Tocolytics for delaying preterm birth: a network meta-analysis (0924)

BACKGROUND

Preterm birth is the leading cause of death in newborns and children. Tocolytic drugs aim to delay preterm birth by suppressing uterine contractions to allow time for administration of corticosteroids for fetal lung maturation, magnesium sulphate for neuroprotection, and transport to a facility with appropriate neonatal care facilities. However, there is still uncertainty about their effectiveness and safety.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate relative effectiveness and safety profiles for different classes of tocolytic drugs for delaying preterm birth, and provide rankings of the available drugs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov (21 April 2021) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials assessing effectiveness or adverse effects of tocolytic drugs for delaying preterm birth. We excluded quasi- and non-randomised trials. We evaluated all studies against predefined criteria to judge their trustworthiness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses, to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available tocolytics. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of the network meta-analysis effect estimates for each tocolytic versus placebo or no treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

This network meta-analysis includes 122 trials (13,697 women) involving six tocolytic classes, combinations of tocolytics, and placebo or no treatment. Most trials included women with threatened preterm birth, singleton pregnancy, from 24 to 34 weeks of gestation. We judged 25 (20%) studies to be at low risk of bias. Overall, certainty in the evidence varied. Relative effects from network meta-analysis suggested that all tocolytics are probably effective in delaying preterm birth compared with placebo or no tocolytic treatment. Betamimetics are possibly effective in delaying preterm birth by 48 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.20; low-certainty evidence), and 7 days (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.25; low-certainty evidence). COX inhibitors are possibly effective in delaying preterm birth by 48 hours (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.23; low-certainty evidence). Calcium channel blockers are possibly effective in delaying preterm birth by 48 hours (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.24; low-certainty evidence), probably effective in delaying preterm birth by 7 days (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.27; moderate-certainty evidence), and prolong pregnancy by 5 days (0.1 more to 9.2 more; high-certainty evidence). Magnesium sulphate is probably effective in delaying preterm birth by 48 hours (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.23; moderate-certainty evidence). Oxytocin receptor antagonists are probably effective in delaying preterm birth by 48 hours (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.22; moderate-certainty evidence), are effective in delaying preterm birth by 7 days (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.30; high-certainty evidence), and possibly prolong pregnancy by 10 days (95% CI 2.3 more to 16.7 more). Nitric oxide donors are probably effective in delaying preterm birth by 48 hours (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31; moderate-certainty evidence), and 7 days (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.37; moderate-certainty evidence). Combinations of tocolytics are probably effective in delaying preterm birth by 48 hours (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.27; moderate-certainty evidence), and 7 days (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.34; moderate-certainty evidence). Nitric oxide donors ranked highest for delaying preterm birth by 48 hours and 7 days, and delay in birth (continuous outcome), followed by calcium channel blockers, oxytocin receptor antagonists and combinations of tocolytics. Betamimetics (RR 14.4, 95% CI 6.11 to 34.1; moderate-certainty evidence), calcium channel blockers (RR 2.96, 95% CI 1.23 to 7.11; moderate-certainty evidence), magnesium sulphate (RR 3.90, 95% CI 1.09 to 13.93; moderate-certainty evidence) and combinations of tocolytics (RR 6.87, 95% CI 2.08 to 22.7; low-certainty evidence) are probably more likely to result in cessation of treatment. Calcium channel blockers possibly reduce the risk of neurodevelopmental morbidity (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.85; low-certainty evidence), and respiratory morbidity (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.88; low-certainty evidence), and result in fewer neonates with birthweight less than 2000 g (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.87; low-certainty evidence). Nitric oxide donors possibly result in neonates with higher birthweight (mean difference (MD) 425.53 g more, 95% CI 224.32 more to 626.74 more; low-certainty evidence), fewer neonates with birthweight less than 2500 g (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.69; low-certainty evidence), and more advanced gestational age (MD 1.35 weeks more, 95% CI 0.37 more to 2.32 more; low-certainty evidence). Combinations of tocolytics possibly result in fewer neonates with birthweight less than 2500 g (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.93; low-certainty evidence). In terms of maternal adverse effects, betamimetics probably cause dyspnoea (RR 12.09, 95% CI 4.66 to 31.39; moderate-certainty evidence), palpitations (RR 7.39, 95% CI 3.83 to 14.24; moderate-certainty evidence), vomiting (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.91; moderate-certainty evidence), possibly headache (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.42; low-certainty evidence) and tachycardia (RR 3.01, 95% CI 1.17 to 7.71; low-certainty evidence) compared with placebo or no treatment. COX inhibitors possibly cause vomiting (RR 2.54, 95% CI 1.18 to 5.48; low-certainty evidence). Calcium channel blockers (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.39 to 4.83; low-certainty evidence), and nitric oxide donors probably cause headache (RR 4.20, 95% CI 2.13 to 8.25; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo or no tocolytic treatment, all tocolytic drug classes that we assessed (betamimetics, calcium channel blockers, magnesium sulphate, oxytocin receptor antagonists, nitric oxide donors) and their combinations were probably or possibly effective in delaying preterm birth for 48 hours, and 7 days. Tocolytic drugs were associated with a range of adverse effects (from minor to potentially severe) compared with placebo or no tocolytic treatment, although betamimetics and combination tocolytics were more likely to result in cessation of treatment. The effects of tocolytic use on neonatal outcomes such as neonatal and perinatal mortality, and on safety outcomes such as maternal and neonatal infection were uncertain.

