Heparin versus 0.9% sodium chloride locking for prevention of occlusion in central venous catheters in adults.

BACKGROUND: Intermittent locking of central venous catheters (CVCs) is undertaken to help maintain their patency and performance. There are systematic variations in care: some practitioners use heparin (at different concentrations), whilst others use 0.9% sodium chloride (normal saline). This review looks at the effectiveness and safety of intermittent locking with heparin compared to normal saline, to see if the evidence establishes whether one is better than the other. This is an update of an earlier Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of intermittent locking of CVCs with heparin versus normal saline in adults to prevent occlusion. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 20 October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials in adults ≥ 18 years of age with a CVC that compared intermittent locking with heparin at any concentration versus normal saline. We excluded studies on infants and children from this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were occlusion of CVCs and duration of catheter patency. Our secondary outcomes were CVC-related bloodstream infections and CVC-related colonisation, mortality, haemorrhage, heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia, CVC-related thrombosis, number of additional CVC insertions, abnormality of coagulation profile and allergic reactions to heparin. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one new RCT with 30 participants for this update. We included a total of 12 RCTs with 2422 participants. Data for meta-analysis were available from all RCTs. We noted differences in methods used by the included studies and variation in heparin concentrations (10 to 5000 IU/mL), time to follow-up (1 to 251.8 days), and the unit of analysis used (participant, catheter, line access). Five studies included ICU (intensive care unit) patients, two studies included oncology patients, and the remaining studies included miscellaneous patients (chronic kidney disease, haemodialysis, home care patients, etc.). Primary outcomes Overall, combined results may show fewer occlusions with heparin compared to normal saline but this is uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.95; 10 studies; 1672 participants; low-certainty evidence). We pooled studies that used participant or catheter as the unit of analysis. We carried out subgroup analysis by unit of analysis. No clear differences were detected after testing for subgroup differences (P = 0.23). We found no clear evidence of a difference in the duration of catheter patency with heparin compared to normal saline (mean difference (MD) 0.44 days, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.99; 6 studies; 1788 participants; low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes We found no clear evidence of a difference in the following outcomes: CVC-related bloodstream infections (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.08 to 5.80; 3 studies; 1127 participants; very low-certainty evidence); mortality (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.31; 3 studies; 1100 participants; very low-certainty evidence); haemorrhage (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.41 to 5.74; 3 studies; 1197 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.27; 3 studies; 443 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The main reasons for downgrading the certainty of evidence for the primary and secondary outcomes were unclear allocation concealment, suspicion of publication bias, imprecision and inconsistency. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain whether intermittent locking with heparin results in fewer central venous catheter occlusions than intermittent locking with normal saline in adults. Low-certainty evidence suggests that heparin may have little or no effect on catheter patency duration. Although we found no evidence of differences in safety (CVC-related bloodstream infections, mortality, or haemorrhage), the combined studies were not powered to detect rare adverse events such as heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia. Further research conducted over longer periods would reduce the current uncertainties.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness and adverse events of gabapentin and pregabalin for sciatica pain / Revisión sistemática y metaanálisis sobre la efectividad y eventos adversos de gabapentina y pregabalina para el dolor de ciática

Aim: This SR aims to assess the effectiveness of pregabalin and gabapentin on pain and disability caused by acute sciatica and the adverse events associated with their clinical use.DesignSystematic review.DatabasesElectronic databases of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Clinical Trials.gov were searched from their inception until March 1st of 2021.Selection criteriaRandomized trials (RCT) with adults>18 years old with acute sciatica for a minimum of 1 week and a maximum of 1 year (at least moderate pain).Data treatmentThe outcomes were pain, disability and adverse events. Data was summarized using odds ratio and mean difference. GRADE was used to calculate the level of evidence.ResultsEight RCT involving 747 participants were included. The effect of pregabalin was assessed in 3 RCT and in one three-arm trial (pregabalin vs limaprost vs a combination of limaprost and pregabalin). Two trials assessed the effect of gabapentin compared with placebo and one compared with tramadol. One study assessed the effect of gabapentin vs pregabalin in a crossover head-to-head trial.A statistically significant improvement on leg pain at 2 weeks and leg pain with movement at 3 and 4 months was found in a RCT comparing gabapentin with placebo. There were no statistically differences on the remaining time periods assessed for leg pain, low back pain and functional disability.ConclusionsThis SR provides clear evidence for lack of effectiveness of pregabalin and gabapentin for sciatica pain management. In view of this, its routine clinical use cannot be supported.

