Physical exercise for people with Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Physical exercise is effective in managing Parkinson's disease (PD), but the relative benefit of different exercise types remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of different types of physical exercise in adults with PD on the severity of motor signs, quality of life (QoL), and the occurrence of adverse events, and to generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking using network meta-analyses (NMAs).

SEARCH METHODS

An experienced information specialist performed a systematic search for relevant articles in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and five other databases to 17 May 2021. We also searched trial registries, conference proceedings, and reference lists of identified studies up to this date.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one type of physical exercise for adults with PD to another type of exercise, a control group, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. A third author was involved in case of disagreements. We categorized the interventions and analyzed their effects on the severity of motor signs, QoL, freezing of gait, and functional mobility and balance up to six weeks after the intervention using NMAs. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias using the risk of bias 2 (RoB 2) tool and rated the confidence in the evidence using the CINeMA approach for results on the severity of motor signs and QoL. We consulted a third review author to resolve any disagreements. Due to heterogeneous reporting of adverse events, we summarized safety data narratively and rated our confidence in the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 154 RCTs with a total of 7837 participants with mostly mild to moderate disease and no major cognitive impairment. The number of participants per study was small (mean 51, range from 10 to 474). The NMAs on the severity of motor signs and QoL included data from 60 (2721 participants), and 48 (3029 participants) trials, respectively. Eighty-five studies (5192 participants) provided safety data. Here, we present the main results. We observed evidence of beneficial effects for most types of physical exercise included in our review compared to a passive control group. The effects on the severity of motor signs and QoL are expressed as scores on the motor scale of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS-M) and the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire 39 (PDQ-39), respectively. For both scales, higher scores denote higher symptom burden. Therefore, negative estimates reflect improvement (minimum clinically important difference: -2.5 for UPDRS-M and -4.72 for PDQ-39). Severity of motor signs The evidence from the NMA (60 studies; 2721 participants) suggests that dance and gait/balance/functional training probably have a moderate beneficial effect on the severity of motor signs (dance: mean difference (MD) -10.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) -14.87 to -5.36; gait/balance/functional training: MD -7.50, 95% CI -11.39 to -3.48; moderate confidence), and multi-domain training probably has a small beneficial effect on the severity of motor signs (MD -5.90, 95% CI -9.11 to -2.68; moderate confidence). The evidence also suggests that endurance, aqua-based, strength/resistance, and mind-body training might have a small beneficial effect on the severity of motor signs (endurance training: MD -5.76, 95% CI -9.78 to -1.74; aqua-based training: MD -5.09, 95% CI -10.45 to 0.40; strength/resistance training: MD -4.96, 95% CI -9.51 to -0.40; mind-body training: MD -3.62, 95% CI -7.24 to 0.00; low confidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of "Lee Silverman Voice training BIG" (LSVT BIG) and flexibility training on the severity of motor signs (LSVT BIG: MD -6.70, 95% CI -16.48 to 3.08; flexibility training: MD 4.20, 95% CI -1.61 to 9.92; very low confidence). Quality of life The evidence from the NMA (48 studies; 3029 participants) suggests that aqua-based training probably has a large beneficial effect on QoL (MD -15.15, 95% CI -23.43 to -6.87; moderate confidence). The evidence also suggests that mind-body, gait/balance/functional, and multi-domain training and dance might have a small beneficial effect on QoL (mind-body training: MD -7.22, 95% CI -13.57 to -0.70; gait/balance/functional training: MD -6.17, 95% CI -10.75 to -1.59; multi-domain training: MD -5.29, 95% CI -9.51 to -1.06; dance: MD -3.88, 95% CI -10.92 to 3.00; low confidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of gaming, strength/resistance, endurance, and flexibility training on QoL (gaming: MD -8.99, 95% CI -23.43 to 5.46; strength/resistance training: MD -6.70, 95% CI -12.86 to -0.35; endurance training: MD -6.52, 95% CI -13.74 to 0.88; flexibility training: MD 1.94, 95% CI -10.40 to 14.27; very low confidence). Adverse events Only 85 studies (5192 participants) provided some kind of safety data, mostly only for the intervention groups. No adverse events (AEs) occurred in 40 studies and no serious AEs occurred in four studies. AEs occurred in 28 studies. The most frequently reported events were falls (18 studies) and pain (10 studies). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of physical exercise on the risk of adverse events (very low confidence). Across outcomes, we observed little evidence of differences between exercise types.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence of beneficial effects on the severity of motor signs and QoL for most types of physical exercise for people with PD included in this review, but little evidence of differences between these interventions. Thus, our review highlights the importance of physical exercise regarding our primary outcomes severity of motor signs and QoL, while the exact exercise type might be secondary. Notably, this conclusion is consistent with the possibility that specific motor symptoms may be treated most effectively by PD-specific programs. Although the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of exercise on the risk of adverse events, the interventions included in our review were described as relatively safe. Larger, well-conducted studies are needed to increase confidence in the evidence. Additional studies recruiting people with advanced disease severity and cognitive impairment might help extend the generalizability of our findings to a broader range of people with PD.

