Abstract

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the treatment of androgenetic alopecia, as well as establish an effective treatment protocol and optimal PRP preparation procedure. METHODS We searched the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane, CNKI, and Wanfang databases from inception to October 29, 2021, using PROSPERO's International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (registration ID: CRD42022295921). RESULTS The original literature search revealed 215 reviews; after duplication removal, 89 papers were eliminated, 95 were eliminated after reading the titles and abstracts, and eventually, 28 articles were included after reading the complete text. CONCLUSIONS PRP treatment for androgenetic alopecia is effective, and we recommend the following: (1) a PRP volume of at least 0.05 ml/cm(2) , preferably 0.1 ml/cm(2) ; (2) at least three consecutive treatments at an interval of 1 month; (3) intensive therapy is beneficial and can be provided from 3 to 6 months after continuous treatment; (4) objective indicators such as hair diameter, hair count; (5) long-term follow-up.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have very-low to low certainty evidence for most primary outcomes and moderate certainty for hospital admission or death. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have low certainty evidence for our primary outcomes. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Oral lichen planus (OLP) is an autoimmune, mucocutaneous, oral potentially malignant disorder (OPMD), which characteristically manifests with chronic, recalcitrant lesions, with frequent flare-ups and remissions. The precise etiopathogenesis of OLP is still debatable, although it is believed to be a T-cell-mediated disorder of an unidentified antigen. Despite the availability of various treatments, no cure for OLP exists due to its recalcitrant nature and idiopathic etiology. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and immunomodulatory properties, in addition to its regulatory action on keratinocyte differentiation and proliferation. These salient properties substantiate the possible role of PRP in the treatment of OLP. Our systematic review focuses on assessing the therapeutic potential of PRP as a treatment modality in OLP. Materials and Methods: We conducted a detailed literature search for studies assessing PRP as a therapeutic regimen in OLP, using the Google Scholar and PubMed/MEDLINE search engines. The search was limited to studies published from January 2000 to January 2023 and included a combination of Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms. ROBVIS analysis was carried out for the assessment of publication bias. Descriptive statistics were performed using Microsoft Excel. Results: This systematic review included five articles that met the inclusion criteria. Most of the included studies demonstrated that PRP treatment considerably ameliorated both objective and subjective symptoms in OLP subjects, with comparable efficacy to the standard corticosteroid treatment. Further, PRP therapy offers the added benefit of minimal adverse effects and recurrences. Conclusion: This systematic review suggests that PRP has significant therapeutic potential for treating OLP. However, further research with larger sample sizes is imperative to corroborate these findings.

