Indomethacin for intracranial hypertension secondary to severe traumatic brain injury in adults

BACKGROUND

Among people who have suffered a traumatic brain injury, increased intracranial pressure continues to be a major cause of early death; it is estimated that about 11 people per 100 with traumatic brain injury die. Indomethacin (also known as indometacin) is a powerful cerebral vasoconstrictor that can reduce intracranial pressure and, ultimately, restore cerebral perfusion and oxygenation. Thus, indomethacin may improve the recovery of a person with traumatic brain injury.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of indomethacin for adults with severe traumatic brain injury.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the searches from inception to 23 August 2019. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL Plus (EBSCO), four other databases, and clinical trials registries. We also screened reference lists and conference abstracts, and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Our search criteria included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared indomethacin with any control in adults presenting with severe traumatic brain injury associated with elevated intracranial pressure, with no previous decompressive surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently decided on the selection of the studies. We followed standard Cochrane methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no eligible studies for this review, either completed or ongoing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no studies, either completed or ongoing, that assessed the effects of indomethacin in controlling intracranial hypertension secondary to severe traumatic brain injury. Thus, we cannot draw any conclusions about the effects of indomethacin on intracranial pressure, mortality rates, quality of life, disability or adverse effects. This absence of evidence should not be interpreted as evidence of no effect for indomethacin in controlling intracranial hypertension secondary to severe traumatic brain injury. It means that we have not identified eligible research for this review.

Short-course versus long-course therapy of the same antibiotic for community-acquired pneumonia in adolescent and adult outpatients

BACKGROUND

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a lung infection that can be acquired during day-to-day activities in the community (not while receiving care in a hospital). Community-acquired pneumonia poses a significant public health burden in terms of mortality, morbidity, and costs. Shorter antibiotic courses for CAP may limit treatment costs and adverse effects, but the optimal duration of antibiotic treatment is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of short-course versus longer-course treatment with the same antibiotic at the same daily dosage for CAP in non-hospitalised adolescents and adults (outpatients). We planned to investigate non-inferiority of short-course versus longer-term course treatment for efficacy outcomes, and superiority of short-course treatment for safety outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, and three trials registers on 28 September 2017 together with conference proceedings, reference checking, and contact with experts and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing short- and long-courses of the same antibiotic for CAP in adolescent and adult outpatients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We planned to use standard Cochrane methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Our searches identified 5260 records. We did not identify any RCTs that compared short- and longer-courses of the same antibiotic for the treatment of adolescents and adult outpatients with CAP.We excluded two RCTs that compared short courses (five compared to seven days) of the same antibiotic at the same daily dose because they evaluated antibiotics (gemifloxacin and telithromycin) not commonly used in practice for the treatment of CAP. In particular, gemifloxacin is no longer approved for the treatment of mild-to-moderate CAP due to its questionable risk-benefit balance, and reported adverse effects. Moreover, the safety profile of telithromycin is also cause for concern.We found one ongoing study that we will assess for inclusion in future updates of the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no eligible RCTs that studied a short-course of antibiotic compared to a longer-course (with the same antibiotic at the same daily dosage) for CAP in adolescent and adult outpatients. The effects of antibiotic therapy duration for CAP in adolescent and adult outpatients remains unclear.

Nutritional supplements for patients being treated for active visceral leishmaniasis

BACKGROUND

Visceral leishmaniasis (VL) is a disease caused by a parasite, which can lead to death if untreated. Poor nutritional status hastens the progression of VL infection, and VL worsens malnutrition status. Malnutrition is one of the poor prognostic factors identified for leishmaniasis. However, the effects of nutritional supplementation in people treated for VL are not known.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of oral nutritional supplements in people being treated with anti-leishmanial drug therapy for VL.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group (CIDG) Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and two trial registers up to 12 September 2017. We checked conference proceedings and WHO consultative meeting reports, the reference lists of key documents and existing reviews, and contacted experts and nutritional supplement companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized controlled trials (quasi-RCTs), and non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs) of any oral nutritional supplement, compared to no nutritional intervention, placebo, or dietary advice alone, in people being treated for VL.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the literature search results for studies that met the inclusion criteria. We had planned for two review authors to independently extract data and assess the risk of bias of the included studies. We planned to follow the Cochrane standard methodological procedures for assessing risk of bias and analysing the data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no eligible studies for this review, either completed or ongoing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no studies, either completed or ongoing, that assessed the effects of oral nutritional supplements in people with VL who were being treated with anti-leishmanial drug therapy. Thus, we could not draw any conclusions on the impact of these interventions on primary cure of VL, definitive cure of VL, treatment completion, self-reported recovery from illness or resolution of symptoms, weight gain, increased skinfold thickness, other measures of lean or total mass, or growth in children.This absence of evidence should not be interpreted as evidence of no effect for nutritional supplements in people under VL treatment. It means that we did not identify research that fulfilled our review inclusion criteria.The effects of oral nutritional supplements in people with VL who are being treated with anti-leishmanial drug therapy have yet to be determined by rigorous experimental studies, such as cluster-randomized trials, that focus on outcomes relevant for patients.

