Intranasal versus Intramuscular/Intravenous Naloxone for Pre-hospital Opioid Overdose: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Context: The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to perform an extensive search in databases to compare the efficacy of the intranasal administration of naloxone with its intramuscular/intravenous administration in the pre-hospital management of opioid overdose. Evidence acquisition: This meta-analysis included controlled trials conducted on the efficacy of naloxone administration in the pre-hospital management of opioid overdose. A search was carried out in electronic databases on relevant articles published by the end of 2018. After data collection, analyses were performed in STATA 14.0 software and the efficacy and side-effects of the two administration routes of naloxone, i.e. intranasal and intramuscular/intravenous, were compared. An overall effect size with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was provided for each section. Results: Eventually, data from six studies were included in this meta-analysis. The success rate of the intranasal and intramuscular/intravenous administration of naloxone in the management of opioid overdose in pre-hospital settings was 82.54% (95% CI: 57.97 to 97.89%) and 80.39% (95% CI: 57.38 to 96.04%), respectively. There was no difference between injectable (intramuscular/intravenous) naloxone and intranasal naloxone in the pre-hospital management of opioid overdose (Odds Ratio=1.01; 95% CI: 0.42 to 2.43; P=0.98). The onset of action of intranasal naloxone, however, was slightly longer than injectable naloxone (Standardized Mean Difference=0.63; 95% CI: 0.07 to 1.19; P=0.03). Additionally, the odds of needing a rescue dose was 2.17 times higher for intranasal naloxone than intramuscular/intravenous naloxone (OR=2.17; 95% CI: 1.53 to 3.09; P<0.0001). The prevalence of major side-effects was non-significant for both intranasal (0.00%) and intramuscular/intravenous (0.05%) routes of naloxone administration and there was no difference in the prevalence of major (OR=1.18; 95% CI: 0.38 to 3.69; P=0.777) and minor (OR=0.64; 95% CI: 0.17 to 2.34; P=0.497) side-effects between the two routes. Conclusion: The present meta-analysis demonstrated that intranasal naloxone is as effective as injectable naloxone in the pre-hospital management of opioid overdose complications. Consequently, intranasal naloxone may be an appropriate alternative to injectable naloxone

Intranasal versus Intramuscular/Intravenous Naloxone for Pre-hospital Opioid Overdose: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Context: The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to perform an extensive search in databases to compare the efficacy of the intranasal administration of naloxone with its intramuscular/intravenous administration in the pre-hospital management of opioid overdose. Evidence acquisition: This meta-analysis included controlled trials conducted on the efficacy of naloxone administration in the pre-hospital management of opioid overdose. A search was carried out in electronic databases on relevant articles published by the end of 2018. After data collection, analyses were performed in STATA 14.0 software and the efficacy and side-effects of the two administration routes of naloxone, i.e. intranasal and intramuscular/intravenous, were compared. An overall effect size with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was provided for each section. Results: Eventually, data from six studies were included in this meta-analysis. The success rate of the intranasal and intramuscular/intravenous administration of naloxone in the management of opioid overdose in pre-hospital settings was 82.54% (95% CI: 57.97 to 97.89%) and 80.39% (95% CI: 57.38 to 96.04%), respectively. There was no difference between injectable (intramuscular/intravenous) naloxone and intranasal naloxone in the pre-hospital management of opioid overdose (Odds Ratio=1.01; 95% CI: 0.42 to 2.43; P=0.98). The onset of action of intranasal naloxone, however, was slightly longer than injectable naloxone (Standardized Mean Difference=0.63; 95% CI: 0.07 to 1.19; P=0.03). Additionally, the odds of needing a rescue dose was 2.17 times higher for intranasal naloxone than intramuscular/intravenous naloxone (OR=2.17; 95% CI: 1.53 to 3.09; P<0.0001). The prevalence of major side-effects was non-significant for both intranasal (0.00%) and intramuscular/intravenous (0.05%) routes of naloxone administration and there was no difference in the prevalence of major (OR=1.18; 95% CI: 0.38 to 3.69; P=0.777) and minor (OR=0.64; 95% CI: 0.17 to 2.34; P=0.497) side-effects between the two routes. Conclusion: The present meta-analysis demonstrated that intranasal naloxone is as effective as injectable naloxone in the pre-hospital management of opioid overdose complications. Consequently, intranasal naloxone may be an appropriate alternative to injectable naloxone