GRADE concept paper 8: judging the certainty of discrimination performance estimates of prognostic models in a body of validation studies

BACKGROUND

Prognostic models incorporate multiple prognostic factors to estimate the likelihood of future events for individual patients based on their prognostic factor values. Evaluating these models crucially involves conducting studies to assess their predictive performance, like discrimination. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of these validation studies play an essential role in selecting models for clinical practice.

METHODS

In this paper, we outline 3 thresholds to determine the target for certainty rating in the discrimination of prognostic models, as observed across a body of validation studies.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

We propose 3 thresholds when rating the certainty of evidence about a prognostic model's discrimination. The first threshold amounts to rating certainty in the model's ability to classify better than random chance. The other 2 approaches involve setting thresholds informed by other mechanisms for classification: clinician intuition or an alternative prognostic model developed for the same disease area and outcome. The choice of threshold will vary based on the context. Instead of relying on arbitrary discrimination cut-offs, our approach positions the observed discrimination within an informed spectrum, potentially aiding decisions about a prognostic model's practical utility.

Can Physical Exercise Be Considered as a Promising Enhancer of Global Cognition in People with Parkinson's Disease? Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Physical exercise interventions are known to improve quality of life, motor and non-motor symptoms in people with Parkinson's disease (PD). However, systematic reviews and meta-analyses on cognitive outcomes are rare.

Objective

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of physical exercise intervention effects compared with passive and active control groups (CGs) on global cognition in people with PD.

Methods

A literature search was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on physical exercise interventions in PD using nine databases. We included RCTs reporting global cognition outcomes. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Bias was assessed with the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach.

Results

Seventeen studies (ten with passive, seven with active CGs) were included in the systematic review. Exercise interventions varied considerably between studies. The meta-analysis included nine studies with 236 people with PD (seven with passive, two with active CGs). The SMD was 0.33 (95% CI 0.00; 0.65) demonstrating a small effect (p = 0.05) in favor of physical exercise. Compared with passive CGs, physical exercise had a small non-significant effect (SMD = 0.22, 95% CI -0.14;0.58, p = 0.24). Compared with active CGs, physical exercise had a medium significant effect (SMD = 0.72, 95% CI 0.12;1.33, p = 0.02).

Conclusions

Physical exercise may increase global cognition in people with PD, but the evidence is very uncertain. Further large-scale RCTs are needed to confirm this finding and to identify the most effective type of physical exercise for improving cognition.

Higher Risk of Many Physical Health Conditions in Sexual Minority Men: Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in Gay- and Bisexual-Identified Compared with Heterosexual-Identified Men

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to provide a systematic review and, where possible, meta-analysis on the prevalence of physical health conditions in sexual minority men (SMM, i.e., gay- and bisexual-identified men) compared with heterosexual-identified men. Methods: A systematic literature search in the databases MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Web of Science was conducted on epidemiological studies on physical health conditions, classified in the Global Burden of Disease project and published between 2000 and 2021. Meta-analyses comparing odds ratios were calculated. Results: In total, 23,649 abstracts were screened, and 32 studies were included in the systematic review. Main findings were that (1) Largest differences in prevalence by sexual identity were found for chronic respiratory diseases, particularly asthma: overall, SMM were significantly almost 50% more likely to suffer from asthma than heterosexual men. (2) Evidence of higher prevalence was also found for chronic kidney diseases and headache disorders in gay men and for hepatitis B/C in both gay and bisexual men. (3) We found an overall trend that bisexual men were more affected by some of the physical health conditions compared with gay men (e.g., cardiovascular diseases, asthma). However, regarding cancer, headache disorders, and hepatitis, gay men were more affected. Conclusion: We found evidence of physical health disparities by sexual identity, suggesting more health issues in SMM. Since some of these findings rely on few comparisons or small samples of SMM only, this review is intended to be a vehement plea for routinely including sexual identity assessment in health research and clinical practice.

