Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of levosimendan in patients with sepsis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Objective: We conducted a systematic review to assess the advantages and disadvantages of levosimendan in patients with sepsis compared with placebo, milrinone, and dobutamine and to explore the clinical efficacy of different concentrations of levosimendan. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang data, VIP, and CBM databases were searched using such keywords as simendan, levosimendan, and sepsis. The search time was from the establishment of the database to July 2023. Two researchers were responsible for literature screening and data collection respectively. After the risk of bias in the included studies was evaluated, network meta-analysis was performed using R software gemtc and rjags package. Results: Thirty-two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the network meta-analysis. Meta-analysis results showed that while levosimendan significantly improved CI levels at either 0.1 µg/kg/min (mean difference [MD] [95%CrI] = 0.41 [-0.43, 1.4]) or 0.2 µg/kg/min (MD [95%CrI] =0.54 [0.12, 0.99]). Levosimendan, at either 0.075 µg/kg/min (MD [95% CrI] =0.033 [-0.75, 0.82]) or 0.2 µg/kg/min (MD [95% CrI] = -0.014 [-0.26, 0.23]), had no significant advantage in improving Lac levels. Levosimendan, at either 0.1 µg/kg/min (RR [95% CrI] = 0.99 [0.73, 1.3]) or 0.2 µg/kg/min (RR [95% CrI] = 1.0 [0.88, 1.2]), did not have a significant advantage in reducing mortality. Conclusion: The existing evidence suggests that levosimendan can significantly improve CI and lactate levels in patients with sepsis, and levosimendan at 0.1 µg/kg/min might be the optimal dose. Unfortunately, all interventions in this study failed to reduce the 28-day mortality. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023441220.

SUBMITTER: Tan R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10957638 | biostudies-literature | 2024

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of levosimendan in patients with sepsis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Tan Ruimin R Guo He H Yang Zinan Z Yang Huihui H Li Qinghao Q Zhu Qiong Q Du Quansheng Q

Frontiers in pharmacology 20240308

<b>Objective:</b> We conducted a systematic review to assess the advantages and disadvantages of levosimendan in patients with sepsis compared with placebo, milrinone, and dobutamine and to explore the clinical efficacy of different concentrations of levosimendan. <b>Methods:</b> PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang data, VIP, and CBM databases were searched using such keywords as simendan, levosimendan, and sepsis. The search time was from the establishment of the dat ...[more]

PMID: 38523635

Similar Datasets

Project description:Levosimendan and dobutamine are extensively used to treat sepsis-associated cardiovascular failure in ICU. Nevertheless, the role and mechanism of levosimendan in patients with sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy remains unclear. Moreover, previous studies on whether levosimendan is superior to dobutamine are still controversial. More importantly, these studies did not take changes (before-after comparison to the baseline) in quantitative parameters such as ejection fraction into account with the baseline level. Here, we aimed to determine the pros and cons of the two medicines by assessing the changes in cardiac function and blood lactate, mortality, with the standardized mean difference used as a summary statistic. Relevant studies were obtained by a thorough and disciplined literature search in several notable academic databases, including Google Scholar, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase until November 2020. Outcomes included changes in cardiac function, lactic acid, mortality and length of hospital stay. A total of 6 randomized controlled trials were included in this study, including 192 patients. Compared with dobutamine, patients treated with levosimendan had a greater improvement of cardiac index (ΔCI) (random effects, SMD = 0.90 [0.20,1.60]; I2 = 76%, P < 0.01) and left ventricular stroke work index (ΔLVSWI) (random effects, SMD = 1.56 [0.90,2.21]; I2 = 65%, P = 0.04), a significant decrease of blood lactate (Δblood lactate) (random effects, MD = - 0.79 [- 1.33, - 0.25]; I2 = 68%, P < 0.01) at 24-h after drug intervention, respectively. There was no significant difference between levosimendan and dobutamine on all-cause mortality in ICU (fixed effect, OR = 0.72 [0.39,1.33]; I2 = 0%, P = 0.99). We combine effect sizes related to different measurement parameters to evaluate cardiac function, which implied that septic patients with myocardial dysfunction might have a better improvement of cardiac function by levosimendan than dobutamine (random effects, SMD = 1.05 [0.69,1.41]; I2 = 67%, P < 0.01). This study suggested a significant improvement of CI, LVSWI, and decrease of blood lactate in septic patients with myocardial dysfunction in ICU after 24-h administration of levosimendan than dobutamine. However, the administration of levosimendan has neither an impact on mortality nor LVEF. Septic patients with myocardial dysfunction may partly benefit from levosimendan than dobutamine, mainly embodied in cardiac function improvement.