Isolation as a strategy for controlling the transmission of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in haemodialysis units

BACKGROUND

The hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection affects about 2% of the world's population and can cause chronic liver infection and persistent long-term sequelae such as cirrhosis and liver cancer.The prevalence of HCV infection among people on haemodialysis is often higher than the general population. The virus is easily transmitted parenterally, and blood transfusions have previously played a significant role in transmission; however, erythropoietin therapy has reduced the need for transfusions, and coupled with improved screening of donated blood, has significantly decreased transmission by transfusion. Although control of hospital-acquired infection has improved with the advent of biosafety measures, stopping HCV transmission in haemodialysis units remains challenging.Isolating people infected with HCV involves physical separation from others to limit direct or indirect transmission and includes a number of strategies during dialysis. The evidence for isolating people infected with HCV during haemodialysis is sparse with some inconsistencies.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of isolation of HCV-infected patients during haemodialysis on the transmission of HCV to other patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 26 November 2015 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. We also searched the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to 2015), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S, 1990 to 2015), ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database (1990 to 2015), and Open Grey (1990 to 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and cluster RCTs evaluating the clinical benefits and harms of isolating HCV-infected patients during haemodialysis on the transmission of HCV to other patients. We considered incidence of dialysis-acquired HCV infection, all-cause mortality, and adverse effects associated with isolation as the primary outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one study, which included 12 centres was identified: four centres used dedicated haemodialysis machines for HCV-infected patients and eight centres used non-dedicated machines. The total number of patients enrolled was 593. One centre was excluded after randomisation. Random sequence generation was not described and allocation concealment was not performed. Participants and personnel were not blinded and blinding of outcome assessors was not reported. Only 74.5% of the patients were followed for 9 months; and 47.3% were followed for an additional 9 months. The authors only reported one outcome, measuring the difference in the incidence of HCV in both groups. The authors did not consider the exposure time, to determine the adjusted rate of seroconversion risk/patient-year. The study reported that the incidence of HCV infection during the first follow-up period (9 months) was 1.6% in the dedicated group, and 4.7% in the non-dedicated one (446 patients analysed out of 593 randomised; RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.07). During the second follow-up period (18 months) the incidence was 1.3% in the dedicated group and 5.8% in the control (281 patients analysed out of 593 randomised; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.02). Therefore, we found no differences in terms of the number of participants developing HCV infection when comparing the dedicated group with the usual care. Moreover, the evidence was of very low quality, which means that we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The benefits and harms of isolation of HCV-infected patients during haemodialysis on the transmission of HCV to other patients are uncertain. Evidence from one short-duration cluster-randomised study with a high risk of bias did not find differences in terms of the number of participants developing HCV infection when comparing the use of dedicated haemodialysis machines for HCV infected patients with the use of non-dedicated machines.

Gloves, gowns and masks for reducing the transmission of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in the hospital setting

BACKGROUND

Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA; also known as methicillin-resistant S aureus) is a common hospital-acquired pathogen that increases morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Its control continues to be an unresolved issue in many hospitals worldwide. The evidence base for the effects of the use of gloves, gowns or masks as control measures for MRSA is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of wearing gloves, a gown or a mask when contact is anticipated with a hospitalised patient colonised or infected with MRSA, or with the patient's immediate environment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Specialised Registers of three Cochrane Groups (Wounds Group on 5 June 2015; Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group on 9 July 2013; and Infectious Diseases Group on 5 January 2009); CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6); DARE, HTA, NHS EED, and the Methodology Register (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6); MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (1946 to June week 1 2015); EMBASE (1974 to 4 June 2015); Web of Science (WOS) Core Collection (from inception to 7 June 2015); CINAHL (1982 to 5 June 2015); British Nursing Index (1985 to 6 July 2010); and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database (1639 to 11 June 2015). We also searched three trials registers (on 6 June 2015), references list of articles, and conference proceedings. We finally contacted relevant individuals for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies assessing the effects on MRSA transmission of the use of gloves, gowns or masks by any person in the hospital setting when contact is anticipated with a hospitalised patient colonised or infected with MRSA, or with the patient's immediate environment. We did not assess adverse effects or economic issues associated with these interventions.We considered any comparator to be eligible. With regard to study design, only randomised controlled trials (clustered or not) and the following non-randomised experimental studies were eligible: quasi-randomised controlled trials (clustered or not), non-randomised controlled trials (clustered or not), controlled before-and-after studies, controlled cohort before-after studies, interrupted time series studies (controlled or not), and repeated measures studies. We did not exclude any study on the basis of language or date of publication.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently decided on eligibility of the studies. Had any study having been included, two review authors would have extracted data (at least for outcome data) and assessed the risk of bias independently. We would have followed the standard methodological procedures suggested by Cochrane and the Cochrane EPOC Group for assessing risk of bias and analysing the data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no eligible studies for this review, either completed or ongoing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no studies assessing the effects of wearing gloves, gowns or masks for contact with MRSA hospitalised patients, or with their immediate environment, on the transmission of MRSA to patients, hospital staff, patients' caregivers or visitors. This absence of evidence should not be interpreted as evidence of no effect for these interventions. The effects of gloves, gowns and masks in these circumstances have yet to be determined by rigorous experimental studies, such as cluster-randomised trials involving multiple wards or hospitals, or interrupted time series studies.