Search

Background: N-acetylcysteine, sodium bicarbonate, statins, and ascorbic acid have been studied for reducing contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN).Purpose: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of interventions to reduce CIN in adults receiving contrast media.Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Scopus databases through June 2015. Risk of bias and overall strength of evidence (SOE) of studies were assessed.Study Selection: Randomized, controlled trials of N-acetylcysteine, sodium bicarbonate, statins, or ascorbic acid that used intravenous (IV) or intra-arterial contrast media and defined CIN with enough data for meta-analysis.Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality.Data Synthesis: Low-dose N-acetylcysteine plus IV saline compared with IV saline (risk ratio [RR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.89]; low SOE), N-acetylcysteine plus IV saline compared with IV saline in patients receiving low-osmolar contrast media (RR, 0.69 [CI, 0.58 to 0.84]; moderate SOE), and statins plus N-acetylcysteine plus IV saline versus N-acetylcysteine plus IV saline (RR, 0.52 [CI, 0.29 to 0.93]; low SOE) had clinically important and statistically significant benefits. The following 3 comparisons suggested a clinically important difference that was not statistically significant: sodium bicarbonate versus IV saline in patients receiving low-osmolar contrast media (RR, 0.65 [CI, 0.33 to 1.25]; low SOE), statins plus IV saline versus IV saline (RR, 0.68 [CI, 0.39 to 1.20]; low SOE), and ascorbic acid versus IV saline (RR, 0.72 [CI, 0.48 to 1.01]; low SOE). Strength of evidence was generally insufficient for comparisons of the need for renal replacement, cardiac events, and mortality.Limitation: Too few studies were done in patients receiving IV contrast media.Conclusion: The greatest reduction in CIN was seen with N-acetylcysteine plus IV saline in patients receiving LOCM and with statins plus N-acetylcysteine plus IV saline.Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Iodine contrast media are essential components of many imaging procedures. An important potential side effect is contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN).Purpose: To compare CIN risk for contrast media within and between osmolality classes in patients receiving diagnostic or therapeutic imaging procedures.Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trials.gov, and Scopus through June 2015.Study Selection: Randomized, controlled trials that reported CIN-related outcomes in patients receiving low-osmolar contrast media (LOCM) or iso-osmolar contrast media for imaging.Data Extraction: Independent study selection and quality assessment by 2 reviewers and dual extraction of study characteristics and results.Data Synthesis: None of the 5 studies that compared types of LOCM reported a statistically significant or clinically important difference among study groups, but the strength of evidence was low. Twenty-five randomized, controlled trials found a slight reduction in CIN risk with the iso-osmolar contrast media agent iodixanol compared with a diverse group of LOCM that just reached statistical significance in a meta-analysis (pooled relative risk, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.65 to 0.99]; P = 0.045). This comparison's strength of evidence was moderate. In a meta regression of randomized, controlled trials of iodixanol, no relationship was found between route of administration and comparative CIN risk.Limitations: Few studies compared LOCM. Procedural details about contrast administration were not uniformly reported. Few studies specified clinical indications or severity of baseline renal impairment.Conclusion: No differences were found in CIN risk among types of LOCM. Iodixanol had a slightly lower risk for CIN than LOCM, but the lower risk did not exceed a criterion for clinical importance.Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The purpose of the systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for the treatment of allergic asthma. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched, updating an earlier review (January 1, 2005 through May 8, 2017). Randomized, controlled studies (RCTs) were included, which reported one of the prespecified outcomes: asthma symptoms measured by control composite scores; quality of life; medication use; pulmonary physiology; and health‐care utilization. For safety outcomes, RCTs and observational studies were included. Two independent reviewers extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and graded strength of evidence (SOE) for each outcome. Results: Fourteen RCTs (n = 2585) assessed the efficacy of SLIT for asthma. The RCTs utilized house dust mite (HDM), birch, or grass allergen. SLIT improved asthma symptoms (high SOE), decreased use of long‐term control medication, and improved forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) (moderate SOE). SLIT may decrease quick‐relief medication use, and improve disease‐specific quality of life (low SOE). For safety, 20 RCTs and 10 observational studies (n = 3621) were identified. Local (risk differences ranged from −0.03 to +0.765) and systemic allergic reactions (risk differences ranged from −0.03 to +0.06) were a common occurrence in SLIT and control groups. Life‐threatening reactions were uncommon, with 3 cases of anaphylaxis and no deaths reported. Conclusion: There is moderate‐to‐high strength evidence that SLIT improves allergic asthma symptoms, reduces long‐term control medication use, and improves FEV1 based on studies of HDM, birch, and grass. SLIT rarely is associated with life‐threatening adverse events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

CONTEXT: Treatment options for allergic asthma include allergen avoidance, pharmacotherapy, and allergen immunotherapy. OBJECTIVES: Summarize and update current evidence for the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in pediatric allergic asthma. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (January 1, 2005, through May 8, 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System. We reevaluated trials from our 2013 systematic review. STUDY SELECTION: We included studies with children ≤18 years of age in which researchers reported on prespecified outcomes and had an intervention arm receiving aeroallergen SCIT or SLIT. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included for efficacy. RCTs and non-RCTs were included for safety outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers extracted data. We included 40 studies (17 SCIT trials, 11 SLIT trials, 8 non-RCTs for SCIT safety, and 4 non-RCTs for SLIT safety). RESULTS: We found moderate-strength evidence that SCIT reduces long-term asthma medication use. We found low-strength evidence that SCIT improves asthma-related quality of life and forced expiratory volume in 1 second. There was also low-strength evidence that SLIT improves medication use and forced expiratory volume in 1 second. There was insufficient evidence on asthma symptoms and health care use. LIMITATIONS: There were no trials in which researchers evaluated asthma symptoms using a validated tool. Study characteristics and outcomes were reported heterogeneously. CONCLUSIONS: In children with allergic asthma, SCIT may reduce long-term asthma medication use. Local and systemic allergic reactions are common, but anaphylaxis is reported rarely. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]