Factors associated with mortality in patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Identification of high-risk patients admitted to intensive care with COVID-19 may inform management strategies. The objective of this meta-analysis was to determine factors associated with mortality among adults with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care by searching databases for studies published between 1 January 2020 and 6 December 2020. Observational studies of COVID-19 adults admitted to critical care were included. Studies of mixed cohorts and intensive care cohorts restricted to a specific patient sub-group were excluded. Dichotomous variables were reported with pooled OR and 95%CI, and continuous variables with pooled standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95%CI. Fifty-eight studies (44,305 patients) were included in the review. Increasing age (SMD 0.65, 95%CI 0.53-0.77); smoking (OR 1.40, 95%CI 1.03-1.90); hypertension (OR 1.54, 95%CI 1.29-1.85); diabetes (OR 1.41, 95%CI 1.22-1.63); cardiovascular disease (OR 1.91, 95%CI 1.52-2.38); respiratory disease (OR 1.75, 95%CI 1.33-2.31); renal disease (OR 2.39, 95%CI 1.68-3.40); and malignancy (OR 1.81, 95%CI 1.30-2.52) were associated with mortality. A higher sequential organ failure assessment score (SMD 0.86, 95%CI 0.63-1.10) and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation-2 score (SMD 0.89, 95%CI 0.65-1.13); a lower PaO₂ :F_I O₂ (SMD -0.44, 95%CI -0.62 to -0.26) and the need for mechanical ventilation at admission (OR 2.53, 95%CI 1.90-3.37) were associated with mortality. Higher white cell counts (SMD 0.37, 95%CI 0.22-0.51); neutrophils (SMD 0.42, 95%CI 0.19-0.64); D-dimers (SMD 0.56, 95%CI 0.43-0.69); ferritin (SMD 0.32, 95%CI 0.19-0.45); lower platelet (SMD -0.22, 95%CI -0.35 to -0.10); and lymphocyte counts (SMD -0.37, 95%CI -0.54 to -0.19) were all associated with mortality. In conclusion, increasing age, pre-existing comorbidities, severity of illness based on validated scoring systems, and the host response to the disease were associated with mortality; while male sex and increasing BMI were not. These factors have prognostic relevance for patients admitted to intensive care with COVID-19.

P29 Bringing into focus treatment limitation and DNACPR decisions: How COVID-19 has changed practice

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has introduced further challenges into Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions. Existing evidence suggests success rates for CPR in COVID-19 patients is low and the risk to healthcare professionals from this aerosol-generating procedure complicates the benefit/harm balance of CPR.

Methods

The study is based at a large teaching hospital in the United Kingdom where all DNACPR decisions are documented on an electronic healthcare record (EHR). Data from all DNACPR/TEAL status forms between 1st January 2017 and 30th April 2020 were collected and analysed. We compared patterns of decision making and rates of form completion during the 2-month peak pandemic phase to an analogous period during 2019.

Results

A total of 16,007 forms were completed during the study period with a marked increase in form completion during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients with a form completed were on average younger and had fewer co-morbidities during the COVID-19 period than in March-April 2019. Several questions on the DNACPR/TEAL forms were answered significantly differently with increases in patients being identified as suitable for CPR (23.8% versus 9.05%; p < 0.001) and full active treatment (30.5% versus 26.1%; p = 0.028). Whilst proportions of discussions that involved the patient remained similar during COVID-19 (95.8% versus 95.6%; p = 0.871), fewer discussions took place with relatives (50.6% versus 75.4%; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the emphasis on senior decision making and conversations around ceilings of treatment appears to have changed practice, with a higher proportion of patients having DNACPR/TEAL status documented. Understanding patient preferences around life-sustaining treatment versus comfort care is part of holistic practice and supports shared decision making. It is unclear whether these attitudinal changes will be sustained after COVID-19 admissions decrease.

