Rapid and Living Guidance for COVID-19

Assessing the Impact of Evidence-Based Mental Health Guidance During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review and Qualitative Evaluation

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Oxford Precision Psychiatry Lab (OxPPL) developed open-access web-based summaries of mental health care guidelines (OxPPL guidance) in key areas such as digital approaches and telepsychiatry, suicide and self-harm, domestic violence and abuse, perinatal care, and vaccine hesitancy and prioritization in the context of mental illness, to inform timely clinical decision-making.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the practice of creating evidence-based health guidelines during health emergencies using the OxPPL guidance as an example. An international network of clinical sites and colleagues (in Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom) including clinicians, researchers, and experts by experience aimed to (1) evaluate the clinical impact of the OxPPL guidance, as an example of an evidence-based summary of guidelines; (2) review the literature for other evidence-based summaries of COVID-19 guidelines regarding mental health care; and (3) produce a framework for response to future global health emergencies.

METHODS

The impact and clinical utility of the OxPPL guidance were assessed using clinicians' feedback via an international survey and focus groups. A systematic review (protocol registered on Open Science Framework) identified summaries or syntheses of guidelines for mental health care during and after the COVID-19 pandemic and assessed the accuracy of the methods used in the OxPPL guidance by identifying any resources that the guidance had not included.

RESULTS

Overall, 80.2% (146/182) of the clinicians agreed or strongly agreed that the OxPPL guidance answered important clinical questions, 73.1% (133/182) stated that the guidance was relevant to their service, 59.3% (108/182) said that the guidelines had or would have a positive impact on their clinical practice, 42.9% (78/182) that they had shared or would share the guidance, and 80.2% (146/182) stated that the methodology could be used during future health crises. The focus groups found that the combination of evidence-based knowledge, clinical viewpoint, and visibility was crucial for clinical implementation. The systematic review identified 2543 records, of which 2 syntheses of guidelines met all the inclusion criteria, but only 1 (the OxPPL guidance) used evidence-based methodology. The review showed that the OxPPL guidance had included the majority of eligible guidelines, but 6 were identified that had not been included.

CONCLUSIONS

The study identified an unmet need for web-based, evidence-based mental health care guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic. The OxPPL guidance was evaluated by clinicians as having a real-world clinical impact. Robust evidence-based methodology and expertise in mental health are necessary, but easy accessibility is also needed, and digital technology can materially help. Further health emergencies are inevitable and now is the ideal time to prepare, including addressing the training needs of clinicians, patients, and carers, especially in areas such as telepsychiatry and digital mental health. For future planning, guidance should be widely disseminated on an international platform, with allocated resources to support adaptive updates.

Comparative efficacy trials in inflammatory bowel disease: current and future implications for practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Over the last decade, there has been rapid expansion of the therapeutic armamentarium, and evolution of treatment strategies, for the management of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs). Consequently, there is an increasing need for head-to-head or comparative efficacy trials to inform optimal positioning of therapies, and pragmatic trials comparing treatment strategies to inform treatment approach. In this review, we will discuss the current status and future of comparative efficacy clinical trials in IBD.

RECENT FINDINGS

Pivotal phase IIIB superiority clinical trials have demonstrated superiority of vedolizumab over adalimumab for achieving clinical remission in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (VARSITY) and failed to demonstrate superiority of ustekinumab over adalimumab in patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease (SEAVUE). Noninferiority clinical trials of biosimilars have confirmed absence of meaningful differences in safety and efficacy of biosimilar infliximab over originator infliximab, as initial therapy or switching stable patients during maintenance. Network meta-analyses, indirect treatment comparison using patient-level data from placebo-controlled trials and real-world observational studies have inform comparative effectiveness and safety of different therapies for management of IBD.

SUMMARY

Head-to-head clinical trials are critically important to advance the field of IBD. Comparative efficacy trials are slow and expensive to conduct, may not be broadly generalizable, and are not powered for safety events or other relevant outcomes. Alternative approaches to comparative effectiveness such as network meta-analysis and well designed real-world observational studies are able to bridge gaps in clinical practice.

Most published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 were redundant and lacked currency

Objective

To investigate the completeness and currency of published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 and to compare this with a living guidelines approach.

Study Design and Setting

In this cross-sectional study, we searched Europe PMC on May 20, 2021 for systematic reviews of remdesivir (including preprints, living review updates). Completeness and currency were based on the inclusion of four major randomized trials of remdesivir available at the time of publication of the review (including as preliminary results and preprints).

Results

We included 38 reviews (45 reports), equivalent to a new publication every 9 days. 23 (51%) reports were out of date at the time of publication. Eleven reviews that were current on publication had a median survival time of 10 days (range 4–57). A third of reviews cited other systematic reviews, but only four provided justifications for why another review was necessary. Eight (21%) of the reviews were registered in PROSPERO. The Australian COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce living guidelines were updated within 14 days for three of the remdesivir trials, and within 28 days for the fourth.

Conclusion

There was considerable duplication of systematic reviews of remdesivir, and half were already out of date at the time of publication.