference (MD) -1.84 days; 95% CI -3.53 to -0.15). We found no differences for mortality (low quality evidence) and hospital length of stay. There was insufficient evidence to be certain that CPAP or NPPV had an effect on anastomotic leakage, pneumonia-related complications, and sepsis or infections. Findings from one trial of 60 participants suggested that bilevel NPPV, compared to oxygen therapy, may improve blood gas levels and blood pH one hour after the intervention (partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2): MD 22.5 mm Hg; 95% CI 17.19 to 27.81; pH: MD 0.06; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.11; partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PCO2) levels (MD -9.8 mm Hg; 95% CI -14.07 to -5.53). The trials included in this systematic review did not present data on the following outcomes that we intended to assess: gastric insufflation, fistulae, pneumothorax, bleeding, skin breakdown, eye irritation, sinus congestion, oronasal drying, and patient-ventilator asynchrony. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review indicate that CPAP or bilevel NPPV is an effective and safe intervention for the treatment of adults with acute respiratory failure after upper abdominal surgery. However, based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, the quality of the evidence was low or very low. More good quality studies are needed to confirm these findings.

FDAAA legislation is working, but methodological flaws undermine the reliability of clinical trials: a cross-sectional study.

The relationship between clinical research and the pharmaceutical industry has placed clinical trials in jeopardy. According to the medical literature, more than 70% of clinical trials are industry-funded. Many of these trials remain unpublished or have methodological flaws that distort their results. In 2007, it was signed into law the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA), aiming to provide publicly access to a broad range of biomedical information to be made available on the platform ClinicalTrials (available at https://www.clinicaltrials.gov). We accessed ClinicalTrials.gov and evaluated the compliance of researchers and sponsors with the FDAAA. Our sample comprised 243 protocols of clinical trials of biological monoclonal antibodies (mAb) adalimumab, bevacizumab, infliximab, rituximab, and trastuzumab. We demonstrate that the new legislation has positively affected transparency patterns in clinical research, through a significant increase in publication and online reporting rates after the enactment of the law. Poorly designed trials, however, remain a challenge to be overcome, due to a high prevalence of methodological flaws. These flaws affect the quality of clinical information available, breaching ethical duties of sponsors and researchers, as well as the human right to health.

Metoclopramide for post-pyloric placement of naso-enteral feeding tubes.

BACKGROUND: Enteral nutrition by feeding tube is a common and efficient method of providing nutritional support to prevent malnutrition in hospitalised patients who have adequate gastrointestinal function but who are unable to eat. Gastric feeding may be associated with higher rates of food aspiration and pneumonia than post-pyloric naso-enteral tubes. Thus, enteral feeding tubes are placed directly into the small intestine rather than the stomach, and the use of metoclopramide, a prokinetic agent, has been recommended to achieve post-pyloric placement, but its efficacy is controversial. Moreover, metoclopramide may include adverse reactions, which with high doses or prolonged use may be serious and irreversible. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of intravenous metoclopramide on post-pyloric placement of the naso-enteral tube in adults. SEARCH METHODS: Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 10) which includes the CUGPD group's specialised register of trials, MEDLINE (1996 to 21 October 2014), EMBASE (1988 to 21 October 2014), LILACS (2005 to 21 October 2014)   We did not confine our search to English language publications. Searches in all databases were updated originally in January 2005, then in November 2008 and again in October 2014. No new studies were found in 2008 or in 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials of adults needing enteral nutrition, who received intravenous or intramuscular metoclopramide to aid placement of transpyloric naso-enteral feeding tubes, compared to placebo or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat method. We present risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: Four studies, with a total of 204 participants were included and analysed. The trials compared metoclopramide with placebo (two trials) or with no intervention (two trials). Metoclopramide was investigated at doses of 10 mg (two trials) and 20 mg (two trials). There was no statistically significant difference between metoclopramide versus placebo or no intervention administered to promote tube placement (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.10). Metoclopramide at doses of 10 mg (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.11) and 20 mg (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.62) were equally ineffective in facilitating post-pyloric intubation when compared with placebo or no intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this review, we found only four studies that fitted our inclusion criteria. These were small, underpowered studies, in which metoclopramide was given at doses of 10 mg and 20 mg. Our analysis showed that metoclopramide did not assist post-pyloric placement of naso-enteral feeding tubes.Ideally randomised clinical trials should be performed that have a significant sample size, administering metoclopramide against control, however, given the lack of efficacy revealed by this review it is unlikely that further studies will be performed.

