 | Related Articles |
The management of alcoholic hepatitis.
Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 2009 Dec;70(12):680-4
Authors: Forrest EH
Alcoholic hepatitis is an increasingly common reason for hospital admission which carries a high mortality. This review describes a clinical approach to the definition, assessment and management of this condition.
PMID: 20081612 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Link to Article at PubMed | Related Articles |
Predictors of survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010 Jan 1;3(1):63-81
Authors: Sasson C, Rogers MA, Dahl J, Kellermann AL
BACKGROUND: Prior studies have identified key predictors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), but differences exist in the magnitude of these findings. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated the strength of associations between OHCA and key factors (event witnessed by a bystander or emergency medical services [EMS], provision of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR], initial cardiac rhythm, or the return of spontaneous circulation). We also examined trends in OHCA survival over time. METHODS AND RESULTS: An electronic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane DSR, DARE, ACP Journal Club, and CCTR was conducted (January 1, 1950 to August 21, 2008) for studies reporting OHCA of presumed cardiac etiology in adults. Data were extracted from 79 studies involving 142 740 patients. The pooled survival rate to hospital admission was 23.8% (95% CI, 21.1 to 26.6) and to hospital discharge was 7.6% (95% CI, 6.7 to 8.4). Stratified by baseline rates, survival to hospital discharge was more likely among those: witnessed by a bystander (6.4% to 13.5%), witnessed by EMS (4.9% to 18.2%), who received bystander CPR (3.9% to 16.1%), were found in ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia (14.8% to 23.0%), or achieved return of spontaneous circulation (15.5% to 33.6%). Although 53% (95% CI, 45.0% to 59.9%) of events were witnessed by a bystander, only 32% (95% CI, 26.7% to 37.8%) received bystander CPR. The number needed to treat to save 1 life ranged from 16 to 23 for EMS-witnessed arrests, 17 to 71 for bystander-witnessed, and 24 to 36 for those receiving bystander CPR, depending on baseline survival rates. The aggregate survival rate of OHCA (7.6%) has not significantly changed in almost 3 decades. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival from OHCA has been stable for almost 30 years, as have the strong associations between key predictors and survival. Because most OHCA events are witnessed, efforts to improve survival should focus on prompt delivery of interventions of known effectiveness by those who witness the event.
PMID: 20123673 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Link to Article at PubMed  | Related Articles |
Management of acute hepatitis B.
Clin Liver Dis. 2010 Feb;14(1):75-91; viii-ix
Authors: Shiffman ML
Acute hepatitis B virus (HBV) is a common cause of acute icteric hepatitis in adults. The vast majority of these patients resolve this acute infection and develop long-lasting immunity. In contrast, the vast majority of patients who develop chronic HBV have minimal symptoms and do not develop jaundice after becoming infected with HBV. These patients will frequently remain undiagnosed for years or decades. Approximately 1% of persons with acute HBV develop acute liver failure. Preventing acute HBV with vaccination is the best treatment. Although universal vaccination is now administered to newborns in many countries, the majority of adults have not been vaccinated and remain at risk. Because the majority of patients with acute HBV resolve this infection spontaneously, treatment with an oral anti-HBV agent is not necessary. However, the use of an oral anti-HBV agent is not unreasonable to use in a patient who is developing acute liver failure from severe acute HBV.
PMID: 20123442 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Link to Article at PubMed | Related Articles |
Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) versus multiple insulin injections for type 1 diabetes mellitus.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(1):CD005103
Authors: Misso ML, Egberts KJ, Page M, O'Connor D, Shaw J
BACKGROUND: Type 1 diabetes is a metabolic disorder resulting from a defect in insulin secretion. Onset of type 1 diabetes mellitus may occur at any age and it is one of the most common chronic diseases of childhood and adolescence. Since there are no interventions known to prevent onset, it is vital that effective treatment regimes are available. Glycaemic control is maintained by replacement of insulin and may be in the form of 'conventional' insulin therapy (multiple injections per day) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of CSII compared to multiple insulin injections (MI) in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus. SEARCH STRATEGY: Studies were obtained from electronic searches of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials comparing CSII with three or more insulin injections per day (MI) in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted characteristics of included studies. Authors contacted study investigators to obtain missing information. Generic inverse variance meta-analyses using a random-effects model were performed. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty three studies randomised 976 participants with type 1 diabetes to either intervention. There was a statistically significant difference in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) favouring CSII (weighted mean difference -0.3% (95% confidence interval -0.1 to -0.4). There were no obvious differences between the interventions for non-severe hypoglycaemia, but severe hypoglycaemia appeared to be reduced in those using CSII. Quality of life measures suggest that CSII is preferred over MI. No significant difference was found for weight. Adverse events were not well reported, no information is available on mortality, morbidity and costs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence to suggest that CSII may be better than MI for glycaemic control in people with type 1 diabetes. Non-severe hypoglycaemic events do not appear to be reduced with CSII. There is insufficient evidence regarding adverse events, mortality, morbidity and costs.