Objetivo: Esta revisión sistemática evalúa la efectividad de pregabalina y gabapentina sobre el dolor y la discapacidad producidas por el dolor agudo causado por ciática, y los eventos adversos asociados al uso clínico.DiseñoRevisión sistemática.Bases de datosSe buscó en Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, y en Clinical Trials.gov desde su inicio hasta el 1 de marzo del 2021.Criterios de selecciónEnsayos clínicos aleatorizados (ECA) sobre adultos > 18 años con ciática aguda establecida entre una semana como mínimo y un año como máximo (al menos con dolor moderado).Tratamiento de datosLos resultados fueron dolor, discapacidad y eventos adversos. Los datos fueron resumidos usando odds ratio y diferencia de medias. Para calcular el nivel de evidencia se empleó GRADE.ResultadosSe incluyeron 8 ECA con un total de 747 participantes. El efecto de la pregabalina fue evaluado en 3 ECA y en un ensayo de 3 brazos (pregabalina vs. limaprost vs. una combinación de limaprost y pregabalina). Dos ensayos evaluaron el efecto de gabapentina comparado con placebo y uno lo comparó con tramadol. Un estudio evaluó el efecto de gabapentina vs. pregabalina en un ensayo cruzado.En un ECA se encontró una diferencia estadísticamente significativa en la mejora del dolor de piernas a las 2 semanas y en el dolor de piernas con el movimiento a los 3 y 4 meses, con gabapentina comparado frente a placebo. No hubo diferencias en el resto de los periodos estudiados para el dolor de piernas, dolor en la zona lumbar o en la discapacidad funcional.ConclusionesEsta revisión sistemática ofrece evidencia clara de la falta de pruebas sobre la efectividad de pregabalina o gabapentina para el manejo del dolor derivado de la ciática. Por tanto, su uso clínico rutinario no está avalado.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness and adverse events of gabapentin and pregabalin for sciatica pain.

AIM: This SR aims to assess the effectiveness of pregabalin and gabapentin on pain and disability caused by acute sciatica and the adverse events associated with their clinical use. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATABASES: Electronic databases of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Clinical Trials.gov were searched from their inception until March 1st of 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials (RCT) with adults>18 years old with acute sciatica for a minimum of 1 week and a maximum of 1 year (at least moderate pain). DATA TREATMENT: The outcomes were pain, disability and adverse events. Data was summarized using odds ratio and mean difference. GRADE was used to calculate the level of evidence. RESULTS: Eight RCT involving 747 participants were included. The effect of pregabalin was assessed in 3 RCT and in one three-arm trial (pregabalin vs limaprost vs a combination of limaprost and pregabalin). Two trials assessed the effect of gabapentin compared with placebo and one compared with tramadol. One study assessed the effect of gabapentin vs pregabalin in a crossover head-to-head trial. A statistically significant improvement on leg pain at 2 weeks and leg pain with movement at 3 and 4 months was found in a RCT comparing gabapentin with placebo. There were no statistically differences on the remaining time periods assessed for leg pain, low back pain and functional disability. CONCLUSIONS: This SR provides clear evidence for lack of effectiveness of pregabalin and gabapentin for sciatica pain management. In view of this, its routine clinical use cannot be supported.

Heparin versus 0.9% sodium chloride locking for prevention of occlusion in central venous catheters in adults.