Early versus late tracheostomy for critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Long-term mechanical ventilation is the most common situation for which tracheostomy is indicated for patients in intensive care units (ICUs). 'Early' and 'late' tracheostomies are two categories of the timing of tracheostomy. Evidence on the advantages attributed to early versus late tracheostomy is somewhat conflicting but includes shorter hospital stays and lower mortality rates. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of early (≤ 10 days after tracheal intubation) versus late tracheostomy (> 10 days after tracheal intubation) in critically ill adults predicted to be on prolonged mechanical ventilation with different clinical conditions. SEARCH METHODS: This is an update of a review last published in 2012 (Issue 3, The Cochrane Library) with previous searches run in December 2010. In this version, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 8); MEDLINE (via PubMed) (1966 to August 2013); EMBASE (via Ovid) (1974 to August 2013); LILACS (1986 to August 2013); PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) at www.pedro.fhs.usyd.edu.au (1999 to August 2013) and CINAHL (1982 to August 2013). We reran the search in October 2014 and will deal with any studies of interest when we update the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials (RCTs or QRCTs) comparing early tracheostomy (two to 10 days after intubation) against late tracheostomy (> 10 days after intubation) for critically ill adult patients expected to be on prolonged mechanical ventilation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data and conducted a quality assessment. Meta-analyses with random-effects models were conducted for mortality, time spent on mechanical ventilation and time spent in the ICU. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs (N = 1977 participants). At the longest follow-up time available in these studies, evidence of moderate quality from seven RCTs (n = 1903) showed lower mortality rates in the early as compared with the late tracheostomy group (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 0.98; P value 0.03; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) ≅ 11). Divergent results were reported on the time spent on mechanical ventilation and no differences were noted for pneumonia, but the probability of discharge from the ICU was higher at day 28 in the early tracheostomy group (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.55; P value 0.006; NNTB ≅ 8). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The whole findings of this systematic review are no more than suggestive of the superiority of early over late tracheostomy because no information of high quality is available for specific subgroups with particular characteristics.

Beta-blockers for preventing stroke recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Stroke affects 15 million people per year worldwide. Despite recent developments in acute stroke treatment, prevention remains very important. Stroke has a high rate of recurrence; therefore secondary prevention is also important. Many clinical approaches to control risk factors have been proposed. One of these approaches is the prescription of beta-blockers that have effects beyond the reduction of blood pressure, which can reduce the recurrence of stroke. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of beta-blockers for preventing stroke recurrence and for reducing death and major vascular events in people with a previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA), and to determine their safety, particularly with regard to the development of diabetes mellitus. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (May 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 5), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (May 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2014), EMBASE (1980 to May 2014), and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to May 2014). We also searched ongoing trials registers and reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included participants with previous stroke or TIA due to arterial thrombosis or embolism. The intervention was any beta-blocker versus control, or beta-blocker plus other treatment versus other treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the trials identified, appraised quality, and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs involving 2193 participants in the review. Both studies randomised participants to either beta-blocker (atenolol 5 mg) or placebo and were of a high methodological quality. We noted no statistical differences among the groups in risks of fatal and non-fatal stroke (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.18). For other outcomes analysed (major vascular events, death from all causes, death from cardiovascular causes) , we observed no significant differences between the groups. There were minor blood pressure reductions in the intervention group. Neither of the included studies reported the occurrence of diabetes among their outcomes or assessed quality of life. Adverse events were significantly more frequent in participants taking atenolol than in those given placebo, and were the most common reason given for discontinuing treatment (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.35). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: To date, no available evidence supports the routine use of beta-blockers for secondary prevention after stroke or TIA. More studies with larger samples are needed.