GRADE Concept 7: Issues and Insights Linking Guideline Recommendations to Trustworthy Essential Medicine Lists

OBJECTIVES

Guidelines and essential medicine lists (EMLs) bear similarities and differences in the process that lead to decisions. Access to essential medicines is central to achieve universal health coverage. The World Health Organization (WHO) EML has guided prioritization of essential medicines globally for nearly 50 years, and national EMLs (NEMLs) exist in over 130 countries. Guideline and EML decisions, at WHO or national levels, are not always coordinated and aligned. We sought to explore challenges, and potential solutions, for decision-making to support trustworthy medicine selection for EMLs from a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Working Group perspective. We primarily focus on the WHO EML; however, our findings may be applicable to NEML decisions as well.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We identified key challenges in connecting the EML to health guidelines by involving a broad group of stakeholders and assessing case studies including real applications to the WHO EML, South Africa NEML, and a multiple sclerosis guideline connected to a WHO EML application for multiple sclerosis treatments. To address challenges, we utilized the results of a survey and feedback from the stakeholders, and iteratively met as a project group. We drafted a conceptual framework of challenges and potential solutions. We presented a summary of the results for feedback to all attendees of the GRADE Working Group meetings in November 2022 (approximately 120 people) and in May 2023 (approximately 100 people) before finalizing the framework.

RESULTS

We prioritized issues and insights/solutions that addressed the connections between the EML and health guidelines. Our suggested solutions include early planning alignment of guideline groups and EMLs, considering shared participation to strengthen linkage, further clarity on price/cost considerations, and using explicit shared criteria to make guideline and EML decisions. We also provide recommendations to strengthen the connection between WHO EML and NEMLs including through contextualization methods.

CONCLUSION

This GRADE concept article, jointly developed by key stakeholders from the guidelines and EMLs field, identified key conceptual issues and potential solutions to support the continued advancement of trustworthy EMLs. Adopting structured decision criteria that can be linked to guideline recommendations bears the potential to advance health equity and gaps in availability of essential medicines within and between countries.

Methods and guidance on conducting, reporting, publishing, and appraising living systematic reviews: a scoping review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The living systematic review (LSR) approach is based on ongoing surveillance of the literature and continual updating. Most currently available guidance documents address the conduct, reporting, publishing, and appraisal of systematic reviews (SRs), but are not suitable for LSRs per se and miss additional LSR-specific considerations. In this scoping review, we aim to systematically collate methodological guidance literature on how to conduct, report, publish, and appraise the quality of LSRs and identify current gaps in guidance.

METHODS

A standard scoping review methodology was used. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and The Cochrane Library on August 28, 2021. As for searching gray literature, we looked for existing guidelines and handbooks on LSRs from organizations that conduct evidence syntheses. The screening was conducted by two authors independently in Rayyan, and data extraction was done in duplicate using a pilot-tested data extraction form in Excel. Data was extracted according to four pre-defined categories for (i) conducting, (ii) reporting, (iii) publishing, and (iv) appraising LSRs. We mapped the findings by visualizing overview tables created in Microsoft Word.

RESULTS

Of the 21 included papers, methodological guidance was found in 17 papers for conducting, in six papers for reporting, in 15 papers for publishing, and in two papers for appraising LSRs. Some of the identified key items for (i) conducting LSRs were identifying the rationale, screening tools, or re-revaluating inclusion criteria. Identified items of (ii) the original PRISMA checklist included reporting the registration and protocol, title, or synthesis methods. For (iii) publishing, there was guidance available on publication type and frequency or update trigger, and for (iv) appraising, guidance on the appropriate use of bias assessment or reporting funding of included studies was found. Our search revealed major evidence gaps, particularly for guidance on certain PRISMA items such as reporting results, discussion, support and funding, and availability of data and material of a LSR.

