Safety of acupuncture in oncology: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Acupuncture is frequently used to treat the side effects of cancer treatment, but the safety of this intervention remains uncertain. The current meta-analysis was conducted to assess the safety of acupuncture in oncological patients. METHODS: The PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus databases were searched from their inception to August 7, 2020. Randomized controlled trials in oncological patients comparing invasive acupuncture with sham acupuncture, treatment as usual (TAU), or any other active control were eligible. Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characteristics and adverse events (AEs). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. RESULTS: Of 4590 screened articles, 65 were included in the analyses. The authors observed that acupuncture was not associated an with increased risk of intervention-related AEs, nonserious AEs, serious AEs, or dropout because of AEs compared with sham acupuncture and an active control. Compared with TAU, acupuncture was not associated with an increased risk of intervention-related AEs, serious AEs, or drop out because of AEs but was associated with an increased risk for nonserious AEs (odds ratio, 3.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-13.35; P = .03). However, the increased risk of nonserious AEs compared with TAU was not robust against selection bias. The meta-analyses may have been biased because of the insufficient reporting of AEs in the original randomized controlled trials. CONCLUSIONS: The current review indicates that acupuncture is as safe as sham acupuncture and active controls in oncological patients. The authors recommend researchers heed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) safety and harm extension for reporting to capture the side effects and better investigate the risk profile of acupuncture in oncology. LAY SUMMARY: According to this analysis, acupuncture is a safe therapy for the treatment of patients with cancer. Acupuncture seems to be safe compared with sham acupuncture and active controls.

Haloperidol discontinuation for people with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia is a disabling serious mental illness that can be chronic. Haloperidol, one of the first generation of antipsychotic drugs, is effective in the treatment of schizophrenia but can have adverse side effects. The effects of stopping haloperidol in people with schizophrenia who are stable on their prescription are not well researched in the context of systematic reviews. OBJECTIVES: To review the effects of haloperidol discontinuation in people with schizophrenia who are stable on haloperidol. SEARCH METHODS: On 20 February 2015, 24 May 2017, and 12 January 2019, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials including trial registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included clinical trials randomising adults with schizophrenia or related disorders who were receiving haloperidol, and were stable. We included trials that randomised such participants to either continue their current treatment with haloperidol or discontinue their haloperidol treatment. We included trials that met our selection criteria and reported usable data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently checked all records retrieved from the search and obtained full reports of relevant records for closer inspection. We extracted data from included studies independently. All usable data were dichotomous, and we calculated relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) using a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias within the included studies and used GRADE to create a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included five randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 232 participants comparing haloperidol discontinuation with haloperidol continuation. Discontinuation was achieved in all five studies by replacing haloperidol with placebo. The trials' size ranged between 23 and 87 participants. The methods of randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding were poorly reported.Participants allocated to discontinuing haloperidol treatment were more likely to show no improvement in global state compared with those in the haloperidol continuation group (n = 49; 1 RCT; RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.20; very low quality evidence: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited due to relevant methodological shortcomings of included trials). Those who continued haloperidol treatment were less likely to experience a relapse compared to people who discontinued taking haloperidol (n = 165; 4 RCTs; RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.74; very low quality evidence). Satisfaction with treatment (measured as numbers leaving the study early) was similar between groups (n = 43; 1 RCT; RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.28; very low quality evidence).No usable mental state, general functioning, general behaviour or adverse effect data were reported by any of the trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides limited evidence derived from small, short-term studies. The longest study was for one year, making it difficult to generalise the results to a life-long disorder. Very low quality evidence shows that discontinuation of haloperidol is associated with an increased risk of relapse and a reduction in the risk of 'global state improvement'. However, participant satisfaction with haloperidol treatment was not different from participant satisfaction with haloperidol discontinuation as measured by leaving the studies early. Due to the very low quality of these results, firm conclusions cannot be made. In addition, the available studies did not report usable data regarding the adverse effects of haloperidol treatment.Considering that haloperidol is one of the most widely used antipsychotic drugs, it was surprising that only a small number of studies into the benefit and harm of haloperidol discontinuation were available. Moreover, the available studies did not report on outcomes that are important to clinicians and to people with schizophrenia, particularly adverse effects and social outcomes. Better designed trials are warranted.

Perioperative Liver Function after Hepatectomy in a Tertiary University Hospital in Damascus

Background: Liver resection is the only viable therapeutic treatment option for several neoplastic entities of the liver. Although, the number of resectable patients is increasing in Syria, liver failure is still a major complication affecting mortality and morbidity rates. Methods: Between 2009 and 2016, 104 patients undergoing liver resection in Damascus University Faculty of Medicine were retrospectively analyzed. Liver function tests were conducted before surgery (ps) and in the perioperative period (po) and comparisons were performed with division into anatomic VS non-anatomic or malignant VS non-malignant groups. Results: Liver synthetic, excretory and detoxifying functions deteriorated after liver resection (INR ps 'presurgery'=1.129 po 'perioperative'=1.426 P<0.001, TP ps=7.426 po=5.581 P<0.001, ALB ps=4.204 po=3.242 P<0.001, T-Bill ps=0.061 po=0.136 P<0.001) and liver cell necrosis increased after resection (ALT ps=27.597 po=200.221 P<0.001, AST ps=33.395 po=190.553 P<0.001). There was no significant difference in liver functions when we compared anatomic VS non-anatomic groups or malignant VS non-malignant groups, but liver cell necrosis was higher with malignancies (ALT malignant group=236.475 non-malignant group=89.5 P=0.002, AST malignant group=222.644 non-malignant group=101.125 P=0.001). Conclusion: Although liver resection affects liver function significantly, no differences in outcomes were found between anatomic VS non anatomic or malignant VS non-malignant groups.