Gerberi, Dana

AbstractBackgroundA short course of corticosteroids is among the management strategies considered by specialists for the treatment of vestibular neuritis (VN). We conducted an umbrella review (systematic review of systematic reviews) to summarize the evidence of corticosteroids use for the treatment of VN.MethodsWe included systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that evaluated the effects of corticosteroids compared to placebo or usual care in adult patients with acute VN. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened in duplicate. The quality of reviews was assessed with the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR‐2) tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment was used to rate certainty of evidence. No meta‐analysis was performed.ResultsFrom 149 titles, five systematic reviews were selected for quality assessment, and two reviews were of higher methodological quality and were included. These two reviews included 12 individual studies and 660 patients with VN. In a meta‐analysis of two RCTs including a total of 50 patients, the use of corticosteroids (compared to placebo) was associated with higher complete caloric recovery (risk ratio 2.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32 to 6.00, low certainty). It is very uncertain whether this translates into clinical improvement as shown by the imprecise effect estimates for outcomes such as patient‐reported vertigo or patient‐reported dizziness disability. There was a wide CI for the outcome of dizziness handicap score (one study, 30 patients, 20.9 points in corticosteroids group vs. 15.8 points in placebo, mean difference +5.1, 95% CI −8.09 to +18.29, very low certainty). Higher rates of minor adverse effects for those receiving corticosteroids were reported, but the certainty in this evidence was very low.ConclusionsThere is limited evidence to support the use of corticosteroids for the treatment of VN in the emergency department.

Slow deep breathing (SDB) may help patients with acute pain. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to investigate the effects of SDB on acute pain. Secondary aims include investigating the effects of SDB on acute pain-related physical and emotional functioning. An a priori protocol was registered and a database search was conducted by a reference librarian. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) were eligible for inclusion and exclusion criteria included studies of SDB for non-pain indications and studies that applied SDB as a component of an encompassing intervention. The risk or bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. Meta-analysis was conducted using the random effects model. A total of 11 968 studies were screened and seven RCTs met inclusion criteria; five were judged to have low risk of bias. Meta-analysis of post-intervention pain scores demonstrated that SDB was associated with significantly lower pain scores compared with a control group, but with high levels of heterogeneity. Subgroup analyzes demonstrated that trials of burn pain were associated with a larger reduction in pain which partially explains the heterogeneity. Very low certainty evidence suggests that SDB may reduce acute pain intensity. Further research is needed to identify patients who are candidates for SDB and determine the best approach to deliver this therapy.

AbstractBackgroundRecurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED) might represent an opportunity for screening of depression and/or anxiety.MethodsWe systematically searched five databases for studies evaluating the effect of screening for depression and/or anxiety in ED patients with recurrent and undifferentiated abdominal pain. Given paucity of direct evidence, we also searched for indirect evidence including studies that assessed prevalence of depression and/or anxiety in EDs (not necessarily recurrent abdominal pain), diagnostic accuracy of screening tools, effectiveness of screening in other settings, and outcomes such as repeat ED visits of patients with abdominal pain who were screened in the ED. Two methodologists evaluated certainty in the evidence using the GRADE approach.ResultsA total of 4,337 citations were reviewed, and zero studies were found on the effect of screening in patients with recurrent and undifferentiated abdominal pain in the ED. A total of 35 studies were included as relevant indirect evidence. In studies of ED patients with abdominal pain, depression ranged from 10% to 29%, while anxiety ranged from 18% to 50%. False positives appear to be an issue given relatively low specificity of screening tools. One randomized trial including ED patients with vague symptoms evaluated the effect of depression screening on a composite outcome of depression recognition, psychiatric consultation, or referral by the emergency physician (risk ratio = 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.49 to 4.53, very low certainty). One study reported that patients with undifferentiated abdominal pain who screened positive for depression have had increased ED recidivism (odds ratio = 3.17, 95% CI = 1.14 to 8.85, very low certainty).ConclusionsWe were unable to identify any evidence that confirms that depression or anxiety screening in ED patients with recurrent and undifferentiated abdominal pain improves outcomes or changes management downstream.

Abstract Background The objective was to systematically evaluate the sensitivity of diffusion‐weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW‐MRI) for transient global amnesia (TGA) across various time frames compared to the reference‐standard clinical criteria. Methods All indexed publications related to TGA and MRI through June 2020 were retrieved by a medical librarian. Two independent reviewers identified original research studies of adults with a clinical diagnosis of TGA using Caplan and Hodges and Warlow criteria (reference standard) who were evaluated with DW‐MRI. Pooled estimates and its 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the proportion of acute TGA patients with positive DW‐MRI (i.e., sensitivity) were obtained using random‐effects meta‐analysis for various time frames. Quality assessment was performed using the revised Quality of Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS‐2) tool. Results After screening 665 reports, we identified 81 potentially relevant studies. Twenty‐three studies representing 1688 patients met eligibility criteria, but not all studies had data available for meta‐analysis. The pooled sensitivity (also described as positivity rate) of DW‐MRI was 15.6% (95% CI = 2.6%–35.0%) between 0 and 12 h from symptom onset, 23.1% (95% CI = 6.1%–45.7%) at 0–24 h, 72.8% (95% CI = 40.8%–96.3) at 12–24 h, 68.8% (95% CI = 44.8%–88.8%) at 24–36 h, 72.4% (95% CI = 59.8%–83.5%) at 36–48 h, 82.8% (95% CI = 54.7%–99.6%) at 48–60 h, 66.9% (95% CI = 47.5%–83.9%) at 60–72 h, and 72.0% (95% CI = 30.1%–100.0%) at 72–96 h. There was significant concern for risk of bias in the QUADAS‐2 domains of patient selection and index test, yielding a low level of certainty in the pooled estimates. Conclusion DW‐MRI lesions are uncommon in patients with TGA early after symptom onset, but the sensitivity (i.e., positivity rate) of DW‐MRI increases with time. Despite the limited quality of existing evidence, obtaining an early DW‐MRI in patients with clinical diagnosis of TGA in the acute setting is likely a low‐yield test.

Abstract Background Statins up-regulate angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, the receptor of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), while also exhibiting pleiotropic antiviral, antithrombotic, and anti-inflammatory properties. Uncertainties exist about their effect on the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We sought to systematically review the literature and perform a meta-analysis to examine the association between prior statin use and outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods We searched Ovid Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and the preprint server medRxiv from inception to December 2020. We assessed the quality of eligible studies with the Newcastle-Ottawa quality scale. We pooled adjusted relative risk (aRRs) of the association between prior statin use and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model and assessed heterogeneity using the I2 index. Results Overall, 19 (16 cohorts and 3 case-control) studies were eligible, with a total of 395 513 patients. Sixteen of 19 studies had low or moderate risk of bias. Among 109 080 patients enrolled in 13 separate studies, prior statin use was associated with a lower risk of mortality (pooled aRR, 0.65 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .56–.77], I2 = 84.1%) and a reduced risk of severe COVID-19 was also observed in 48 110 patients enrolled in 9 studies (pooled aRR, 0.73 [95% CI, .57–.94], I2 = 82.8%), with no evidence of publication bias. Conclusions Cumulative evidence suggests that prior statin use is associated with lower risks of mortality or severe disease in patients with COVID-19. These data support the continued use of statins medications in patients with an indication for lipid-lowering therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

AbstractMany meta‐analyses have been published about the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Most of them included observational studies, and few have assessed HCQ as a prophylaxis or evaluated its safety profile. We searched multiple databases and preprint servers for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed HCQ for the treatment or prevention of COVID‐19. We summarized the effect of HCQ on mortality, viral clearance, and other clinical outcomes. Out of 768 papers screened, 21 RCTs with a total of 14,138 patients were included. A total of 9 inpatient and 3 outpatient RCTs assessed mortality in 8596 patients with a pooled risk difference of 0.01 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00–0.03, I2 = 1%, p = 0.07). Six studies assessed viral clearance at 7 days with a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 1.11 (95% CI 0.86–1.42, I2 = 61%, p = 0.44) and 5 studies at 14 days with a pooled RR of 0.96 (95% CI 0.89–1.04, I2 = 0%, p = 0.34). Several trials showed no significant effect of HCQ on other clinical outcomes and. Five prevention RCTs with 5012 patients found no effect of HCQ on the risk of acquiring COVID‐19. Thirteen trials showed that HCQ was associated with increased risk of adverse events. We observed, with high level of certainty of evidence, that HCQ is not effective in reducing mortality in patients with COVID‐19. Lower certainty evidence also suggests that HCQ neither improves viral clearance and other clinical outcomes, nor prevents COVID‐19 infection in patients with high‐risk exposure. HCQ is associated with an increased rate of adverse events.

Abstract Objectives Clinical studies of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in COVID-19 disease reported conflicting results. We sought to systematically evaluate the effect of CQ and HCQ with or without azithromycin on outcomes of COVID-19 patients. Methods We searched multiple databases, preprints and grey literature up to 17 July 2020. We pooled only adjusted-effect estimates of mortality using a random-effect model. We summarized the effect of CQ or HCQ on viral clearance, ICU admission/mechanical ventilation and hospitalization. Results Seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 14 cohort studies were included (20 979 patients). Thirteen studies (1 RCT and 12 cohort studies) with 15 938 hospitalized patients examined the effect of HCQ on short-term mortality. The pooled adjusted OR was 1.05 (95% CI 0.96–1.15, I2 = 0%). Six cohort studies examined the effect of the HCQ+azithromycin combination with a pooled adjusted OR of 1.32 (95% CI 1.00–1.75, I2 = 68.1%). Two cohort studies and four RCTs found no effect of HCQ on viral clearance. One small RCT demonstrated improved viral clearance with CQ and HCQ. Three cohort studies found that HCQ had no significant effect on mechanical ventilation/ICU admission. Two RCTs found no effect for HCQ on hospitalization risk in outpatients with COVID-19. Conclusions Moderate certainty evidence suggests that HCQ, with or without azithromycin, lacks efficacy in reducing short-term mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 or risk of hospitalization in outpatients with COVID-19.