COVID-19 related hospitalization costs; assessment of influencing factors

Objective: Our aim is to assess the effective factors on hospitalization costs of COVID-19 patients. Methods: Data related to clinical characteristics and cost of hospitalized COVID-19 patients from February 2020 until July 2020, in a public teaching hospital in Tehran, Iran was gathered in a retrospective cohort study. The corresponding factors influencing the diagnostic and therapeutic costs were evaluated, using a generalized linear model. Results: The median COVID-19 related diagnostic and therapeutic costs in a public teaching hospital in Iran, for one hospitalized COVID-19 patient was equal to 271.1 US dollars (USD). In patients who were discharged alive from the hospital, the costs increased with patients’ pregnancy (P<0.001), loss of consciousness during hospitalization (P<0.001), a history of drug abuse (P=0.006), history of chronic renal disease (P<0.001), end stage renal disease (P=0.002), history of brain surgery (P=0.001), history of migraine (P=0.001), cardiomegaly (P=0.033) and occurrence of myocardial infarction during hospitalization (P<0.001). In deceased patients, low age P<0.001), history of congenital disease (P=0.024) and development of cardiac dysrhythmias during hospitalization (P=0.044) were related to increase in therapeutic costs. Conclusion: Median diagnostic and therapeutic costs in COVID-19 patients, hospitalized in a public teaching hospital in Iran were 271.1 USD. Hoteling and medications made upmost of the costs. History of cardiovascular disease and new onset episodes of such complications during hospitalization were the most important factors contributing to the increase of therapeutic costs. Moreover, pregnancy, loss of consciousness, and renal diseases are of other independent factors affecting hospitalization costs in COVID-19 patients

Electrocardiographic Findings and In-Hospital Mortality of COVID-19 Patients; a Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: Although current evidence points to the possible prognostic value of electrocardiographic (ECG) findings for in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients, most of these studies have been performed on a small sample size. In this study, our aim was to investigate the ECG changes as prognostic indicators of in-hospital mortality. Methods: In a retrospective cohort study, the findings of the first and the second ECGs of COVID-19 patients were extracted and changes in the ECGs were examined. Any abnormal finding in the second ECG that wasn’t present in the initial ECG at the time of admission was defined as an ECG change. ECGs were interpreted by a cardiologist and the prognostic value of abnormal ECG findings for in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients was evaluated using multivariate analysis and the report of the relative risk (RR). Results: Data of the ECGs recorded at the time of admission were extracted from the files of 893 patients; likewise, the second ECGs could be extracted from the records of 328 patients who had an initial ECG. The presence of sinus tachycardia (RR = 2.342; p <0.001), supraventricular arrhythmia (RR = 1.688; p = 0.001), ventricular arrhythmia (RR = 1.854; p = 0.011), interventricular conduction delays (RR = 1.608; p = 0.009), and abnormal R wave progression (RR = 1.766; p = 0.001) at the time of admission were independent prognostic factors for in-hospital mortality. In the second ECG, sinus tachycardia (RR = 2.222; p <0.001), supraventricular arrhythmia (RR = 1.632; p <0.001), abnormal R wave progression (RR = 2.151; p = 0.009), and abnormal T wave (RR = 1.590; p = 0.001) were also independent prognostic factors of in-hospital mortality. Moreover, by comparing the first and the second ECGs, it was found that the incidence of supraventricular arrhythmia (RR = 1.973; p = 0.005) and ST segment elevation/depression (RR = 2.296; p <0.001) during hospitalization (ECG novel changes) are two independent prognostic factors of in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients. Conclusion: Due to the fact that using electrocardiographic data is easy and accessible and it is easy to continuously monitor patients with this tool, ECGs can be useful in identifying high-risk COVID-19 patients for mortality

