Beta-blockers versus placebo or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2021;1:Cd011973
BACKGROUND Portal hypertension commonly accompanies advanced liver disease and often gives rise to life-threatening complications, including haemorrhage from oesophageal and gastrointestinal varices. Variceal haemorrhage commonly occurs in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis. Therefore, prevention is important. Band ligation, beta-blockers, and sclerotherapy have been proposed as alternatives for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children. However, primary prophylaxis is not the current standard of care in paediatric patients because it is unknown whether those treatments are of benefit or harm when used for primary prophylaxis in children and adolescents. OBJECTIVES To determine the benefits and harms of beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index Expanded (April 2020). We screened the reference lists of the retrieved publications and manually searched the main paediatric gastroenterology and hepatology conference (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN) abstract books from 2008 to December 2019. We searched clinicaltrials.gov, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the World Health Organization (WHO) for ongoing clinical trials. We imposed no language or document type restrictions on our search. SELECTION CRITERIA We planned to include randomised clinical trials, irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status to assess benefits and harms. We included observational studies, retrieved with the searches for randomised clinical trials, for a narrative report of harm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We planned to summarise data from randomised clinical trials by standard Cochrane methodologies. We planned to asses risk of bias and use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and liver-related morbidity, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were oesophageal variceal bleeding and adverse events not considered serious. We planned to use intention-to-treat principle. We planned to analyse data with RevMan Analysis. MAIN RESULTS We found no randomised clinical trials that assessed beta-blockers compared with sham or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis. We found four observational studies that reported on harms. As a systematic search for observational studies was not planned, we only listed the reported harms in a table. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Randomised clinical trials assessing the benefits or harms of beta-blockers versus placebo or no intervention for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis are lacking. Therefore, trials with adequate power and proper design, assessing the benefits and harms of beta-blockers versus placebo on patient-relevant clinical outcomes, such as mortality, quality of life, failure to control variceal bleeding, and adverse events are needed. Unless such trials are conducted and the results become published, we cannot make any conclusions regarding the benefits or harms of the two interventions.
Intravenous immunoglobulin for presumed viral myocarditis in children and adults
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2020;8:Cd004370
BACKGROUND This is an update of a previous review. Case reports and case series have described dramatic responses to intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in people with presumed viral myocarditis, and its administration has become commonplace. OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this review was to compare event-free (death, requirement for a cardiac transplant, or placement of a left ventricular assist device) or overall (death) survival of adults and children with presumed viral myocarditis treated with IVIG versus those who did not receive IVIG. A secondary objective was to determine if a group of patients with presumed viral myocarditis could be identified (on the basis of age, duration of symptoms, acuity of onset of symptoms, cardiac function at presentation, virological results, or the presence or absence of histological evidence of acute myocarditis on cardiac biopsy in patients in whom a biopsy was performed) who would be the most likely to benefit from IVIG. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, DARE, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, and LILACS in July 2019, and two trial registries in November 2019. We contacted authors of trials and checked reference lists of relevant papers. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA We included studies if (1) participants had a clinical diagnosis of acute myocarditis with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 0.45, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) > 2 standard deviations (SDs) above the norm, or a left ventricular shortening fraction (LVSF) > 2 SDs below the mean, with duration of cardiac symptoms < 6 months; (2) participants had no evidence of non-infectious or bacterial cardiac disease; and (3) participants were randomly assigned to receive at least 1 g/kg of IVIG versus no IVIG or placebo. We excluded studies if (1) participants had received immunosuppression before outcome assessment; or (2) onset of myocarditis was reported to have occurred < 6 months postpartum. