METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline & CINAHL, Turning Research into Practice (TRIP), ProQuest Theses & Dissertations Databases, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from inception till March 15, 2021. The primary outcome measure was a reduction in respiratory illness; decrease in frequency, symptoms, and duration. Random-effects model was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We used Cochrane's RoB-2 to appraise the risk of bias of included RCTs.
RESULTS: A total of nine RCTs were eligible for this review, of which six were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, two studies demonstrated a high risk of bias. The meta-analysis revealed a significantly reduced odds of developing respiratory infections with the use of Lf relative to the control (pooled odds ratio = 0.57; 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 0.74, n = 1,194), with sufficient evidence against the hypothesis of 'no significant difference' at the current sample size.
CONCLUSIONS: The administration of Lf shows promising efficacy in reducing the risk of RTIs. Current evidence also favours Lf fortification of infant formula. Lf may also have a beneficial role in managing symptoms and recovery of patients suffering from RTIs and may have potential for use as an adjunct in COVID-19, however this warrants further evidence from a large well-designed RCT.
METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, and preprint repository databases (up to February 28, 2021). Random-effects and inverse variance heterogeneity meta-analysis were used to pool the odds ratio of individual trials. The risk of bias was appraised using Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials.
RESULTS: Six randomized controlled trials were included in this analysis with a total of 658 patients who were randomized to receive ivermectin and 597 patients randomized in the control group who did not receive ivermectin. Of six trials, four had an overall high risk of bias. The estimated effect of ivermectin indicated mortality benefits (pooled odds ratio = 0.21; 95% confidence interval 0.11-0.42, n = 1255), with some evidence against the hypothesis of 'no significant difference' at the current sample size.
CONCLUSION: We observed a preliminary beneficial effect on mortality associated with ivermectin use in patients with COVID-19 that warrants further clinical evidence in appropriately designed large-scale randomized controlled trials.
METHODS: A systematic literature search with no language restrictions was performed on electronic databases and preprint repositories to identify eligible randomized trials published up to 8 July 2021. A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled odds ratio (OR) for outcomes of interest with the use of sofosbuvir combined with direct-acting antiviral agents relative to the nonuse of sofosbuvir-based direct-acting antiviral agents at 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS: The meta-analysis of 11 trials (n = 2,161) revealed statistically significant reduction in the odds of mortality (pooled odds ratio = 0.59; 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.99) but no statistically significant difference in the odds of development of composite endpoint of severe illness (pooled odds ratio = 0.79; 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.44) with the administration of sofosbuvir-based direct-acting antiviral agents among patients with COVID-19, relative to non-administration of sofosbuvir-based direct-acting antiviral agents.Subgroup analysis with seven trials involving sofosbuvir-daclatasvir revealed no significant mortality benefit (pooled odds ratio = 0.77; 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 1.22).
CONCLUSION: Sofosbuvir-based direct-acting antiviral agents have no protective effects against the development of severe illness in patients with COVID-19 with the current dosing regimen. Whether sofosbuvir-based direct-acting antiviral agents could offer mortality benefits would require further investigations.
METHODS: The study included 9139 female participants enrolled in the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health from 2003 (aged 77-82 years) to 2017 (aged 91-96 years). Generalized estimating equations (GEEs) using log-binomial regressions were used to determine associations using repeated measures on individuals over time.
KEY FINDINGS: The majority of participants in the study remained non-frail and did not receive HMRs from 2003 [7116 (77.86%)] to 2017 [1240 (71.31%)]. The use of HMRs was low in both groups with 33 (1.68%; 95% CI, 1.16 to 2.36) frail and 64 (0.89%; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.14) non-frail participants receiving HMRs in 2003; by 2017, 19 (4.19%; 95% CI, 2.54 to 6.46) frail and 45 (3.50%; 95% CI, 2.57 to 4.66) non-frail participants received HMRs. Frailty was not associated with receiving a HMR (RR 1.06; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.20), although for every 1-year increase, participants were 10% more likely to receive a HMR (RR 1.10; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.11). Participants with continuous polypharmacy, ≥4 chronic diseases, >4 general practitioner visits and Department of Veterans Affairs coverage were more likely to receive a HMR.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the proven value of HMRs for frail older people, HMRs were not used for most frail and non-frail community-dwelling women in this study. Reasons for low use of the service should be explored, with interventions to raise awareness of the benefits of the service.