PMID: 20091571 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Link to Article at PubMed| | Related Articles |
Blood pressure lowering efficacy of beta-blockers as second-line therapy for primary hypertension.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(1):CD007185
Authors: Chen JM, Heran BS, Perez MI, Wright JM
BACKGROUND: Beta-blockers are one of the more commonly prescribed classes of anti-hypertensive drugs, both as first-line and second-line. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effect on systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate and withdrawals due to adverse effects of beta-blocker therapy when given as a second-line drug in adult patients with primary hypertension. SEARCH STRATEGY: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966-Aug 2009), EMBASE (1988-Aug 2009) and bibliographic citations of articles and reviews were searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, randomized controlled trials comparing a beta-blocker in combination with a drug from another class of anti-hypertensive drugs compared with that drug alone for a duration of 3 to 12 weeks in patients with primary hypertension were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed trial quality of each included study. MAIN RESULTS: 20 double-blind RCTs evaluated the BP lowering efficacy of beta-blockers as second-line drug in 3744 hypertensive patients (baseline BP of 158/102 mmHg; mean duration of 7 weeks). The BP reduction from adding a beta-blocker as the second drug was estimated by comparing the difference in BP reduction between the combination and monotherapy groups. A reduction in BP was seen with adding a beta-blocker to thiazide diuretics or calcium channel blockers at doses as low as 0.25 times the manufacturer's recommended starting dose. The BP lowering efficacy of beta-blockers as a second drug was 6/4 mmHg at 1 times the starting dose and 8/6 mmHg at 2 times the starting dose. Beta-blockers reduced heart rate by 10 beats/min at 1 to 2 times the starting dose. Beta-blockers did not statistically significantly increase withdrawals due to adverse effects but this was likely due to the lack of reporting of this outcome in 35% of the included RCTs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Addition of a beta-blocker to diuretics or calcium-channel blockers reduces BP by 6/4mmHg at 1 times the starting dose and by 8/6 mmHg at 2 times the starting dose. When the blood pressure lowering effect of beta-blockers from this review was compared to that of thiazide diuretics from our previous review (Chen 2009), second-line beta-blockers reduce systolic BP to the same extent as second-line thiazide diuretics, but reduce diastolic BP to a greater degree. The different effect on diastolic BP means that beta-blockers have little or no effect on pulse pressure whereas thiazides cause a significant dose-related decrease in pulse pressure. This difference in the pattern of BP lowering with beta-blockers as compared to thiazides might be the explanation for the fact that beta-blockers appear to be less effective at reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes than thiazide diuretics, particularly in older individuals.
PMID: 20091622 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Link to Article at PubMed| | Related Articles |
Caffeine for asthma.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(1):CD001112
Authors: Welsh EJ, Bara A, Barley E, Cates CJ
BACKGROUND: Caffeine has a variety of pharmacological effects; it is a weak bronchodilator and it also reduces respiratory muscle fatigue. It is chemically related to the drug theophylline which is used to treat asthma. It has been suggested that caffeine may reduce asthma symptoms and interest has been expressed in its potential role as an asthma treatment. A number of studies have explored the effects of caffeine in asthma, this is the first review to systematically examine and summarise the evidence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of caffeine on lung function and identify whether there is a need to control for caffeine consumption prior to either lung function or exhaled nitric oxide testing. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register and the reference lists of articles (August 2009). We also contacted study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials of oral caffeine compared to placebo or coffee compared to decaffeinated coffee in adults with asthma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial selection, quality assessment and data extraction were done independently by two reviewers. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials involving a total of 75 people with mild to moderate asthma were included. The studies were all of cross-over design .Six trials involving 55 people showed that in comparison with placebo, caffeine, even at a 'low dose' (< 5mg/kg body weight), appears to improve lung function for up to two hours after consumption. Forced expiratory volume in one minute showed a small improvement up to two hours after caffeine ingestion (SMD 0.72; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.20), which translates into a 5% mean difference in FEV1. However in two studies the mean differences in FEV1 were 12% and 18% after caffeine. Mid-expiratory flow rates also showed a small improvement with caffeine and this was sustained up to four hours.One trial involving 20 people examined the effect of drinking coffee versus a decaffeinated variety on the exhaled nitric oxide levels in patients with asthma and concluded that there was no significant effect on this outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Caffeine appears to improve airways function modestly, for up to four hours, in people with asthma . People may need to avoid caffeine for at least four hours prior to lung function testing, as caffeine ingestion could cause misinterpretation of the results. Drinking caffeinated coffee before taking exhaled nitric oxide measurements does not appear to affect the results of the test, but more studies are needed to confirm this.
PMID: 20091514 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Link to Article at PubMed