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened the search results and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We conducted meta-analysis for two outcomes (overall survival and improvement in LVEF) with two adult trials. Other meta-analyses were not possible because only three relevant trials were included, and researchers analysed markedly different populations and used different outcome measures. MAIN RESULTS In this update we added two trials to the two previously included trials. A quasi-randomised trial was previously included due to a paucity of evidence from randomised trials; however, with the addition of two new randomised trials, it was removed from this update. For two adult trials, the overall risk of bias was unclear with very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes. The first trial studied 62 adults with recent-onset dilated cardiomyopathy randomly assigned to receive IVIG or an equivalent volume of 0.1% albumin in a blinded fashion. The effect on event-free survival between groups was uncertain (risk ratio (RR) of any event 1.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 6.40). The second trial studied 41 adults with acute myocarditis randomised to either high-dose IVIG (1 to 2 g/kg over two days) or no treatment. The IVIG group reported greater survival time after 60 days (no raw data, P < 0.01), but the evidence is uncertain. We pooled the reported number of deaths in both trials, with no evidence of a difference between groups (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.23 to 3.62, I(2) = 31%, very low-certainty evidence). The evidence on the effect of IVIG treatment on LVEF (pooled mean difference (MD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.05) after 12 months and an unknown time frame is uncertain. The results for functional capacity, assessed by peak oxygen consumption at 12 months, were uncertain (MD -0.80, 95% CI -4.57 to 2.97). The results for infusion-related side effects were also uncertain due to a very large CI (RR 20.29, 95% CI 1.25 to 329.93). Lastly, there was uncertain evidence addressing failure to attain complete recovery (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.14). Evidence for improvement in LVEDD, left ventricular shortening fraction, and hospitalisation status in adults was not reported. In the single included paediatric trial, the overall risk of bias was low with very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes. The trial included 86 children in Egypt presenting with acute myocarditis. Children were randomly assigned to 1 g/kg IVIG daily for two consecutive days or placebo followed by echocardiography one and six months post randomisation for recording of LVEDD and LVSF. The evidence for overall survival after six months was uncertain (risk of death RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.15). The evidence was also uncertain for improvement in LVEDD and LVSF after six months (LVEDD MD -4.00, 95% CI -9.52 to 1.52; LVSF no raw data). Evidence for improvement in LVEF, functional capacity, side effects, complete recovery, and hospitalisation status in children was not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Evidence from two trials of very low certainty and with unclear risk of bias provides contradictory evidence on the use of IVIG in the treatment of adults with presumed viral myocarditis. One trial reported that use of IVIG results in longer survival time after 60 days, whilst the other trial found that IVIG does not provide an appreciable benefit. The evidence of a difference in event-free or overall survival, LVEDD, or LVSF is of very low certainty in a single paediatric trial with a low risk of bias. Until higher-quality studies with low risk of bias and larger sample sizes have demonstrated benefit in a particular group of patients, the evidence for treatment with IVIG for presumed viral myocarditis is uncertain. Further studies of the pathophysiology of myocarditis would lead to improved diagnostic criteria, which would facilitate future research.
Role of intravenous immunoglobulin therapy in the survival rate of pediatric patients with acute myocarditis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Scientific reports. 2019;9(1):10459
The treatment of pediatric myocarditis is controversial, and the benefits of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) are inconclusive due to limited data. We searched studies from PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases since establishment until October 1st, 2018. Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. We included a total of 812 patients with IVIG treatment and 592 patients without IVIG treatment. The meta-analysis showed that the survival rate in the IVIG group was higher than that in the non-IVIG group (odds ratio = 2.133, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.32-3.43, p = 0.002). There was moderate statistical heterogeneity among the included studies (I(2) = 35%, p = 0.102). However, after adjustment using Duval and Tweedie's trim and fill method, the point estimate of the overall effect size was 1.40 (95% CI 0.83, 2.35), which became insignificant. Moreover, the meta-regression revealed that age (coefficient = -0.191, 95% CI (-0.398, 0.015), p = 0.069) and gender (coefficient = 0.347, 95% CI (-7.586, 8.279), p = 0.93) were not significantly related to the survival rate. This meta-analysis showed that IVIG treatment was not associated with better survival. The use of IVIG therapy in acute myocarditis in children cannot be routinely recommended based on current evidence. Further prospective and randomized controlled studies are needed to elucidate the effects of IVIG treatment.
