Household interventions for preventing domestic lead exposure in children.

BACKGROUND: Lead poisoning is associated with physical, cognitive and neurobehavioural impairment in children and trials have tested many household interventions to prevent lead exposure. This is an update of the original review by the same authors first published in 2008. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of household interventions in preventing or reducing lead exposure in children as measured by reductions in blood lead levels and/or improvements in cognitive development. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials through electronic searches of CENTRAL (2012, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1948 to January Week 1 2012), EMBASE (1980 to Week 2 2012), CINAHL (1937 to January 2012), PsycINFO (1887 to January Week 2 2012), ERIC (1966 to January 2012), Sociological Abstracts (1952 to January 2012), Science Citation Index (1970 to 20 January 2012), ZETOC (20 January 2012), LILACS (20 January 2012), Dissertation Abstracts (late 1960s to January 2012), ClinicalTrials.gov (19 January 2012), Current Controlled Trials (19 January 2012), Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (19 January 2012) and the National Research Register Archive. We also contacted experts to find unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of household educational or environmental interventions to prevent lead exposure in children where at least one standardised outcome measure was reported. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently reviewed all eligible studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted trialists to obtain missing information. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies (involving 2656 children). All studies reported blood lead level outcomes and none reported on cognitive or neurobehavioural outcomes. We put studies into subgroups according to their intervention type. We performed meta-analysis of both continuous and dichotomous data for subgroups where appropriate. Educational interventions were not effective in reducing blood lead levels (continuous: mean difference (MD) 0.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.09 to 0.12, I(2) = 0 (log transformed); dichotomous ≥ 10µg/dL (≥ 0.48 µmol/L): relative risk (RR) 1.02, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.30, I(2)=0; dichotomous ≥ 15µg/dL (≥ 0.72 µmol/L): RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.09, I(2) = 0). Meta-analysis for the dust control subgroup also found no evidence of effectiveness (continuous: MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.11, I(2) = 0.9 (log transformed); dichotomous ≥ 10µg/dL (≥ 0.48 µmol/L): RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.18, I(2) =0; dichotomous ≥ 15µg/dL (≥ 0.72 µmol/L): RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.07, I(2) = 0.56). When meta-analysis for the dust control subgroup was adjusted for clustering, no statistical significant benefit was incurred. The studies using soil abatement (removal and replacement) and combination intervention groups were not able to be meta-analysed due to substantial differences between studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on current knowledge, household educational or dust control interventions are ineffective in reducing blood lead levels in children as a population health measure. There is currently insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of soil abatement or combination interventions.Further trials are required to establish the most effective intervention for prevention of lead exposure. Key elements of these trials should include strategies to reduce multiple sources of lead exposure simultaneously using empirical dust clearance levels. It is also necessary for trials to be carried out in developing countries and in differing socioeconomic groups in developed countries.

Household interventions for preventing domestic lead exposure in children.

BACKGROUND: Lead poisoning is associated with physical, cognitive and neurobehavioural impairment in children and trials have tested many household interventions to prevent lead exposure. This is an update of the original review by the same authors first published in 2008. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of household interventions in preventing or reducing lead exposure in children as measured by reductions in blood lead levels and/or improvements in cognitive development. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials through electronic searches of CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1948 to April Week 1 2012), EMBASE (1980 to 2012 Week 2), CINAHL (1937 to 20 Jan 2012), PsycINFO (1887 to Dec week 2 2011), ERIC (1966 to 17 Jan 2012), Sociological Abstracts (1952 to 20 January 2012), Science Citation Index (1970 to 20 Jan 2012), ZETOC (20 Jan 2012), LILACS (20 Jan 2012), Dissertation Abstracts (late 1960s to Jan 2012), ClinicalTrials.gov (20 Jan 2012), Current Controlled Trials (Jan 2012), Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (Jan 2012) and the National Research Register Archive. We also contacted experts to find unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of household educational or environmental interventions to prevent lead exposure in children where at least one standardised outcome measure was reported. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently reviewed all eligible studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted trialists to obtain missing information. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies (involving 2656 children). All studies reported blood lead level outcomes and none reported on cognitive or neurobehavioural outcomes. We put studies into subgroups according to their intervention type. We performed meta-analysis of both continuous and dichotomous data for subgroups where appropriate. Educational interventions were not effective in reducing blood lead levels (continuous: mean difference (MD) 0.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.09 to 0.12, I(2) = 0 (log transformed); dichotomous ≥ 10µg/dL (≥ 0.48 µmol/L): relative risk (RR) 1.02, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.30, I(2)=0; dichotomous ≥ 15µg/dL (≥ 0.72 µmol/L): RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.09, I(2) = 0). Meta-analysis for the dust control subgroup also found no evidence of effectiveness (continuous: MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.11, I(2) = 0.9 (log transformed); dichotomous ≥ 10µg/dL (≥ 0.48 µmol/L): RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.18, I(2) =0; dichotomous ≥ 15µg/dL (≥ 0.72 µmol/L): RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.07, I(2) = 0.56). When meta-analysis for the dust control subgroup was adjusted for clustering, no statistical significant benefit was incurred. The studies using soil abatement (removal and replacement) and combination intervention groups were not able to be meta-analysed due to substantial differences between studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on current knowledge, household educational or dust control interventions are ineffective in reducing blood lead levels in children as a population health measure. There is currently insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of soil abatement or combination interventions.Further trials are required to establish the most effective intervention for prevention of lead exposure. Key elements of these trials should include strategies to reduce multiple sources of lead exposure simultaneously using empirical dust clearance levels. It is also necessary for trials to be carried out in developing countries and in differing socioeconomic groups in developed countries.

Interventions for haemolytic uraemic syndrome and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura.

BACKGROUND: Haemolytic uraemic syndrome (HUS) and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) are related conditions with similar clinical features of variable severity. Survival of patients with HUS and TTP has improved greatly over the past two decades with improved supportive care for patients with HUS and by the use of plasma exchange (PE) with fresh frozen plasma (FFP) for patients with TTP. Separate pathogenesis of these two disorders has become more evident, but management overlaps. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of different interventions for HUS and TTP separately, in patients of all ages. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), conference proceedings, reference lists of articles and text books and contact with investigators were used to identify relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating any interventions for HUS or TTP in patients of all ages. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently extracted data and evaluated study reporting quality using standard Cochrane criteria. Analysis was undertaken using a random effects model and results expressed as risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: For TTP, we found six RCTs (331 participants) evaluating PE with FFP as the control. Interventions tested included antiplatelet therapy (APT) plus PE with FFP, FFP transfusion and PE with cryosupernatant plasma (CSP). Two studies compared plasma infusion (PI) to PE with FFP and showed a significant increase in failure of remission at two weeks (RR 1.48, 95% 1.12 to 1.96) and all-cause mortality (RR 1.91, 95% 1.09 to 3.33) in the PI group. Seven RCTs were undertaken in children with HUS. None of the assessed interventions used (FFP transfusion, heparin with or without urokinase or dipyridamole, shiga toxin binding protein and steroids) were superior to supportive therapy alone, for all-cause mortality, neurological/extrarenal events, renal biopsy changes, proteinuria or hypertension at the last follow-up visit. Bleeding was significantly higher in those receiving anticoagulation therapy compared to supportive therapy alone (RR 25.89, 95% CI 3.67 to 182.83). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: PE with FFP is still the most effective treatment available for TTP. For patients with HUS, supportive therapy including dialysis is still the most effective treatment. All studies in HUS have been conducted in the diarrhoeal form of the disease. There were no RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of any interventions on patients with atypical HUS who have a more chronic and relapsing course.