Citations

BACKGROUNDLeukoreduced (LR) or cytomegalovirus (CMV)‐seronegative cellular blood components are commonly used to reduce the risk of transfusion‐transmitted CMV infection in high‐risk patients.STUDY DESIGN AND METHODSWe performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to evaluate the evidence for the use of LR cellular blood components with or without concurrent CMV testing of donor units in patients undergoing chemotherapy or solid organ and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, in pregnant women, in very‐low‐birthweight infants, and in patients with primary immunodeficiency. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus from 1980 through February 2015. Studies were included if they had a comparison group. Two independent reviewers selected and appraised studies. Meta‐analysis was performed when appropriate.RESULTSOf 457 studies screened, 11 were eligible. One study was excluded from the meta‐analysis because the comparison performed differed significantly from the others. Meta‐analysis of five studies that compared leukoreduction to transfusing CMV‐untested blood components showed no significant difference in clinical CMV infection (relative risk [RR], 0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04‐1.57) or laboratory CMV infection (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.08‐1.37). Meta‐analysis of three studies that compared leukoreduction to transfusing CMV‐seronegative cellular components showed no significant difference in laboratory CMV infection (RR, 2.18; 95% CI, 0.96‐4.98). Meta‐analysis of two studies that compared adding CMV testing to leukoreduction (vs. leukoreduction alone) showed no significant difference in clinical or laboratory CMV infection. The certainty in estimates was low for all comparisons.CONCLUSIONAt present, the scientific evidence does not favor a single strategy for reducing the risk of transfusion‐related CMV infection in high‐risk patients.

Abstract Objectives This was a systematic review and meta‐analysis to evaluate the incidence of adverse events in adults undergoing procedural sedation in the emergency department ( ED ). Methods Eight electronic databases were searched, including MEDLINE , EMBASE , EBSCO , CINAHL , CENTRAL , Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and Scopus, from January 2005 through 2015. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies of adults undergoing procedural sedation in the ED that reported a priori selected outcomes and adverse events were included. Meta‐analysis was performed using a random‐effects model and reported as incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals ( CI s). Results The search yielded 2,046 titles for review. Fifty‐five articles were eligible, including 9,652 procedural sedations. The most common adverse event was hypoxia, with an incidence of 40.2 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI = 32.5 to 47.9), followed by vomiting with 16.4 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI = 9.7 to 23.0) and hypotension with 15.2 per 1,000 sedations (95% CI = 10.7 to 19.7). Severe adverse events requiring emergent medical intervention were rare, with one case of aspiration in 2,370 sedations (1.2 per 1,000), one case of laryngospasm in 883 sedations (4.2 per 1,000), and two intubations in 3,636 sedations (1.6 per 1,000). The incidence of agitation and vomiting were higher with ketamine (164.1 per 1,000 and 170.0 per 1,000, respectively). Apnea was more frequent with midazolam (51.4 per 1,000), and hypoxia was less frequent in patients who received ketamine/propofol compared to other combinations. The case of laryngospasm was in a patient who received ketamine, and the aspiration and intubations were in patients who received propofol. When propofol and ketamine are combined, the incidences of agitation, apnea, hypoxia, bradycardia, hypotension, and vomiting were lower compared to each medication separately. Conclusions Serious adverse events during procedural sedation like laryngospasm, aspiration, and intubation are exceedingly rare. Quantitative risk estimates are provided to facilitate shared decision‐making, risk communication, and informed consent.

Background Prompt, complete, and accurate information transfer at the time of discharge between hospital-based and primary care providers (PCPs) is needed for the provision of safe and effective care. Purpose of the Study To evaluate timeliness, quality, and interventions to improve timeliness and quality of hospital discharge summaries. Data Sources PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus database published in English between January 2007 and February 2014 were searched. We also hand-searched bibliographies of relevant articles. Study Selection Observational studies investigating transfer of information at hospital discharge (n = 7) and controlled studies evaluating interventions to improve timeliness and quality of discharge information (n = 12) were included. Data Extraction We extracted data on availability, timeliness, and content of hospital discharge summaries and on the effectiveness of interventions targeting discharge summaries. Results of studies are presented narratively and using descriptive statistics. Data Synthesis Across the studies, discharge summaries were completed within 48 hours in a median of 67% and were available to PCPs within 48 hours only 55% of the time. Most of the time, discharge summaries included demographics, primary diagnosis, hospital course, and discharge instructions. However, information was limited to pending test results (25%), diagnostic tests performed (60%), and postdischarge medications (78%). In 6 interventional studies, implementation of electronic discharge summaries was associated with improvement in timeliness but not quality. Conclusions Delayed or insufficient transfer of discharge information between hospital-based providers and PCPs remains common. Creation of electronic discharge summaries seems to improve timeliness and availability but does not consistently improve quality.