Corticosteroids and Intravenous Immunoglobulin in Pediatric Myocarditis: A Meta-Analysis
Frontiers in pediatrics. 2019;7:342
Background: The efficacy of corticosteroids and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in pediatric myocarditis remains controversial. Objectives: The authors performed a meta-analysis to assess the therapeutic efficacy of corticosteroids and IVIG in children with myocarditis. Methods: We retrieved the trials on corticosteroids and IVIG therapy, respectively, in pediatric myocarditis from nine databases up to December 2018. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. Results: Our analysis included 8 studies and 334 pediatric patients. The data demonstrated that children receiving corticosteroids showed no significant improvement on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from 1 to 8 month-follow-up (MD = 5.17%, 95% CI = -0.26% to 10.60%, P = 0.06), and no significant improvement in death or heart transplantation incidence at the end of follow-up (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 0.27-6.70, P = 0.73). However, children receiving IVIG revealed a statistically remarkable increase in LVEF at a follow-up over the course of 6 months to 1 year (MD = 18.91%, 95% CI = 11.74-26.08%, P < 0.00001), and a decrease in death or heart transplantation at the end of follow-up (OR = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.12-0.75, P = 0.01). Further comparisons showed that the mortality and heart transplantation rate of children with myocarditis treated with IVIG were significantly lower than those with corticosteroid therapy (t' = 11.336, P < 0.001). Conclusions: IVIG might be beneficial to improve LVEF and survival for myocarditis in children. However, the present evidence does not support corticosteroids as superior to conventional therapy in children with myocarditis. Further randomized controlled trials with a larger sample size are required.
Adrenaline and vasopressin for cardiac arrest
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2019;1:Cd003179
BACKGROUND Adrenaline and vasopressin are widely used to treat people with cardiac arrest, but there is uncertainty about the safety, effectiveness and the optimal dose. OBJECTIVES To determine whether adrenaline or vasopressin, or both, administered during cardiac arrest, afford any survival benefit. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase and DARE from their inception to 8 May 2018, and the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation 2015 Advanced Life Support Consensus on Science and Treatment Recommendations. We also searched four trial registers on 5 September 2018 and checked the reference lists of the included studies and review papers to identify potential papers for review. SELECTION CRITERIA Any randomised controlled trial comparing: standard-dose adrenaline versus placebo; standard-dose adrenaline versus high-dose adrenaline; and adrenaline versus vasopressin, in any setting, due to any cause of cardiac arrest, in adults and children. There were no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently identified trials for review, assessed risks of bias and extracted data, resolving disagreements through re-examination of the trial reports and by discussion. We used risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare dichotomous outcomes for clinical events. There were no continuous outcomes reported. We examined groups of trials for heterogeneity. We report the quality of evidence for each outcome, using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS We included 26 studies (21,704 participants).Moderate-quality evidence found that adrenaline increased survival to hospital discharge compared to placebo (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.86; 2 studies, 8538 participants; an increase from 23 to 32 per 1000, 95% CI 25 to 42). We are uncertain about survival to hospital discharge for high-dose compared to standard-dose adrenaline (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.62; participants = 6274; studies = 10); an increase from 33 to 36 per 1000, 95% CI 24 to 53); standard-dose adrenaline versus vasopressin (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.85; 6 studies; 2511 participants; an increase from 72 to 90 per 1000, 95% CI 60 to 133); and standard-dose adrenaline versus vasopressin plus adrenaline (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.22; 3 studies; 3242 participants; a possible decrease from 24 to 18 per 1000, 95% CI 11 to 29), due to very low-quality evidence.Moderate-quality evidence found that adrenaline compared with placebo increased survival to hospital admission (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.76; 2 studies, 8489 participants; an increase from 