BACKGROUND: Intermittent locking of central venous catheters (CVCs) is undertaken to help maintain their patency. There are systematic variations in care: some practitioners use heparin (at different concentrations), whilst others use 0.9% NaCl (normal saline). This review looks at the effectiveness and safety of intermittent locking with heparin compared to 0.9% NaCl to see if the evidence establishes whether one is better than the other. This work is an update of a review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of intermittent locking of CVCs with heparin versus normal saline (NS) in adults to prevent occlusion. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (last searched 11 June 2018) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 5). Searches were also carried out in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and clinical trials databases (11 June 2018). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials in adults ≥ 18 years of age with a CVC that compared intermittent locking with heparin at any concentration versus NS. We applied no restriction on language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed quality, and extracted data. We contacted trial authors to retrieve additional information, when necessary. We carried out statistical analysis using Review Manager 5 and assessed the overall quality of the evidence supporting assessed outcomes using GRADE. We carried out prespecified subgroup analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We identified five new studies for this update (six prior studies were included in the original review), bringing the number of eligible studies to 11, with a total of 2392 participants. We noted differences in methods used by the included studies and variation in heparin concentrations (10 to 5000 IU/mL), time to follow-up (1 to 251.8 days), and the unit of analysis used (participant, catheter, line access).Combined results from these studies showed fewer occlusions with heparin than with NS (risk ratio (RR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.95; P = 0.02; 1672 participants; 1025 catheters from 10 studies; I² = 14%) and provided very low-quality evidence.We carried out subgroup analysis by unit of analysis (testing for subgroup differences (P = 0.23; I² = 30.3%). When the unit of analysis was the participant, results show no clear differences in all occlusions between heparin and NS (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.08; P = 0.15; 1672 participants; seven studies). Subgroup analysis using the catheter as the unit of analysis shows fewer occlusions with heparin use (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.95; P = 0.03; 1025 catheters; three studies). When the unit of analysis was line access, results show no clear differences in occlusions between heparin and NS (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.40; 770 line accesses; one study).We found no clear differences in the duration of catheter patency (mean difference (MD) 0.44 days, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.99; P = 0.11; 1036 participants; 752 catheters; six studies; low-quality evidence).We found no clear evidence of a difference in the following: CVC-related sepsis (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.03 to 19.54; P = 0.86; 1097 participants; two studies; low-quality evidence); mortality (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.31; P = 0.33; 1100 participants; three studies; low-quality evidence); haemorrhage at any site (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.57 to 3.07; P = 0.52; 1245 participants; four studies; moderate-quality evidence); or heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.27; P = 0.31; 443 participants; three studies; low-quality evidence).The main reasons for downgrading the quality of evidence were unclear allocation concealment, imprecision, and suspicion of publication bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the very low quality of the evidence, we are uncertain whether intermittent locking with heparin results in fewer occlusions than intermittent locking with NS. Low-quality evidence suggests that heparin may have little or no effect on catheter patency. Although we found no evidence of differences in safety (sepsis, mortality, or haemorrhage), the combined trials are not powered to detect rare adverse events such as heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia.

Megestrol acetate for cachexia-anorexia syndrome. A systematic review.

In 1993, megestrol acetate (MA) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of anorexia, cachexia, or unexplained weight loss in patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. The mechanism by which MA increases appetite is unknown, and its effectiveness for anorexia and cachexia in neoplastic, elderly, and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome patients is under investigation. This is an updated version of a Cochrane systematic review first published in 2005 and later updated in 2013 entitled 'Megestrol acetate for the treatment of anorexia-cachexia syndrome'. MA vs. placebo: in studies where MA was compared with placebo, the overall results showed that MA patients gained weight (mean difference, MD 2.25 kg, 95% CI [1.19, 3.3]) but did not gain quality of life (QOL) (standarized mean difference, SMD 0.5, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.13]), with more adverse events (relative risk, RR 1.46, 95% CI [1.05, 2.04]), but no difference in deaths (RR 1.26, 95% CI [0.70, 2.27]). MA vs. no treatment: MA patients gained weight (MD 1.45 kg, 95% CI [0.15, 2.75]) but did not gain QOL (standardized mean difference 3.89 95% CI [-14, 6.28]). There was no increase in adverse events (RR 0.90, 95% CI [0.39, 2.08]) or deaths (RR 1.01, 95% CI [0.42, 2.45]). MA vs. active drugs: MA patients gained weight (MD 2.5 kg, 95% CI [0.37, 4.64]) but did not gain QOL (MD 0.20 95% CI [-0.02, 0.43]) and did not report an increase in adverse events (RR 1.05 95% CI [0.95, 1.16]) or in deaths (RR 1.53, 95% CI [1.02, 2.29]) Different doses of MA: in studies where lower doses of MA were compared with higher doses of MA, we did not find differences either in weight gain (MD -0.94 kg, 95% CI [-3.33, 1.45]), QOL (MD 0.31 95% CI [-0.19, 0.81]), or adverse events (RR 1.34, 95% CI [0.65, 2.76]). Thus, we cannot reach a conclusion for an optimal dose of MA.