CONCLUSION

Important evidence gaps were identified for guidance on how to report in LSRs and appraise their quality. Our findings were applied to inform and prepare a PRISMA 2020 extension for LSR.

Persistent symptoms and risk factors predicting prolonged time to symptom-free after SARS‑CoV‑2 infection: an analysis of the baseline examination of the German COVIDOM/NAPKON-POP cohort

PURPOSE

We aimed to assess symptoms in patients after SARS-CoV-2 infection and to identify factors predicting prolonged time to symptom-free.

METHODS

COVIDOM/NAPKON-POP is a population-based prospective cohort of adults whose first on-site visits were scheduled ≥ 6 months after a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. Retrospective data including self-reported symptoms and time to symptom-free were collected during the survey before a site visit. In the survival analyses, being symptom-free served as the event and time to be symptom-free as the time variable. Data were visualized with Kaplan-Meier curves, differences were tested with log-rank tests. A stratified Cox proportional hazard model was used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of predictors, with aHR < 1 indicating a longer time to symptom-free.

RESULTS

Of 1175 symptomatic participants included in the present analysis, 636 (54.1%) reported persistent symptoms after 280 days (SD 68) post infection. 25% of participants were free from symptoms after 18 days [quartiles: 14, 21]. Factors associated with prolonged time to symptom-free were age 49-59 years compared to < 49 years (aHR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56-0.87), female sex (aHR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65-0.93), lower educational level (aHR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64-0.93), living with a partner (aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66-0.99), low resilience (aHR 0.65, 95% CI 0.47-0.90), steroid treatment (aHR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05-0.90) and no medication (aHR 0.74, 95% CI 0.62-0.89) during acute infection.

CONCLUSION

In the studied population, COVID-19 symptoms had resolved in one-quarter of participants within 18 days, and in 34.5% within 28 days. Over half of the participants reported COVID-19-related symptoms 9 months after infection. Symptom persistence was predominantly determined by participant's characteristics that are difficult to modify.

Nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir for preventing and treating COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care (SoC) compared to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 or preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses. To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in-between publication of review updates.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Scopus, and World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 15 May 2023. This is a LSR. We conduct update searches every two months and make them publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We screened all studies for research integrity. Studies were ineligible if they had been retracted, or if they were not prospectively registered including appropriate ethics approval.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology and used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: 1. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19; 2. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, quality of life, (serious) adverse events, and viral clearance; 3. to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in postexposure prophylaxis (PEP); and 4. pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) scenarios: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, and (serious) adverse events. We explored inequity by subgroup analysis for elderly people, socially-disadvantaged people with comorbidities, populations from low-income countries and low- to middle-income countries, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds.

MAIN RESULTS

As of 15 May 2023, we included two RCTs with 2510 participants with mild and mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 in outpatient and inpatient settings comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo. All trial participants were without previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at high risk for progression to severe disease. Randomization coincided with the Delta wave for outpatients and Omicron wave for inpatients. Outpatient trial participants and 73% of inpatients were unvaccinated. Symptom onset in outpatients was no more than five days before randomisation and prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 were not allowed. We excluded two studies due to concerns with research integrity. We identified 13 ongoing studies. Three studies are currently awaiting classification. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 in outpatient settings Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC plus placebo may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.68; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence) and admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably has little or no effect on treatment-emergent adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably increases treatment-related adverse events such as dysgeusia and diarrhoea during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement of clinical status, quality of life, or viral clearance. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with moderate to severe COVID-19 in inpatient settings We are uncertain whether nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC reduces all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.86; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or increases viral clearance at seven days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.58; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 14 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement or worsening of clinical status and quality of life. We did not include data for safety outcomes due to insufficient and inconsistent information. Subgroup analyses for equity For outpatients, the outcome 'admission to hospital or death' was investigated for equity regarding age (less than 65 years versus 65 years or greater) and ethnicity. There were no subgroup differences for age or ethnicity. For inpatients, the outcome 'all-cause mortality' was investigated for equity regarding age (65 years or less versus greater than 65 years). There was no difference between subgroups of age. No further equity-related subgroups were reported, and no subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-certainty evidence suggests nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and hospital admission or death in high-risk, unvaccinated COVID-19 outpatients infected with the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence of the safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Very low-certainty evidence exists regarding the effects of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on all-cause mortality and viral clearance in mildly to moderately affected, mostly unvaccinated COVID-19 inpatients infected with the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. Insufficient and inconsistent information prevents the assessment of safety outcomes. No reliable differences in effect size and direction were found regarding equity aspects. There is no available evidence supporting the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. We are continually updating our search and making search results available on the OSF platform.