Meta-analysis of prognostic factors of overall survival in patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Currently, the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) staging system is used for prognostication for oesophageal cancer. However, several prognostically important factors have been reported but not incorporated. This meta-analysis aimed to characterize the impact of preoperative, operative, and oncological factors on the prognosis of patients undergoing curative resection for oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines and eligible studies were identified through a search of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases up to 31 December 2018. A meta-analysis was conducted with the use of random-effects modeling to determine pooled univariable hazard ratios (HRs). The study was prospectively registered with the PROSPERO database (Registration: CRD42018157966).

RESULTS

One-hundred and seventy-one articles including 73,629 patients were assessed quantitatively. Of the 122 factors associated with survival, 39 were significant on pooled analysis. Of these. the strongly associated prognostic factors were 'pathological' T stage (HR: 2.07, CI95%: 1.77-2.43, P < 0.001), 'pathological' N stage (HR: 2.24, CI95%: 1.95-2.59, P < 0.001), perineural invasion (HR: 1.54, CI95%: 1.36-1.74, P < 0.001), circumferential resection margin (HR: 2.17, CI95%: 1.82-2.59, P < 0.001), poor tumor grade (HR: 1.53, CI95%: 1.34-1.74, P < 0.001), and high neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio (HR: 1.47, CI95%: 1.30-1.66, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Several tumor biological variables not included in the AJCC 8th edition classification can impact on overall survival. Incorporation and validation of these factors into prognostic models and next edition of the AJCC system will enable personalized approach to prognostication and treatment.

Bringing into focus treatment limitation and DNACPR decisions: How COVID-19 has changed practice

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has introduced further challenges into Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions. Existing evidence suggests success rates for CPR in COVID-19 patients is low and the risk to healthcare professionals from this aerosol-generating procedure complicates the benefit/harm balance of CPR.

METHODS

The study is based at a large teaching hospital in the United Kingdom where all DNACPR decisions are documented on an electronic healthcare record (EHR). Data from all DNACPR/TEAL status forms between 1st January 2017 and 30th April 2020 were collected and analysed. We compared patterns of decision making and rates of form completion during the 2-month peak pandemic phase to an analogous period during 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 16,007 forms were completed during the study period with a marked increase in form completion during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients with a form completed were on average younger and had fewer co-morbidities during the COVID-19 period than in March-April 2019. Several questions on the DNACPR/TEAL forms were answered significantly differently with increases in patients being identified as suitable for CPR (23.8% versus 9.05%; p < 0.001) and full active treatment (30.5% versus 26.1%; p = 0.028). Whilst proportions of discussions that involved the patient remained similar during COVID-19 (95.8% versus 95.6%; p = 0.871), fewer discussions took place with relatives (50.6% versus 75.4%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the emphasis on senior decision making and conversations around ceilings of treatment appears to have changed practice, with a higher proportion of patients having DNACPR/TEAL status documented. Understanding patient preferences around life-sustaining treatment versus comfort care is part of holistic practice and supports shared decision making. It is unclear whether these attitudinal changes will be sustained after COVID-19 admissions decrease.

COVID-19: to be or not to be; that is the diagnostic question

Since the first cases in December 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has rapidly spread across the globe, resulting in the COVID-19 pandemic. Early clinical experiences have demonstrated the wide spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 presentations, including various reports of atypical presentations of COVID-19 and possible mimic conditions.This article summarises the current evidence surrounding atypical presentations of COVID-19 including neurological, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, otorhinolaryngology and geriatric features. A case from our hospital of pneumocystis pneumonia initially suspected to be COVID-19 forms the basis for a discussion surrounding mimic conditions of COVID-19. The dual-process model of clinical reasoning is used to analyse the thought processes used to make a diagnosis of COVID-19, including consideration of the variety of differential diagnoses.While SARS-CoV-2 is likely to remain on the differential diagnostic list for a plethora of presentations for the foreseeable future, clinicians should be cautious of ignoring other potential diagnoses due to availability bias. An awareness of atypical presentations allows SARS-CoV-2 to be a differential so that it can be appropriately investigated. A knowledge of infectious mimics prevents COVID-19 from overshadowing other diagnoses, hence preventing delayed diagnosis or even misdiagnosis and consequent adverse outcomes for patients.