Project description:Vancomycin and teicoplanin are the glycopeptides currently in use for the treatment of infections caused by invasive beta-lactam-resistant gram-positive organisms. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that have compared vancomycin and teicoplanin administered systemically for the treatment of suspected or proven infections. A comprehensive search of trials without year, language, or publication status restrictions was performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by using the fixed-effect model (RRs of >1 favor vancomycin). Twenty-four trials were included. All-cause mortality was similar overall (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21), and there was no significant heterogeneity. In trials that used adequate allocation concealment, the results favored teicoplanin (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.06), while in trials with unknown methods or inadequate concealment, the results favored vancomycin (RR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.27 to 10.30). The latter trials might have recruited more severely ill patients. No other variable affected the RRs for mortality, including the assessment of glycopeptides administered empirically or for proven infections, neutropenia, the participant's age, and drug dosing. There were no significant differences between teicoplanin and vancomycin with regard to clinical failure (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.05), microbiological failure (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.65), and other efficacy outcomes. Lower RRs (in favor of teicoplanin) for clinical failure were observed with a lower risk of bias and when treatment was initiated for infections caused by gram-positive organisms rather than empirically. Total adverse events (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.74), nephrotoxicity (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.61), and red man syndrome were significantly less frequent with teicoplanin. Teicoplanin is not inferior to vancomycin with regard to efficacy and is associated with a lower adverse event rate than vancomycin.

Project description:BackgroundIntravenous fluid therapy is a ubiquitous intervention for the management of patients with sepsis, however excessive cumulative fluid balance has been shown to result in worse outcomes. Hyperoncotic albumin is presented in low volumes, is an effective resuscitation fluid and may have effects beyond plasma volume expansion alone. This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy, safety and effectiveness of hyperoncotic albumin solutions in the management of sepsis.MethodsWe searched four databases and two trial registries for controlled clinical trials of hyperoncotic albumin for management of sepsis. Review outcomes were mortality, need for renal replacement therapy, cumulative-fluid balance, and need for organ support. We used methods guided by the Cochrane Handbook for reviews of clinical interventions. Studies were assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 tool. We performed pairwise meta-analysis where possible. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.ResultsWe included six trials; four (2772 patients) were meta-analysed. Most studies had moderate or high risk of bias. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality for septic patients receiving hyperoncotic albumin compared to other intravenous fluids (OR 0.95, [95% CI: 0.8-1.12]); in patients with septic shock (2013 patients) there was a significant reduction (OR 0.82 [95% CI: 0.68-0.98]). There was no significant difference in safety outcomes. Hyperoncotic albumin was associated with variable reduction in early cumulative fluid balance and faster resolution of shock.ConclusionsThere is no good-quality evidence to support the use of hyperoncotic albumin in patients with sepsis, but it may reduce short-term mortality in the sub-groups with septic shock. It appears safe in terms of need for renal replacement therapy and is associated with reduced early cumulative fluid balance and faster resolution of shock. Larger, better quality randomised controlled trials in patients with septic shock may enhance the certainty of these findings.Review registrationPROSPERO ref: CRD42021150674.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine, in critically ill patients, the relative impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), sucralfate, or no gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis (or stress ulcer prophylaxis) on outcomes important to patients.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registers, and grey literature up to March 2019.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe included randomised controlled trials that compared gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided critical oversight of the systematic review, including identifying outcomes important to patients. We performed random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. When results differed between low risk and high risk of bias studies, we used the former as best estimates.ResultsSeventy two trials including 12 660 patients proved eligible. For patients at highest risk (>8%) or high risk (4-8%) of bleeding, both PPIs and H2RAs probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding compared with placebo or no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 0.61 (95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.89), 3.3% fewer for highest risk and 2.3% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 0.46 (0.27 to 0.79), 4.6% fewer for highest risk and 3.1% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty). Both may increase the risk of pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 1.39 (0.98 to 2.10), 5.0% more, low certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 1.26 (0.89 to 1.85), 3.4% more, low certainty). It is likely that neither affect mortality (PPIs 1.06 (0.90 to 1.28), 1.3% more, moderate certainty; H2RAs 0.96 (0.79 to 1.19), 0.9% fewer, moderate certainty). Otherwise, results provided no support for any affect on mortality, Clostridium difficile infection, length of intensive care stay, length of hospital stay, or duration of mechanical ventilation (varying certainty of evidence).ConclusionsFor higher risk critically ill patients, PPIs and H2RAs likely result in important reductions in gastrointestinal bleeding compared with no prophylaxis; for patients at low risk, the reduction in bleeding may be unimportant. Both PPIs and H2RAs may result in important increases in pneumonia. Variable quality evidence suggested no important effects of interventions on mortality or other in-hospital morbidity outcomes.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019126656.