Heparin versus 0.9% sodium chloride intermittent flushing for prevention of occlusion in central venous catheters in adults.

BACKGROUND: Heparin intermittent flushing is a standard practice in the maintenance of patency in central venous catheters. However, we could find no systematic review examining its effectiveness and safety. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of intermittent flushing with heparin versus 0.9% sodium chloride (normal saline) solution in adults with central venous catheters in terms of prevention of occlusion and overall benefits versus harms. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched December 2013) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 11). Searches were also carried out in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and clinical trials databases (December 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults 18 years of age and older with a central venous catheter (CVC) in which intermittent flushing with heparin (any dose with or without other drugs) was compared with 0.9% normal saline were included. No restriction on language was applied. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed trial quality and extracted data. Trial authors were contacted to retrieve additional information, when necessary. MAIN RESULTS: Six eligible studies with a total of 1433 participants were included. The heparin concentrations used in these studies were very different (10-5000 IU/mL), and follow-up varied from 20 days to 180 days. The overall risk of bias in the studies was low. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate for the main outcomes (occlusion of CVC, duration of catheter patency, CVC-related sepsis, mortality and haemorrhage at any site).Combined findings from three trials in which the unit of analysis was the catheter suggest that heparin was associated with reduced CVC occlusion rates (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.94). However, no clear evidence of a similar effect was found when the results of two studies in which the unit of analysis was the participant were combined (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.70), nor when findings were derived from one study, which considered total line accesses (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.40). Furthermore, results for other estimated effects were found to be imprecise and compatible with benefit and harm: catheter duration in days (mean difference (MD) 0.41, 95% CI -1.29 to 2.12), CVC-related thrombosis (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.99), CVC-related sepsis (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.34 to 3.03), mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.32) and haemorrhage at any site (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.85). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no conclusive evidence of important differences when heparin intermittent flushing was compared with 0.9% normal saline flushing for central venous catheter maintenance in terms of efficacy or safety. As heparin is more expensive than normal saline, our findings challenge its continued use in CVC flushing outside the context of clinical trials.

Megestrol acetate for treatment of anorexia-cachexia syndrome.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of a previously published review in The Cochrane Library (2005, Issue 2) on 'Megestrol acetate for the treatment of anorexia-cachexia syndrome'. Megestrol acetate (MA) is currently used to improve appetite and to increase weight in cancer-associated anorexia. In 1993, MA was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of anorexia, cachexia or unexplained weight loss in patients with AIDS. The mechanism by which MA increases appetite is unknown and its effectiveness for anorexia and cachexia in neoplastic and AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) patients is under investigation. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of MA in palliating anorexia-cachexia syndrome in patients with cancer, AIDS and other underlying pathologies. SEARCH METHODS: We sought studies through an extensive search of electronic databases, journals, reference lists, contact with investigators and other search strategies outlined in the methods. The most recent search for this update was carried out in May 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included in the review if they assessed MA compared to placebo or other drug treatments in randomised controlled trials of patients with a clinical diagnosis of anorexia-cachexia syndrome related to cancer, AIDS or any other underlying pathology. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors conducted data extraction and evaluated methodological quality. We performed quantitative analyses using appetite and quality of life as a dichotomous variable, and analysed weight gain as continuous and dichotomous variables. MAIN RESULTS: We included 35 trials in this update, the same number but not the same trials as in the previous version of the review. The trials comprised 3963 patients for effectiveness and 3180 for safety. Sixteen trials compared MA at different doses with placebo, seven trials compared different doses of MA with other drug treatments and 10 trials compared different doses of MA. Meta-analysis showed a benefit of MA compared with placebo, particularly with regard to appetite improvement and weight gain in cancer, AIDS and other underlying conditions, and lack of benefit in the same patients when MA was compared to other drugs. There was insufficient information to define the optimal dose of MA, but higher doses were more related to weight improvement than lower doses. Quality of life improvement in patients was seen only when comparing MA versus placebo but not other drugs in both subcategories: cancer and AIDS. Oedema, thromboembolic phenomena and deaths were more frequent in the patients treated with MA. More than 40 side effects were studied. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that MA improves appetite and is associated with slight weight gain in cancer, AIDS and in patients with other underlying pathology. Despite the fact that these patients are receiving palliative care they should be informed of the risks involved in taking MA.