Abstract

Findings on the effects of iron on heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and mortality among patients with iron deficiency (ID) and HF remain conflicting across different studies. We performed a meta-analysis of clinical trials assessing the clinical, hematic and cardiovascular benefits of treating ID in HF patients. We completed a systematic search for studies comparing IV iron to placebo in HF patients with ID. The primary outcomes were rates of HF hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included change in hematic values, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and ejection fraction. We applied a random-effects model with planned sensitivity analyses of studies with skewed effect sizes. Nine studies were included with a total of 2,261 patients. Analysis revealed that treatment of HF patients with IV iron replacement significantly reduced the odds of HF hospitalization (odds ratio (OR): 0.44; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.24 to 0.78; p=0.005, I(2)=67%),) but did not significantly impact all-cause mortality compared to placebo (OR: 0.89; 95%, CI: 0.67 to 1.19; p=0.44, I(2): 0%). Analysis showed that IV iron treatment group had significantly higher serum ferritin, transferrin saturation and hemoglobin (Hb) levels. They also had lower NYHA class -1.90 (95% CI (-2.91 to -0.89); p<0.001, I(2):89%) with higher ejection fraction 0.50 (95% CI (0.09 to 0.90) p=0.016, I(2):86%). Treatment with IV iron in HF patients with ID is associated with a significant reduction of HF hospitalization but no effects on all-cause mortality. There were also significant increases in hematic values and ejection fraction with a reduction in NYHA class.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Iron deficiency in patients with heart failure (HF) is underdiagnosed and undertreated. The role of intravenous (IV) iron is well-established to improve quality of life measures. Emerging evidence also supports its role in preventing cardiovascular events in patients with HF. METHODOLOGY We conducted a literature search of multiple electronic databases. Randomized controlled trials that compared IV iron to usual care among patients with HF and reported cardiovascular (CV) outcomes were included. Primary outcome was the composite of first heart failure hospitalization (HFH) or CV death. Secondary outcomes included HFH (first or recurrent), CV death, all-cause mortality, hospitalization for any cause, gastrointestinal (GI) side effects, or any infection. We performed trial sequential and cumulative meta-analyses to evaluate the effect of IV iron on the primary endpoint, and on HFH. RESULTS Nine trials enrolling 3337 patients were included. Adding IV iron to usual care significantly reduced the risk of first HFH or CV death [risk ratio (RR) 0.84; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.75-0.93; I(2) = 0 %; number needed to treat (NNT) 18], which was primarily driven by a reduction in the risk of HFH of 25 %. IV iron also reduced the risk of the composite of hospitalization for any cause or death (RR 0.92; 95 % CI 0.85-0.99; I(2) = 0 %; NNT 19). There was no significant difference in the risk of CV death, all-cause mortality, adverse GI events, or any infection among patients receiving IV iron compared to usual care. The observed benefits of IV iron were directionally consistent across trials and crossed both the statistical and trial sequential boundaries of benefit. CONCLUSION In patients with HF and iron deficiency, the addition of IV iron to usual care reduces the risk of HFH without affecting the risk of CV or all-cause mortality.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Heart and kidney dysfunction frequently coexist in patients with acute heart failure due to the overlap between these two organ systems. Cardiorenal syndrome (CRS) results from pathology occurring in the heart and kidneys along with the consequences of dysfunction in one organ contributing to dysfunction in the other and vice versa. AIM: To evaluate the use of erythropoietin (EPO) in patients with CRS and its effects on hemoglobin (Hb), major cardiovascular (CV) events, and hospitalization rates. METHODS On February 24, 2022, searches were conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, and 148 articles were identified. A total of nine studies were considered in this systematic review. We assessed the included articles based on the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute quality assessment tools for controlled intervention and observational cohort or cross-sectional studies. An assessment of bias risk was conducted on the chosen studies, and data relevant to our review was extracted. RESULTS The systematic review of these studies concluded that most existing literature indicates that EPO improves baseline Hb levels and decreases myocardial remodeling and left ventricular dysfunction without reducing CV mortality. In addition, the effect of EPO on the hospitalization rate of patients with CRS needs to be further studied since this relationship is unknown. Future studies, such as randomized controlled clinical trials and prospective cohort studies, should be conducted to enhance the literature on the potential of EPO therapy in patients with CRS. CONCLUSION Our systematic review suggests that EPO therapy may have a significant role in managing CRS. The review highlights the potential benefits of EPO in improving baseline Hb levels, reducing the risk of major CV events, improving cardiac remodeling, myocardial function, New York Heart Association class, and B-type natriuretic peptide levels. However, the effect of EPO treatment on hospitalization remains unclear and needs further exploration.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of topical tranexamic acid (TXA) versus topical vasoconstrictors in the management of epistaxis via a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standards were followed for the meta-analysis. We systematically searched Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and PubMed for randomized controlled trials (from inception to August 2022; no language restrictions), comparing the effect of topical TXA and topical vasoconstrictors on the treatment of epistaxis. The Q test was used to evaluate heterogeneity, and funnel plots were utilized to identify bias. For the meta-analysis, the fixed-effects model was employed, and the t-test was utilized to determine significance. RESULTS Of 1012 identified studies, 5 were found to be eligible for our analysis. In total, 598 patients were included; 297 of them received TXA and 301 received vasoconstrictors. Hemostasis was more likely to be achieved at the first re-assessment in patients treated with TXA. Subgroup analysis indicated patients treated with TXA to have less likelihood of bleeding recurrence, compared to patients treated with vasoconstrictors. The detected time interval of rebleeding was 10 min, between 24h to 72h, and after 7 days, respectively, and the differences were significant between the two groups of patients treated with TXA and vasoconstrictors. CONCLUSION Topical TXA was associated with better post-treatment hemorrhagic arrest rates compared to topical vasoconstrictors in the management of epistaxis.