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, some meta-analyses on COVID-19 have suggested that glucocorticoids use can reduce the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients, utilization rate of invasive ventilation, and improve the prognosis of patients. However, optimal regimen and dosages of glucocorticoid remain unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this network meta-analysis is to analyze the efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids in treating COVID-19 at regimens.MethodsThis meta-analysis retrieved randomized controlled trials from the earliest records to December 30, 2022, published in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI Database and Wanfang Database, which compared glucocorticoids with placebos for their efficacy and safety in the treatment of COVID-19, Effects of different treatment regimens, types and dosages (high-dose methylprednisolone, very high-dose methylprednisolone, Pulse therapy methylprednisolone, medium-dose hydrocortisone, high-dose hydrocortisone, high-dose dexamethasone, very high-dose dexamethasone and placebo) on 28-day all-caused hospitalization mortality, hospitalization duration, mechanical ventilation requirement, ICU admission and safety outcome were compared.ResultsIn this network meta-analysis, a total of 10,544 patients from 19 randomized controlled trials were finally included, involving a total of 9 glucocorticoid treatment regimens of different types and dosages. According to the analysis results, the 28-day all-cause mortality rate was the lowest in the treatment with pulse therapy methylprednisolone (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02, 0.42), but the use of high-dose methylprednisolone (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59, 1.22), very high-dose dexamethasone (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.67, 1.35), high-dose hydrocortisone (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.34, 1.22), medium-dose hydrocortisone (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49, 1.31) showed no benefit in prolonging the 28-day survival of patient. Compared with placebo, the treatment with very high-dose methylprednisolone (MD = -3.09;95%CI: -4.10, -2.08) had the shortest length of hospital stay, while high-dose dexamethasone (MD = -1.55;95%CI: -3.13,0.03) and very high-dose dexamethasone (MD = -1.06;95%CI: -2.78,0.67) did not benefit patients in terms of length of stay.ConclusionsConsidering the available evidence, this network meta‑analysis suggests that the prognostic impact of glucocorticoids in patients with COVID-19 may depend on the regimens of glucocorticoids. It is suggested that pulse therapy methylprednisolone is associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality, very high-dose methylprednisolone had the shortest length of hospital stay in patients with COVID-19.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022350407 (22/08/2022).

