n -乙酰半胱氨酸与杀鼠剂中毒:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。

Muhammed Rashid, Viji Pulikkel Chandran, Sreedharan Nair, Deepa Sudalai Muthu, Jemima Pappuraj, Krupa Ann Jacob, Balaji Sridhar, Karen Mark, Shabnam Hyder, Sohil Khan, Girish Thunga
{"title":"n -乙酰半胱氨酸与杀鼠剂中毒:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Muhammed Rashid,&nbsp;Viji Pulikkel Chandran,&nbsp;Sreedharan Nair,&nbsp;Deepa Sudalai Muthu,&nbsp;Jemima Pappuraj,&nbsp;Krupa Ann Jacob,&nbsp;Balaji Sridhar,&nbsp;Karen Mark,&nbsp;Shabnam Hyder,&nbsp;Sohil Khan,&nbsp;Girish Thunga","doi":"10.2174/2772432816666210825102726","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Treatment with N-Acetyl Cysteine (NAC) in rodenticide poisoning has not been well established due to mixed study results and insufficient evidence. This review aimed to summarize the clinical benefits of NAC in the management of rodenticide poisoning.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This review follows the PICOS framework and the PRISMA guidelines. Pub- Med/MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane library were searched to identify the published literature from inception to September 2020, and a reference search was performed for additional relevant studies. The English language studies addressing the use of NAC in rodenticide poisoning were considered for the review. We considered all experimental and observational studies due to the insufficient number of interventional studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten studies (two RCTs, four observational, and four descriptive) out of 2,178 studies with 492 participants were considered for the review. Only six studies (two RCTs, one prospective, and three retrospective studies) reported recovery and mortality. Pooled results of RCTs (n=2) showed a significant recovery rate (Odds Ratio [OR]: 3.97; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]:1.69-9.30), whereas summary estimates of prospective and retrospective studies recorded a non-significant effect. Metaanalysis of RCTs (OR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.11-0.59; n=2) and retrospective studies (OR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.15-0.78; n=3) showed a significant reduction in mortality, whereas pooled analysis of prospective studies recorded a non-significant effect. A significant reduction in intubation or ventilation (OR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.11-0.60; 2 RCTs) and a non-significant (P=0.41) difference in duration of hospitalization was observed with NAC when compared to the non-NAC treated group. The quality of the included studies appeared to be moderate to high.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings indicate that NAC showed better survival and lower mortality rate when compared to non-NAC treated group; hence NAC can be considered for the management of rodenticide poisoning.</p>","PeriodicalId":29871,"journal":{"name":"Current Reviews in Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"N-Acetyl Cysteine in Rodenticide Poisoning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Muhammed Rashid,&nbsp;Viji Pulikkel Chandran,&nbsp;Sreedharan Nair,&nbsp;Deepa Sudalai Muthu,&nbsp;Jemima Pappuraj,&nbsp;Krupa Ann Jacob,&nbsp;Balaji Sridhar,&nbsp;Karen Mark,&nbsp;Shabnam Hyder,&nbsp;Sohil Khan,&nbsp;Girish Thunga\",\"doi\":\"10.2174/2772432816666210825102726\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Treatment with N-Acetyl Cysteine (NAC) in rodenticide poisoning has not been well established due to mixed study results and insufficient evidence. This review aimed to summarize the clinical benefits of NAC in the management of rodenticide poisoning.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This review follows the PICOS framework and the PRISMA guidelines. Pub- Med/MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane library were searched to identify the published literature from inception to September 2020, and a reference search was performed for additional relevant studies. The English language studies addressing the use of NAC in rodenticide poisoning were considered for the review. We considered all experimental and observational studies due to the insufficient number of interventional studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten studies (two RCTs, four observational, and four descriptive) out of 2,178 studies with 492 participants were considered for the review. Only six studies (two RCTs, one prospective, and three retrospective studies) reported recovery and mortality. Pooled results of RCTs (n=2) showed a significant recovery rate (Odds Ratio [OR]: 3.97; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]:1.69-9.30), whereas summary estimates of prospective and retrospective studies recorded a non-significant effect. Metaanalysis of RCTs (OR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.11-0.59; n=2) and retrospective studies (OR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.15-0.78; n=3) showed a significant reduction in mortality, whereas pooled analysis of prospective studies recorded a non-significant effect. A significant reduction in intubation or ventilation (OR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.11-0.60; 2 RCTs) and a non-significant (P=0.41) difference in duration of hospitalization was observed with NAC when compared to the non-NAC treated group. The quality of the included studies appeared to be moderate to high.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings indicate that NAC showed better survival and lower mortality rate when compared to non-NAC treated group; hence NAC can be considered for the management of rodenticide poisoning.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":29871,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Reviews in Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Reviews in Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2174/2772432816666210825102726\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Reviews in Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/2772432816666210825102726","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

