The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the benefits

and harms of available interventions for HUS and TTP.\n\nSelection Criteria for Studies: MEDLINE (1966 to June 2006), EMBASE (1980 to June 2006), the Cochrane Central Register, conference proceedings, and reference lists were searched to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of any intervention for HUS or TTP in patients of all ages selected for inclusion for this systematic review.\n\nInterventions: Trials that compared an intervention with placebo, an intervention with supportive therapy, or one or more different interventions for HUS or TTP.\n\nOutcomes: For TTP trials, failure of remission at 2 weeks or less and at 1 month or longer, all-cause mortality rate, and relapse rate. For HUS trials, all-cause mortality, chronic reduced kidney function, and persistent SB202190 proteinuria or hypertension

at last follow-up.\n\nResults: For TTP in adults, we found 6 RCTs of 331 patients. Two trials compared plasma infusion selleck kinase inhibitor with plasma exchange using fresh frozen plasma and showed failure of remission at 2 weeks (2 trials, 140 patients; relative risk, 2.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.41 to 5.84), and all-cause mortality (relative risk, 1.91; 95% confidence interval, 1.09 to 3.33) occurred more frequently in the plasma infusion group. Three trials compared plasma exchange using cryosupernatant plasma with plasma exchange using fresh frozen plasma, and a meta-analysis of these trials showed no difference. Seven RCTs in 476 young children with postdiarrheal HUS have been conducted. None of the evaluated interventions (fresh frozen plasma transfusion, heparin with or without urokinase or dipyridamole, Shiga toxin-binding

protein, and steroid) were superior to supportive therapy alone for any outcomes.\n\nLimitations: Limitations of this review include the small number and suboptimal quality of reporting of included trials, possibility of publication bias, small number of participants with atypical HUS, and failure to report results for patients with atypical and typical HUS separately.\n\nConclusions: No additional Omipalisib therapy has been shown to increase efficacy over plasma exchange for TTP. No intervention has been shown to be superior to supportive therapy in patients with postdiarrheal HUS.”
“Rief and Hofmann (2009, Nervenarzt 80: 593597) harshly criticise the meta-analysis on the effectiveness of long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (LTPP) by Leichsenring and Rabung (2008, JAMA 300(13):1551-1565). They find fault with the inclusion of naturalistic studies in addition to randomised clinical trials. Furthermore, they criticise the heterogeneity of the treatments included and the disorders studied. They suspect that a number of RCTs of LTPP with negative results for LTPP have been done and not been published.