Abstract

PURPOSE Most studies evaluating artificial intelligence (AI) models that detect abnormalities in neuroimaging are either tested on unrepresentative patient cohorts or are insufficiently well-validated, leading to poor generalisability to real-world tasks. The aim was to determine the diagnostic test accuracy and summarise the evidence supporting the use of AI models performing first-line, high-volume neuroimaging tasks. METHODS Medline, Embase, Cochrane library and Web of Science were searched until September 2021 for studies that temporally or externally validated AI capable of detecting abnormalities in first-line computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance (MR) neuroimaging. A bivariate random effects model was used for meta-analysis where appropriate. This study was registered on PROSPERO as CRD42021269563. RESULTS Out of 42,870 records screened, and 5734 potentially eligible full texts, only 16 studies were eligible for inclusion. Included studies were not compromised by unrepresentative datasets or inadequate validation methodology. Direct comparison with radiologists was available in 4/16 studies and 15/16 had a high risk of bias. Meta-analysis was only suitable for intracranial hemorrhage detection in CT imaging (10/16 studies), where AI systems had a pooled sensitivity and specificity 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-0.94) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.83-0.95), respectively. Other AI studies using CT and MRI detected target conditions other than hemorrhage (2/16), or multiple target conditions (4/16). Only 3/16 studies implemented AI in clinical pathways, either for pre-read triage or as post-read discrepancy identifiers. CONCLUSION The paucity of eligible studies reflects that most abnormality detection AI studies were not adequately validated in representative clinical cohorts. The few studies describing how abnormality detection AI could impact patients and clinicians did not explore the full ramifications of clinical implementation.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Upper endoscopy is the definitive treatment for upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage (UGIH). However, up to 13% of people who undergo upper endoscopy will have incomplete visualisation of the gastric mucosa at presentation. Erythromycin acts as a motilin receptor agonist in the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract and increases gastric emptying, which may lead to better quality of visualisation and improved treatment effectiveness. However, there is uncertainty about the benefits and harms of erythromycin in UGIH. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the benefits and harms of erythromycin before endoscopy in adults with acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, compared with any other treatment or no treatment/placebo. SEARCH METHODS We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 15 October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated erythromycin before endoscopy compared to any other treatment or no treatment/placebo before endoscopy in adults with acute UGIH. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. UGIH-related mortality and 2. serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 1. all-cause mortality, 2. visualisation of gastric mucosa, 3. non-serious adverse events, 4. rebleeding, 5. blood transfusion, and 5. rescue invasive intervention. We used GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS We included 11 RCTs with 878 participants. The mean age ranged from 53.13 years to 64.5 years, and most participants were men (72.3%). One RCT included only non-variceal haemorrhage, one included only variceal haemorrhage, and eight included both aetiologies. We defined short-term outcomes as those occurring within one week of initial endoscopy. Erythromycin versus placebo Three RCTs (255 participants) compared erythromycin with placebo. There were no UGIH-related deaths. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects of erythromycin compared with placebo on serious adverse events (risk difference (RD) -0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.04 to 0.02; 3 studies, 255 participants; very low certainty), all-cause mortality (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; 3 studies, 255 participants; very low certainty), non-serious adverse events (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.05; 3 studies, 255 participants; very low certainty), and rebleeding (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.90; 2 studies, 195 participants; very low certainty). Erythromycin may improve gastric mucosa visualisation (mean difference (MD) 3.63 points on 16-point ordinal scale, 95% CI 2.20 to 5.05; higher MD means better visualisation; 2 studies, 195 participants; low certainty). Erythromycin may also result in a slight reduction in blood transfusion (MD -0.44 standard units of blood, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.01; 3 studies, 255 participants; low certainty). Erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage versus no intervention/placebo plus nasogastric tube lavage Six RCTs (408 participants) compared erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage with no intervention/placebo plus nasogastric tube lavage. There were no UGIH-related deaths and no serious adverse events. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects of erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage compared with no intervention/placebo plus nasogastric tube lavage on all-cause mortality (RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.03; 3 studies, 238 participants; very low certainty), visualisation of the gastric mucosa (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.48 points on 10-point ordinal scale, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.85; higher SMD means better visualisation; 3 studies, 170 participants; very low certainty), non-serious adverse events (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.05; 6 studies, 408 participants; very low certainty), rebleeding (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.02; 1 study, 169 participants; very low certainty), and blood transfusion (MD -1.85 standard units of blood, 95% CI -4.34 to 0.64; 3 studies, 180 participants; very low certainty). Erythromycin versus nasogastric tube lavage Four RCTs (287 participants) compared erythromycin with nasogastric tube lavage. There were no UGIH-related deaths and no serious adverse events. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects of erythromycin compared with nasogastric tube lavage on all-cause mortality (RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.08; 3 studies, 213 participants; very low certainty), visualisation of the gastric mucosa (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.79; 2 studies, 198 participants; very low certainty), non-serious adverse events (RD -0.10, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.13; 3 studies, 213 participants; very low certainty), rebleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.49; 1 study, 169 participants; very low certainty), and blood transfusion (median 2 standard units of blood, interquartile range 0 to 4 in both groups; 1 study, 169 participants; very low certainty). Erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage versus metoclopramide plus nasogastric tube lavage One RCT (30 participants) compared erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage with metoclopramide plus nasogastric tube lavage. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of erythromycin plus nasogastric tube lavage on all the reported outcomes (serious adverse events, visualisation of gastric mucosa, non-serious adverse events, and blood transfusion). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We are unsure if erythromycin before endoscopy in people with UGIH has any clinical benefits or harms. However, erythromycin compared with placebo may improve gastric mucosa visualisation and result in a slight reduction in blood transfusion.