背景:由于研究结果混杂且证据不足,n -乙酰半胱氨酸(NAC)治疗杀鼠剂中毒尚未得到很好的证实。本文综述了NAC治疗杀鼠剂中毒的临床疗效。方法:本综述遵循PICOS框架和PRISMA指南。检索Pub- Med/MEDLINE、Scopus和Cochrane图书馆,以确定从成立到2020年9月的已发表文献,并对其他相关研究进行参考文献检索。有关NAC在杀鼠剂中毒中的应用的英文研究也被纳入审查范围。由于介入研究的数量不足,我们考虑了所有的实验和观察性研究。结果:在2178项492名参与者的研究中,有10项研究(2项随机对照试验,4项观察性研究和4项描述性研究)被纳入本综述。只有6项研究(2项随机对照试验,1项前瞻性研究和3项回顾性研究)报告了康复和死亡率。随机对照试验(n=2)的合并结果显示恢复率显著(优势比[OR]: 3.97;95%可信区间[CI]:1.69-9.30),而前瞻性和回顾性研究的总结估计记录了不显著的影响。随机对照试验荟萃分析(OR: 0.25;95% ci: 0.11-0.59;n=2)和回顾性研究(OR: 0.34;95% ci: 0.15-0.78;N =3)显示死亡率显著降低,而前瞻性研究的汇总分析显示无显著影响。插管或通气显著减少(or: 0.25;95% ci: 0.11-0.60;2个rct), NAC治疗组与非NAC治疗组相比,住院时间无显著差异(P=0.41)。纳入研究的质量似乎是中等到高的。结论:与非NAC治疗组相比,NAC治疗组的生存率更高,死亡率更低;因此,NAC可用于灭鼠剂中毒的处理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
N-Acetyl Cysteine in Rodenticide Poisoning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Treatment with N-Acetyl Cysteine (NAC) in rodenticide poisoning has not been well established due to mixed study results and insufficient evidence. This review aimed to summarize the clinical benefits of NAC in the management of rodenticide poisoning.

Methods: This review follows the PICOS framework and the PRISMA guidelines. Pub- Med/MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane library were searched to identify the published literature from inception to September 2020, and a reference search was performed for additional relevant studies. The English language studies addressing the use of NAC in rodenticide poisoning were considered for the review. We considered all experimental and observational studies due to the insufficient number of interventional studies.

Results: Ten studies (two RCTs, four observational, and four descriptive) out of 2,178 studies with 492 participants were considered for the review. Only six studies (two RCTs, one prospective, and three retrospective studies) reported recovery and mortality. Pooled results of RCTs (n=2) showed a significant recovery rate (Odds Ratio [OR]: 3.97; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]:1.69-9.30), whereas summary estimates of prospective and retrospective studies recorded a non-significant effect. Metaanalysis of RCTs (OR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.11-0.59; n=2) and retrospective studies (OR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.15-0.78; n=3) showed a significant reduction in mortality, whereas pooled analysis of prospective studies recorded a non-significant effect. A significant reduction in intubation or ventilation (OR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.11-0.60; 2 RCTs) and a non-significant (P=0.41) difference in duration of hospitalization was observed with NAC when compared to the non-NAC treated group. The quality of the included studies appeared to be moderate to high.

Conclusion: Our findings indicate that NAC showed better survival and lower mortality rate when compared to non-NAC treated group; hence NAC can be considered for the management of rodenticide poisoning.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
9.10%
发文量
55
期刊最新文献
Leveraging Generative AI for Drug Safety and Pharmacovigilance. The Effect of Dapagliflozin on Heart Function in Animal Models of Cardiac Ischemia, A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Spinal Analgesia: Initial Preclinical and Clinical Studies. Efficacy and Safety of Glycopyrrolate in the Management of Organophosphate and Carbamate Poisoning: A Systematic Review. Translational Approach Using Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products for Huntington's Disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1