Stimulant use disorder contributes to a substantial worldwide burden of disease, although evidence-based treatment options are limited. This systematic review of reviews aims to: (i) synthesize the available evidence on both psychosocial and pharmacological interventions for the treatment of stimulant use disorder; (ii) identify the most effective therapies to guide clinical practice, and (iii) highlight gaps for future study. Methods A systematic database search was conducted to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Eligible studies were those that followed standard systematic review methodology and assessed randomized controlled trials focused on the efficacy of interventions for stimulant use disorder. Articles were critically appraised using an assessment tool adapted from Palmeteer et al. and categorized for quality as 'core' or 'supplementary' reviews. Evidence from the included reviews were further synthesized according to pharmacological or non-pharmacological management themes. Results Of 476 identified records, 29 systematic reviews examining eleven intervention modalities were included. The interventions identified include: contingency management, cognitive behavioural therapy, acupuncture, antidepressants, dopamine agonists, antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, disulfiram, opioid agonists, N-Acetylcysteine, and psychostimulants. There was sufficient evidence to support the efficacy of contingency management programs for treatment of stimulant use disorder. Psychostimulants, n-acetylcysteine, opioid agonist therapy, disulfiram and antidepressant pharmacological interventions were found to have insufficient evidence to support or discount their use. Results of this review do not support the use of all other treatment options.

No abstract

Health care providers' adherence to the BCCH DKA protocol is poor. More severe dehydration at presentation is associated with longer duration of insulin infusion. Further knowledge translation initiatives focused on accurate estimation of volume depletion to ensure appropriate initial fluid resuscitation-as well as careful monitoring during DKA hospitalization-are important, especially in community centers.

Targeted blood pressure thresholds remain unclear in critically ill patients. Two prior systematic reviews have not demonstrated differences in mortality with a high mean arterial pressure (MAP) threshold but they only included patients with septic shock. Thus, we conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effect of a high-normal versus low-normal MAP on mortality in all pertinent disease states for critically ill patients. We searched six databases from inception until September 5th 2021 for RCTs of critically ill patients targeted to either a high-normal (≥ 65 mm Hg) versus a low-normal (≥ 60 mm Hg) MAP threshold for at least 24-hours. We assessed study quality using the RoB-2 tool and the risk ratio (RR) was used as the summary measure of association. We included 7 RCTs with 3772 patients. Three trials were conducted in patients following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, two in distributive shock, one in septic shock, and one in hepatorenal syndrome. The pooled RR for mortality was 1.06 (95%CI 0.98 to 1.17). There was no significant between-study heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, 95%CI: 0 to 47%). Furthermore, there was no difference in the rates of favourable neurologic outcome or renal replacement therapy between the high-normal versus low-normal MAP groups. This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that there is no difference in mortality amongst critically ill patients targeted to a high-normal versus low-normal MAP target.