Project description:BackgroundThe annual incidence of insomnia continues to increase owing to changes in lifestyle habits, increased work pressure, and increased environmental pollution. In recent years, an increasing number of external therapies have been proven effective in treating insomnia and have been widely used. However, the relative benefits and harms of external therapies remain uncertain, and an optimal treatment strategy has not yet been determined.ObjectivesA network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of multiple external therapies for patients with insomnia.MethodsEight electronic databases were comprehensively searched from their inception to June 2023 for relevant literature. We also searched the grey literature and reviewed the reference lists of related systematic reviews. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, data extraction, and bias assessment of the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using the Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook, and a network meta-analysis was conducted using Stata and RevMan software.ResultsIn total, 14,826 studies were identified. Of these, 83 studies, including 9 external therapies and 6,100 patients, were deemed eligible for the present network meta-analysis. Except for the SL outcome, each external therapy was better than conventional medicine and the sham intervention (SI) in improving sleep quality. In terms of improving the psychological state indices of insomnia patients, each external therapy was superior to the SI; each external therapy had a better effect on the regulation of monoamine neurotransmitters. Tuina may be the most effective intervention in improving the total effective rate, Pittsburgh sleep quality index score, and SL. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) perhaps resulted in the best improvement in total sleep time and awakening time (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA] = 78.3 and 75.4%, respectively); and moxibustion (MB) and hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) were the most effective in reducing Self-rating Anxiety Scale and Self-rating Depression Scale scores. In terms of improving the monoamine neurotransmitters 5-hydroxytryptamine, norepinephrine, and dopamine, the best interventions were acupoint catgut embedding, electroacupuncture, and Tuina (SUCRA = 82.0, 69.9 and 90.3%, respectively). Safety results showed that the three safest interventions were the SI, Tuina, and foot bath. No serious adverse events were reported across the studies, and the most common minor adverse events included drowsiness, pain, excessive thirst, and hematoma.ConclusionBoth Tuina and rTMS have significant effects on improving sleep quality, but the safety of rTMS is low. Therefore, Tuina can be recommended as the first line of treatment to improve sleep quality. If a patient's anxiety and depression symptoms are evident, MB or HBO can be selected for treatment based on the actual situation. External therapy to improve sleep quality may be related to the regulation of monoamine neurotransmitters, which may be a potential mechanism of action.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=440882.

Project description:BackgroundSepsis is an overwhelming reaction to infection that comes with high morbidity and mortality. It requires urgent interventions in order to improve outcomes. Intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) are considered as potential therapy in sepsis patients. Results of trials on IVIG as adjunctive therapy for sepsis have been conflicting due to the variability in population characteristics, country geography and drug dosage form in different studies.MethodsA systematic article search was performed for eligible studies published up to January, 31, 2023, through the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure database. The included articles were screened by using rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to different IVIG types, ages and economic regions. All analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.4. Quality of studies and risk of bias were evaluated.ResultsIn total, 31 randomized controlled trials were included with a sample size of 6,276 participants. IVIG could reduce the mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI: 0.77-0.95, p = 0.005), the hospital stay (MD - 4.46, 95% CI: - 6.35 to - 2.57, p = 0.00001), and the APACHE II scores (MD - 1.65, 95% CI: - 2.89 to - 0.63, p = 0.001). Additionally, the results showed that IgM-enriched IVIG was effective in treating sepsis (RR 0.55, 95% CI: 0.40 - 0.76; p = 0.0003), while standard IVIG failed to be effective (RR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.81-1.02, p = 0.10). And the effect of IVIG in reducing neonatal mortality was inconclusive (RR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.81-1.05, p = 0.24), but it played a large role in reducing sepsis mortality in adults (RR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.57-0.86, p = 0.0006). Besides, from the subgroup of different economic regions, it indicated that IVIG was effective for sepsis in high-income (RR 0.89, 95% CI: 0.79-0.99, p = 0.03) and middle-income countries (RR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.28-0.84, p = 0.01), while no benefit was demonstrated in low-income countries (RR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.27-1.14, p = 0.11).ConclusionsThere is sufficient evidence to support that IVIG reduces sepsis mortality. IgM-enriched IVIG is effective in both adult and neonatal sepsis, while standard IVIG is only effective in adult sepsis. IVIG for sepsis has shown efficacy in high- and middle-income countries, but is still debatable in low-income countries. More RCTs are needed in the future to confirm the true clinical potential of IVIG for sepsis in low-income countries.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of levosimendan in patients with sepsis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Publications

Efficacy and safety of levosimendan in patients with sepsis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets