eHealth interventions for people with chronic kidney disease

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: This review aims to look at the benefits and harms of using eHealth interventions in the CKD population

Interventions for improving health literacy in people with chronic kidney disease

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: This review aims to look at the benefits and harms of interventions for improving health literacy in patients with CKD

Interventions for chronic non-hypovolaemic hypotonic hyponatraemia (Review)

Background : Chronic (present > 48 hours) non-hypovolaemic hyponatraemia occurs frequently, can be caused by various conditions, and is associated with shorter survival and longer hospital stays. Many treatments, such as fluid restriction or vasopressin receptor antagonists can be used to improve the hyponatraemia, but whether that translates into improved patient-important outcomes is less certain. Objectives : This review aimed to 1) look at the benefits and harms of interventions for chronic non-hypovolaemic hypotonic hyponatraemia when compared with placebo, no treatment or head-to-head; and 2) determine if benefits and harms vary in absolute or relative terms dependent on the specific compound within a drug class, on the dosage used, or the underlying disorder causing the hyponatraemia. Search methods : We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 1 December 2017 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also screened the reference lists of potentially relevant studies, contacted authors, and screened the websites of regulatory agencies. Selection criteria : We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared the effects of any intervention with placebo, no treatment, standard care, or any other intervention in patients with chronic non-hypovolaemic hypotonic hyponatraemia. We also included subgroups with hyponatraemia from studies with broader inclusion criteria (e.g. people with chronic heart failure or people with cirrhosis with or without hyponatraemia), provided we could obtain outcomes for participants with hyponatraemia from the report or the study authors. Data collection and analysis : Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We expressed treatment effects as mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes (health-related quality of life, length of hospital stay, change from baseline in serum sodium concentration, cognitive function), and risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes (death, response and rapid increase in serum sodium concentration, hypernatraemia, polyuria, hypotension, acute kidney injury, liver function abnormalities) together with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Main results : We identified 35 studies, enrolling 3429 participants. Twenty-eight studies (3189 participants) compared a vasopressin receptor antagonist versus placebo, usual care, no treatment, or fluid restriction. In adults with chronic, non-hypovolaemic hypotonic hyponatraemia, vasopressin receptor antagonists have uncertain effects on death at six months (15 studies, 2330 participants: RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.33) due to risk of selective reporting and serious imprecision; and on health-related quality of life because results are at serious risk of performance, selective reporting and attrition bias, and suffer from indirectness related to the validity of the Short Form Health Survey (SF -12) in the setting of hyponatraemia. Vasopressin receptor antagonists may reduce hospital stay (low certainty evidence due to risk of performance bias and imprecision) (3 studies, 610 participants: MD-1.63 days, 95% CI -2.96 to -0.30), and may make little or no difference to cognitive function (low certainty evidence due to indirectness and imprecision). Vasopressin receptor antagonists probably increase the intermediate outcome of serum sodium concentration (21 studies, 2641 participants: MD 4.17 mmol/L, 95% CI 3.18 to 5.16), corresponding to two and a half as many people having a 5 to 6 mmol/L increase in sodium concentration compared with placebo at 4 to 180 days (moderate certainty evidence due to risk of attrition bias) (18 studies, 2014 participants: RR 2.49, 95% CI 1.95 to 3.18). But they probably also increase the risk of rapid serum sodium correction - most commonly defined as > 12 mmol/L/d (moderate certainty evidence due to indirectness) (14 studies, 2058 participants: RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.40) and commonly cause side-effects such as thirst (13 studies, 1666 participants: OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.80 to 4.27) and polyuria (6 studies, 1272 participants): RR 4.69, 95% CI 1.59 to 13.85) (high certainty evidence). The potential for liver toxicity remains uncertain due to large imprecision. Effects were generally consistent across the different agents, suggesting class effect. Data for other interventions such as fluid restriction, urea, mannitol, loop diuretics, corticosteroids, demeclocycline, lithium and phenytoin were largely absent. Authors' conclusions : In people with chronic hyponatraemia, vasopressin receptor antagonists modestly raise serum sodium concentration at the cost of a 3% increased risk of it being rapid. To date there is very low certainty evidence for patient-important outcomes; the effects on mortality and health-related quality of life are unclear and do not rule out appreciable benefit or harm; there does not appear to be an important effect on cognitive function, but hospital stay may be slightly shorter, although available data are limited. Treatment decisions must weigh the value of an increase in serum sodium concentration against its short-term risks and unknown effects on patient-important outcomes. Evidence for other treatments is largely absent. Further studies assessing standard treatments such as fluid restriction or urea against placebo and one-another would inform practice and are warranted. Given the limited available evidence for patient-important outcomes, any study should include these outcomes in a standardised manner

Parenteral versus oral iron therapy for adults and children with chronic kidney disease

What is this review about? The use of intravenous compared with oral iron supplements in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD)

Pain From Bluebottle Jellyfish Stings

An 11‐year‐old girl presented to the emergency department with severe pain after a jellyfish sting at a New South Wales beach. Bluebottle (Physalia) jellyfish was deemed the most likely cause considering her geographical location. The Australian Resuscitation Council Guideline (2010) suggests immersing in water as hot as can be tolerated for 20 min for treating pain from jellyfish stings. This guideline was written based on past case reports, books and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We performed a search to assess the most current evidence for relief of pain from Bluebottle jellyfish stings, which yielded two systematic reviews and seven RCT s. Both systematic reviews had similar conclusions, with one of the RCT s used in both reviews showing the most relevance to our presenting patient in terms of demographics, location and jellyfish type. This journal club article is an appraisal of this RCT by Loten et al . and the validity of its conclusion that hot water immersion is most effective for the relief of pain from Bluebottle stings