83 to 209 per 1000, 95% CI 139 to 313). We are uncertain about survival to hospital admission when comparing standard-dose with high-dose adrenaline, due to very low-quality evidence. Vasopressin may improve survival to hospital admission when compared with standard-dose adrenaline (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.54; 3 studies, 1953 participants; low-quality evidence; an increase from 260 to 330 per 1000, 95% CI 270 to 400), and may make little or no difference when compared to standard-dose adrenaline plus vasopressin (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.08; 3 studies; 3249 participants; low-quality evidence; a decrease from 218 to 207 per 1000 (95% CI 181 to 236).There was no evidence that adrenaline (any dose) or vasopressin improved neurological outcomes.The rate of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was higher for standard-dose adrenaline versus placebo (RR 2.86, 95% CI 2.21 to 3.71; participants = 8663; studies = 3); moderate-quality evidence; an increase from 115 to 329 per 1000, 95% CI 254 to 427). We are uncertain about the effect on ROSC for the comparison of standard-dose versus high-dose adrenaline and standard-does adrenaline compared to vasopressin, due to very low-quality evidence. Standard-dose adrenaline may make little or no difference to ROSC when compared to standard-dose adrenaline plus vasopressin (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.08; 3 studies, 3249 participants; low-quality evidence; a possible decrease from 299 to 290 per 1000, 95% CI 260 to 323).The source of funding was not stated in 11 of the 26 studies. The study drugs were provided by the manufacturer in four of the 26 studies, but neither drug represents a profitable commercial option. The other 11 studies were funded by organisations such as research foundations and government funding bodies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This review provides moderate-quality evidence that standard-dose adrenaline compared to placebo improves return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital admission and survival to hospital discharge, but low-quality evidence that it did not affect survival with a favourable neurological outcome. Very low -quality evidence found that high-dose adrenaline compared to standard-dose adrenaline improved return of spontaneous circulation and survival to admission. Vasopressin compared to standard dose adrenaline improved survival to admission but not return of spontaneous circulation, whilst the combination of adrenaline and vasopressin compared with adrenaline alone had no effect on these outcomes. Neither standard dose adrenaline, high-dose adrenaline,vasopressin nor a combination of adrenaline and vasopressin improved survival with a favourable neurological outcome. Many of these studies were conducted more than 20 years ago. Treatment has changed in recent years, so the findings from older studies may not reflect current practice.
Intravenous Immunoglobulin Therapy for Acute Myocarditis in Children and Adults
International heart journal. 2019
The efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in the treatment of acute myocarditis remains controversial. The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of IVIG in children and adults with acute myocarditis.We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Medline, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and the ClinicalTrials.gov website. Eligible studies were clinical trials of patients with acute myocarditis who received IVIG therapy. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to estimate the outcomes.Thirteen studies with 1534 cases were incorporated into our meta-analysis. Pooled results showed that IVIG therapy significantly reduced in-hospital mortality (OR: 0.44, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.71, P < 0.001) and improved the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (OR: 1.73, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.13, P < 0.001) in acute myocarditis patients. Furthermore, patients with acute fulminant myocarditis (AFM) exhibited a significantly higher survival rate (OR: 2.80, 95% CI 1.16 to 6.77, P = 0.022) in the IVIG group.IVIG therapy can not only result in lower in-hospital mortality and superior recovery of left ventricular function in patients with acute myocarditis, but also increase the survival rate of AFM patients. The present study provides some supportive evidence for IVIG therapy in acute myocarditis patients.
Intravenous immunoglobulin for presumed viral myocarditis in children and adults. Update of Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(1):CD004370; PMID: 15674945
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.. 2015;2015:CD004370.