Most individuals with chronic hepatitis B viral (HBV) infection acquired the infection around the time of birth or during early childhood. We aimed to synthesize evidence regarding the effectiveness of antiviral therapy in the management of chronic HBV infection in children. We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple databases from 1988 to December 2, 2014, for studies that enrolled children (<18 years) with chronic HBV infection treated with antiviral therapy. We included observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data. In the 14 included studies, two cohort studies showed no significant reduction in the already low risk of hepatocellular carcinoma or cirrhosis and 12 RCTs reported intermediate outcomes. In RCTs with posttreatment follow‐up <12 months, antiviral therapy compared to placebo improved alanine aminotransferase normalization (risk ratio [RR] = 2.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7‐3.2), hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) clearance/loss (RR = 2.1, 95% CI 1.5‐3.1), HBV DNA suppression (RR = 2.9, 95% CI 1.8‐4.6), HBeAg seroconversion (RR = 2.1, 95% CI 1.4‐3.3), and hepatitis B surface antigen clearance (RR = 5.8, 95% CI 1.1‐31.5). In RCTs with posttreatment follow‐up ≥12 months, antiviral therapy improved cumulative HBeAg clearance/loss (RR = 1.9, 95% CI 1.7‐3.1), HBeAg seroconversion (RR = 2.1, 95% CI 1.3‐3.5), alanine aminotransferase normalization (RR = 1.4, 95% CI 1.1‐1.7), and HBV DNA suppression (RR = 1.4, 95% CI 1.1‐1.8) but not hepatitis B surface antigen clearance or seroconversion. Conclusion: In children with chronic HBV infection, antivirals compared to no antiviral therapy improve HBV DNA suppression and frequency of alanine aminotransferase normalization and HBeAg seroconversion. (Hepatology 2016;63:307–318)

Perinatal or mother‐to‐child transmission (MTCT) of hepatitis B virus (HBV) remains the major risk factor for chronic HBV infection worldwide. In addition to hepatitis B immune globulin and vaccination, oral antiviral therapies in highly viremic mothers can further decrease MTCT of HBV. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis to synthesize the evidence on the efficacy and maternal and fetal safety of antiviral therapy during pregnancy. A protocol was developed by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases guideline writing committee. We searched multiple databases for controlled studies that enrolled pregnant women with chronic HBV infection treated with antiviral therapy. Outcomes of interest were reduction of MTCT and adverse outcomes to mothers and newborns. Study selection and data extraction were done by pairs of independent reviewers. We included 26 studies that enrolled 3622 pregnant women. Antiviral therapy reduced MTCT, as defined by infant hepatitis B surface antigen seropositivity (risk ratio = 0.3, 95% confidence interval 0.2‐0.4) or infant HBV DNA seropositivity (risk ratio = 0.3, 95% confidence interval 0.2‐0.5) at 6‐12 months. No significant differences were found in the congenital malformation rate, prematurity rate, and Apgar scores. Compared to control, lamivudine or telbivudine improved maternal HBV DNA suppression at delivery and during 4‐8 weeks' postpartum follow‐up. Tenofovir showed improvement in HBV DNA suppression at delivery. No significant differences were found in postpartum hemorrhage, cesarean section, and elevated creatinine kinase rates. Conclusions: Antiviral therapy improves HBV suppression and reduces MTCT in women with chronic HBV infection with high viral load compared to the use of hepatitis B immunoglobulin and vaccination alone; the use of telbivudine, lamivudine, and tenofovir appears to be safe in pregnancy with no increased adverse maternal or fetal outcome. (Hepatology 2016;63:319–333)

Chronic hepatitis B viral (HBV) infection remains a significant global health problem. Evidence‐based guidelines are needed to help providers determine when treatment should be initiated, which medication is most appropriate, and when treatment can safely be stopped. The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases HBV guideline methodology and writing committees developed a protocol a priori for this systematic review. We searched multiple databases for randomized controlled trials and controlled observational studies that enrolled adults ≥18 years old diagnosed with chronic HBV infection who received antiviral therapy. Data extraction was done by pairs of independent reviewers. We included 73 studies, of which 59 (15 randomized controlled trials and 44 observational studies) reported clinical outcomes. Moderate‐quality evidence supported the effectiveness of antiviral therapy in patients with immune active chronic HBV infection in reducing the risk of cirrhosis, decompensated liver disease, and hepatocellular carcinoma. In immune tolerant patients, moderate‐quality evidence supports improved intermediate outcomes with antiviral therapy. Only very low‐quality evidence informed the questions about discontinuing versus continuing antiviral therapy in hepatitis B e antigen‐positive patients who seroconverted from hepatitis B e antigen to hepatitis B e antibody and about the safety of entecavir versus tenofovir. Noncomparative and indirect evidence was available for questions about stopping versus continuing antiviral therapy in hepatitis B e antigen‐negative patients, monotherapy versus adding a second agent in patients with persistent viremia during treatment, and the effectiveness of antivirals in compensated cirrhosis with low‐level viremia. Conclusion: Most of the current literature focuses on the immune active phases of chronic HBV infection; decision‐making in other commonly encountered and challenging clinical settings depends on indirect evidence. (H epatology 2016;63:284–306)