Efficacy of polyarginine peptides in the treatment of stroke: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract Background Disparities exist regarding an efficient treatment for stroke. Polyarginines have shown promising neuroprotective properties based on available published studies. Thus, the present study aims to systemically review and analyze existing evidence regarding polyarginine's administration efficacy in animal stroke models. Method Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science were systematically searched, in addition to manual search. Inclusion criteria were administrating polyarginine peptides in stroke animal models. Exclusion criteria were previous polyarginine administration, lacking a control group, review articles, and case reports. Data were collected and analyzed using STATA 17.0; a pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI), meta‐regression, and subgroup analyses were presented. Risk of bias, publication bias, and level of evidence were assessed using SYRCLE's tool, Egger's analysis, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework, respectively. Results From the 468 searched articles, 11 articles were included. Analyses showed that R18 significantly decreases infarct size (SMD = –0.65; 95% CI: –1.01, –0.29) and brain edema (SMD = –1.90; 95% CI: –3.28, –0.51) and improves neurological outcome (SMD = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.44, 0.91) and functional status (SMD = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.26, 0.85) in stroke animal models. Moreover, R18D significantly decreases infarct size (SMD = –0.75; 95% CI: –1.17, –0.33) and improves neurological outcome (SMD = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.86) and functional status (SMD = 0.35; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.54) in stroke models. Conclusion Moderate level of evidence demonstrated that both R18 and R18D administration can significantly improve stroke outcomes in animal stroke models. However, considering the limitations, further pre‐clinical and clinical studies are warranted to substantiate the neuroprotective efficacy of polyarginines for stroke

Chondroitinase ABC Administration in Locomotion Recovery After Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Introduction: The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to conduct a comprehensive and complete search of electronic resources to investigate the role of administrating Chondroitinase ABC (ChABC) in improving complications following Spinal Cord Injuries (SCI). Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Sciences databases were searched until the end of 2019. Two independent reviewers assessed the studies conducted on rats and mice and summarized the data. Using the STATA 14.0 software, the findings were reported as pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).  Results: A total of 34 preclinical studies were included. ChABC administration improves locomotion recovery after SCI (SMD=0.90; 95% CI: 0.61 to 1.20; P<0.001). The subgroup analysis showed that the differences in the SCI model (P=0.732), the severity of the injury (P=0.821), the number of ChABC administrations (P=0.092), the blinding status (P=0.294), the use of different locomotor score (P=0.567), and the follow-up duration (P=0.750) have no effect on the efficacy of ChABC treatment. Conclusion: The findings of the present study showed that prescribing ChABC has a moderate effect in improving locomotion after SCI in mice and rats. However, this moderate effect introduces ChABC as adjuvant therapy and not as primary therapy