BACKGROUND This is an update of a previous review. Case reports and case series have described dramatic responses to intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in people with presumed viral myocarditis, and its administration has become commonplace. OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this review was to compare transplant-free survival of adults and children with presumed viral myocarditis treated with IVIG versus those who did not receive IVIG. A secondary objective was to determine if a group of patients with presumed viral myocarditis could be identified (on the basis of age, duration of symptoms, acuity of onset of symptoms, cardiac function at presentation, virological results or the presence or absence of histological evidence of acute myocarditis on cardiac biopsy in patients in whom a biopsy was performed) who would be the most likely to benefit from IVIG. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 12 of 12), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (2013, Issue 4 of 4), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to January Week 3 2014), EMBASE (Ovid, 1980 to Week 4 2014), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) EBSCO, Web of Science (Thomson Reuters, 1970 to 24 January 2014), the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS) (1982 to 30 January 2014), trials registries and conference proceedings. We contacted authors of trials and checked reference lists of relevant papers. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA We included studies if (1) participants had a clinical diagnosis of acute myocarditis with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 0.45, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) > 2 standard deviations (SDs) above the norm or a shortening fraction (SF) > 2 SDs below the mean with duration of cardiac symptoms < 6 months; (2) participants had no evidence of non-infectious or bacterial cardiac disease; and (3) participants were randomly assigned to receive at least 1 g/kg of IVIG versus no IVIG or placebo. We excluded studies if (1) participants had received immunosuppression before outcome assessment; or (2) onset of myocarditis was reported to occur < 6 months post partum. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors screened searches and extracted data independently. We assessed quality using the 'Risk of bias' tool. Meta-analysis was not possible because only two relevant studies were found, and researchers analysed markedly different populations. MAIN RESULTS In this update, review authors added one study to the study from the original review. The first relevant study involved 62 adults with recent-onset dilated cardiomyopathy randomly assigned to receive IVIG or an equivalent volume of 0.1% albumin in a blinded fashion. The overall risk of bias was unclear. The incidence of death or the requirement for cardiac transplant or placement of a left ventricular assist device was low in both groups (odds ratio (OR) for event-free survival 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 2.30). Follow-up at six months and at 12 months showed equivalent improvement in LVEF (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.07 at six months; MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.08 at 12 months). Functional capacity as assessed by peak oxygen consumption was equivalent in the two groups at 12 months (MD -0.80, 95% CI -4.57 to 2.97). Infusion-related side effects were more common in the treated group, but all were reported to be mild (OR 30.16, 95% CI 1.69 to 539.42).The second study added at this update included 83 children in India with suspected viral encephalitis and myocarditis. The overall risk of bias was high. The odds ratio for event-free survival was 7.39 (95% CI 0.91 to 59.86). Follow-up occurred only until hospital discharge, and LVEF was 49.5% in the treated group versus 35.9% in the placebo group (risk difference 13.6%, 95% CI 5.1 to 22.1%; P value = 0.001). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Evidence from one trial does not support the use of IVIG for the treatment of adults with presume
Intravenous immunoglobulin in acute rheumatic fever: a randomized controlled trial
BACKGROUND Acute rheumatic fever (ARF) remains the leading cause of acquired heart disease in children worldwide. No therapeutic agent has been shown to alter the clinical outcome of the acute illness. Immunological mechanisms appear to be involved in the pathogenesis of ARF. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), a proven immunomodulator, may benefit cardiac conditions of an autoimmune nature. We investigated whether IVIG modified the natural history of ARF by reducing the extent and severity of carditis. METHODS AND RESULTS This prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluated IVIG in patients with a first episode of rheumatic fever, stratifying patients by the presence and severity of carditis before randomization. Patients were randomly allocated to receive 1 g/kg IVIG on days 1 and 2 and 0.4 g/kg on days 14 and 28, or they received a placebo infusion. Clinical, laboratory, and echocardiographic evaluation was performed at 0, 2, 4, 6, 26, and 52 weeks. Fifty-nine patients were treated, of whom 39 had carditis (including 4 subclinical) and/or migratory polyarthritis (n=39). There was no difference between groups in the rate of normalization of the erythrocyte sedimentation rate or acute-phase proteins at the 6-week follow-up. On echocardiography, 59% in the IVIG group and 69% in the placebo group had carditis at baseline. There was no significant difference in the cardiac outcome, including the proportion of valves involved, or in the severity of valvar regurgitation at 1 year. At 1 year, 41% of the IVIG and 50% of the placebo group had carditis. CONCLUSIONS IVIG did not alter the natural history of ARF, with no detectable difference in the clinical, laboratory, or echocardiographic parameters of the disease process during the subsequent 12 months.