OBJECTIVES: The current study aimed to assess the impact of medication reviews in aged care facilities, with additional focus on the types of medication reviews, using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies.
METHODS: A systematic searching of English articles that examined the medication reviews conducted in aged care facilities was performed using the following databases: PubMed, CINAHL, IPA, TRiP, and the Cochrane Library, with the last update in December 2015. Extraction of articles and quality assessment of included articles were performed independently by 2 authors. Data on interventions and outcomes were extracted from the included studies. The SIGN checklist for observational studies and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in RCTs were applied. Outcomes assessed were related to medications, reviews, and adverse events.
RESULTS: Because of the heterogeneity of the measurements, it was deemed inappropriate to conduct a meta-analysis and thus a narrative approach was employed. Twenty-two studies (10 observational studies and 12 controlled trials) were included from 1141 evaluated references. Of the 12 trials, 8 studies reported findings of pharmacist-led medication reviews and 4 reported findings of multidisciplinary team-based reviews. The medication reviews performed in the included trials were prescription reviews (n = 8) and clinical medication reviews (n = 4). In the case of the observational studies, the majority of the studies (8/12 studies) reported findings of pharmacist-led medication reviews, and only 2 studies reported findings of multidisciplinary team-based reviews. Similarly, 6 studies employed prescription reviews, whereas 4 studies employed clinical medication reviews. The majority of the recommendations put forward by the pharmacist or a multidisciplinary team were accepted by physicians. The number of prescribed medications, inappropriate medications, and adverse outcomes (eg, number of deaths, frequency of hospitalizations) were reduced in the intervention group.
CONCLUSION: Medication reviews conducted by pharmacists, either working independently or with other health care professionals, appear to improve the quality of medication use in aged care settings. However, robust conclusions cannot be drawn because of significant heterogeneity in measurements and potential risk for biases.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in electronic databases to identify eligible randomized controlled trials. Meta-analyses with the random-effects and IVhet models were used to estimate the pooled odds ratio (OR) for outcomes of interest with the administration of LR relative to NS, at 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS: There was a significant reduction in the odds of intensive care unit admission and development of local complications, respectively, with the administration of LR among hospitalized patients with acute pancreatitis relative to administration of NS (pooled ORs, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.13-0.81] and 0.43 [95% CI, 0.21-0.89], respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are able to assist clinicians in the navigation of the proper choice of fluid in patients with acute pancreatitis.
AREAS COVERED: This review appraised the evidence from clinical studies on various pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies for sleep disturbances in AD patients and proposed an algorithm to manage sleep disturbances in this population of patients.
EXPERT OPINION: Non-pharmacological interventions are generally preferred as the first-line approach to improve sleep-related symptoms in AD due to their favorable safety profile. However, when non-pharmacological interventions alone are insufficient, a range of pharmacological agents can be considered. Trazodone and melatonin are commonly used as adjunctive therapies, while Z-drugs including zopiclone and zolpidem are specifically employed to treat insomnia in patients with late-onset AD. Furthermore, a newer class of agents known as dual orexin receptor antagonists has emerged and gained approval for improving sleep onset and maintenance in AD patients.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to summarize the overall evidence on the pre-admission/pre-diagnosis use of anti-CD20 among patients with COVID-19 with regards to mortality and severe illness outcomes.
METHODS: A systematic literature search with no language restriction was performed in electronic databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and preprint servers (medRxiv, Research Square, SSRN), to identify eligible studies published up to June 13, 2023. The outcomes of interest were the development of severe illness and all-cause mortality. A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled odds ratio for outcomes of interest using anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies relative to non-use of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, at 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis revealed significantly increased odds for development of severe illness (pooled odds ratio 2.95; 95% confidence interval 2.30, 3.78; n = 534,349) and significantly increased odds for mortality (pooled odds ratio 2.14; 95% confidence interval 1.37, 3.35; n = 333,462) with the use of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, relative to non-use of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, in patients with COVID-19.
CONCLUSION: Healthcare practitioners should exercise caution when prescribing these anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies during the COVID-19 pandemic to patients who are indicated for these agents, particularly those with underlying conditions like multiple sclerosis or rheumatoid arthritis.