Intranasal versus Intramuscular/Intravenous naloxone for pre-hospital opioid overdose: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Context: The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to perform an extensive search in databases to compare the efficacy of the intranasal administration of naloxone with its intramuscular/intravenous administration in the pre-hospital management of opioid overdose. Evidence acquisition: This meta-analysis included controlled trials conducted on the efficacy of naloxone administration in the pre-hospital management of opioid overdose. A search was carried out in electronic databases on relevant articles published by the end of 2018. After data collection, analyses were performed in STATA 14.0 software and the efficacy and side-effects of the two administration routes of naloxone, i.e. intranasal and intramuscular/intravenous, were compared. An overall effect size with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was provided for each section. Results: Eventually, data from six studies were included in this meta-analysis. The success rate of the intranasal and intramuscular/intravenous administration of naloxone in the management of opioid overdose in pre-hospital settings was 82.54% (95% CI: 57.97 to 97.89%) and 80.39% (95% CI: 57.38 to 96.04%), respectively. There was no difference between injectable (intramuscular/intravenous) naloxone and intranasal naloxone in the pre-hospital management of opioid overdose (Odds Ratio=1.01; 95% CI: 0.42 to 2.43; P=0.98). The onset of action of intranasal naloxone, however, was slightly longer than injectable naloxone (Standardized Mean Difference=0.63; 95% CI: 0.07 to 1.19; P=0.03). Additionally, the odds of needing a rescue dose was 2.17 times higher for intranasal naloxone than intramuscular/intravenous naloxone (OR=2.17; 95% CI: 1.53 to 3.09; P<0.0001). The prevalence of major side-effects was non-significant for both intranasal (0.00%) and intramuscular/intravenous (0.05%) routes of naloxone administration and there was no difference in the prevalence of major (OR=1.18; 95% CI: 0.38 to 3.69; P=0.777) and minor (OR=0.64; 95% CI: 0.17 to 2.34; P=0.497) side-effects between the two routes. Conclusion: The present meta-analysis demonstrated that intranasal naloxone is as effective as injectable naloxone in the pre-hospital management of opioid overdose complications. Consequently, intranasal naloxone may be an appropriate alternative to injectable naloxone

The value of predictive instruments in the screening of acute stroke: an umbrella review on previous systematic reviews

Objective: Although various predictive instruments have been introduced for early stroke diagnosis, there is no consensus on their performance. Therefore, we decided to assess the value of predictive instruments in the detection of stroke by conducting an umbrella review. Method: A search was performed in the Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science databases by the end of August 2021 for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Original articles included in the systematic reviews were retrieved, summarized and pooled sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio were calculated. The level of evidence was divided into five groups: convincing (class I), highly suggestive (class II), suggestive (class III), weak (class IV) and non-significant. Results: The value of 33 predictive instruments was evaluated. The sample size included in these scoring systems’ assessments varied between 182 and 47072 patients. The level of evidence was class I in one tool, class II in 18 tools, class III in 2 tools, class IV in 11 tools, and non-significant in one tool. Apart from Med PACS, which had a low diagnostic value, other tools appeared to be able to detect a stroke. The optimum performance for diagnosis of stroke was for ROSIER, NIHSS, PASS, FAST, LAMS, RACE and CPSS. Conclusion: Convincing to suggestive evidence shows that ROSIER, NIHSS, PASS, FAST, LAMS, RACE and CPSS have the optimum performance in identifying stroke. Since ROSIER’s calculation is simple and has the highest sensitivity and specificity among those predictive instruments, it is recommended for stroke diagnosis in pre-hospital and in-hospital settings

Effects of Epothilone Administration on Locomotion Recovery after Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review of Animal Studies

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing evidence regarding the possible effects of epothilones on spinal cord injury (SCI). This study aimed to investigate the possible effects of epothilone administration on locomotion recovery in animal models of SCI. Despite increasing rates of SCI and its burden on populations, no consensus has been reached about the possible treatment modality for SCI. Meanwhile, low-dose epothilones have been reported to have positive effects on SCI outcomes. Electronic databases of Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Medline were searched using keywords related to epothilones and SCI until the end of 2020. Two researchers screened the articles, and extracted data were analyzed using STATA ver. 14.0. Final results are reported as a standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). After the screening, five studies were included in the analysis. Rats were used in all the studies. Two types of epothilones were used via intraperitoneal injection and were shown to have positive effects on the motor outcomes of samples with SCI (SMD, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.23; p=0.71). Although a slightly better effect was observed when using epothilone B, the difference was not significant (coefficient, −0.50; 95% CI, −1.52 to 0.52; p=0.246). The results of this study suggest that epothilones have positive effects on the improvement of motor function in rats, when administered intraperitoneally until a maximum of 1 day after SCI. However, current evidence regarding the matter is still scarce