Interventions for smoking cessation and reduction in individuals with schizophrenia

Background Patients with schizophrenia smoke more heavily than the general population and this contributes to their higher morbidity and mortality from smoking‐related illnesses. It remains unclear what interventions can help them to quit or reduce smoking. Objectives To evaluate the benefits and harms of different treatments for nicotine dependence in schizophrenia. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register and electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from inception to April 2010. Selection criteria We included randomized trials for smoking cessation or reduction, comparing any pharmacological or non‐pharmacological intervention with placebo or with another therapeutic control in adult smokers with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Data collection and analysis Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility and quality of trials and extracted data. Outcome measures included smoking abstinence, reduction in the amount smoked and any change in mental state. We extracted abstinence and reduction data at the end of treatment and at least six months after the intervention. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence or reduction and biochemically validated data where available. Any reported adverse events were noted. Where appropriate, we pooled data using a random effects model. Main results We included 21 trials (11 trials of smoking cessation; four trials of smoking reduction; one trial for relapse prevention; five trials reported smoking outcomes for interventions aimed at other purposes). Seven trials compared bupropion with placebo; meta‐analysis showed that smoking cessation rates after bupropion were significantly higher than placebo at the end of treatment (seven trials, N=340; risk ratio [RR] 2.84; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.61 to 4.99) and after six months (five trials, N=214, RR 2.78; 95% CI 1.02 to 7.58). Expired carbon monoxide (CO) level and the number of cigarettes smoked daily were significantly lower with bupropion at the end of therapy but not after six months. There were no significant differences in positive, negative and depressive symptoms between bupropion and placebo group. There was no report of major adverse event such as seizures with bupropion. Contingent reinforcement (CR) with money may increase smoking abstinence rates and reduce the level of smoking in patients with schizophrenia. However, it is uncertain whether these benefits are maintained in the longer term. There was no evidence of benefit for the few trials of other pharmacological therapies (including nicotine replacement therapy (NRT)) and psychosocial interventions in helping smokers with schizophrenia to quit or reduce smoking. Authors' conclusions Bupropion increases smoking abstinence rates in smokers with schizophrenia, without jeopardising their mental state. Bupropion may also reduce the amount these patients smoke. CR may help this group of patients to quit and reduce smoking. We failed to find convincing evidence that other interventions have a beneficial effect on smoking behaviour in schizophrenia

Parenteral versus oral iron therapy for adults and children with chronic kidney disease

Background The anaemia seen in chronic kidney disease (CKD) may be exacerbated by iron deficiency. Iron can be provided through different routes, with advantages and drawbacks of each route. It remains unclear whether the potential harms and additional costs of intravenous (IV) compared with oral iron are justified. Objectives To determine the benefits and harms of IV iron supplementation compared with oral iron for anaemia in adults and children with CKD. Search methods In March 2010 we searched the Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE without language restriction. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi‐RCTs in which oral and IV routes of iron administration were compared in adults and children with CKD. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. Results were reported as risk ratios (RR) or risk differences (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and for continuous outcomes the mean difference (MD) was used or standardised mean difference (SMD) if different scales had been used. Statistical analyses were performed using the random‐effects model. Subgroup analysis and univariate meta‐regression were performed to investigate between study differences. Main results Twenty eight studies (2098 participants) were included. Risk of bias attributes were poorly performed and/or reported with low risk of bias reported in 12 (43%) studies for sequence generation, incomplete outcome reporting and selective outcome reporting and in 6 (16%) studies for allocation concealment. No study was blinded for participants, investigators and outcome assessors but all were considered at low risk of bias because the primary outcome of haemoglobin was a laboratory outcome and unlikely to be influenced by lack of blinding. Haemoglobin (22 studies, 1862 patients: MD 0.90 g/dL, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.37); ferritin (24 studies, 1751 patients: MD 243.25 μg/L, 95% CI 188.74 to 297.75); and transferrin saturation (18 studies, 1457 patients: MD 10.20%, 95% CI 5.56 to 14.83) were significantly increased by IV iron compared with oral iron. There was a significant reduction in erythropoiesis‐stimulating agent (ESA) dose in patients receiving dialysis who were treated with IV iron (9 studies, 487 patients: SMD ‐0.76, 95% CI ‐1.22 to ‐0.30). There was a high level of heterogeneity in all analyses. Mortality and cardiovascular morbidity did not differ significantly, but were reported in few studies. Gastrointestinal side effects were more common with oral iron, but hypotensive and allergic reactions were more common with IV iron. Authors' conclusions The included studies provide strong evidence for increased ferritin and transferrin saturation levels, together with a small increase in haemoglobin, in patients with CKD who were treated with IV iron compared with oral iron. From a limited body of evidence, we identified a significant reduction in ESA requirements in patients treated with IV iron, and found no significant difference in mortality. Adverse effects were reported in only 50% of included studies. We therefore suggest that further studies that focus on patient‐centred outcomes are needed to determine if the use of IV iron is justified on the basis of reductions in ESA dose and cost, improvements in patient quality of life, and with few serious adverse effects