Early versus late tracheostomy in critically ill COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

The role of early tracheostomy as an intervention for critically ill COVID-19 patients is unclear. Previous reports have described prolonged intensive care stays and difficulty weaning from mechanical ventilation in critically ill COVID-19 patients, particularly in those developing acute respiratory distress syndrome. Pre-pandemic evidence on the benefits of early tracheostomy is conflicting but suggests shorter hospital stays and lower mortality rates compared to late tracheostomy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of early tracheostomy compared to late tracheostomy in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, which comprises CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv, as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 14 June 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI) evaluating early tracheostomy compared to late tracheostomy during SARS-CoV-2 infection in critically ill adults irrespective of gender, ethnicity, or setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs and the ROBINS-I tool for NRSIs. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for outcomes of our prioritized categories: mortality, clinical status, and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay. As the timing of tracheostomy was very heterogeneous among the included studies, we applied GRADE only to studies that defined early tracheostomy as 10 days or less, which was chosen according to clinical relevance.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one RCT with 150 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and 24 NRSIs with 6372 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. All participants were admitted to the ICU, orally intubated and mechanically ventilated. The RCT was a multicenter, parallel, single-blinded study conducted in Sweden. Of the 24 NRSIs, which were mostly conducted in high- and middle-income countries, eight had a prospective design and 16 a retrospective design. We did not find any ongoing studies. RCT-based evidence We judged risk of bias for the RCT to be of low or some concerns regarding randomization and measurement of the outcome. Early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in overall mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.29; RD 67 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 178 fewer to 108 more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). As an indicator of improvement of clinical status, early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in duration to liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation (MD 1.50 days fewer, 95%, CI 5.74 days fewer to 2.74 days more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). As an indicator of worsening clinical status, early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in the incidence of adverse events of any grade (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.13; RD 47 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 164 fewer to 102 more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence); little to no difference in the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.23 to 5.20; RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI 30 fewer to 162 more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported need for renal replacement therapy. Early tracheostomy may result in little benefit to no difference in ICU length of stay (MD 0.5 days fewer, 95% CI 5.34 days fewer to 4.34 days more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). NRSI-based evidence We considered risk of bias for NRSIs to be critical because of possible confounding, study participant enrollment into the studies, intervention classification and potentially systematic errors in the measurement of outcomes. We are uncertain whether early tracheostomy (≤ 10 days) increases or decreases overall mortality (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.00; RD 143 more per 1000, 95% CI 174 less to 1218 more; I2 = 79%; 2 studies, 719 participants) or duration to liberation from mechanical ventilation (MD 1.98 days fewer, 95% CI 0.16 days fewer to 4.12 more; 1 study, 50 participants), because we graded the certainty of evidence as very low. Three NRSIs reported ICU length of stay for 519 patients with early tracheostomy (≤ 10 days) as a median value, which we could not include in the meta-analyses. We are uncertain whether early tracheostomy (≤ 10 days) increases or decreases the ICU length of stay, because we graded the certainty of evidence as very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low-certainty evidence that early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in overall mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation compared with late tracheostomy. In terms of clinical improvement, early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in duration to liberation from mechanical ventilation compared with late tracheostomy. We are not certain about the impact of early tracheostomy on clinical worsening in terms of the incidence of adverse events, need for renal replacement therapy, ventilator-associated pneumonia, or the length of stay in the ICU. Future RCTs should provide additional data on the benefits and harms of early tracheostomy for defined main outcomes of COVID-19 research, as well as of comparable diseases, especially for different population subgroups to reduce clinical heterogeneity, and report a longer observation period. Then it would be possible to draw conclusions regarding which patient groups might benefit from early intervention. Furthermore, validated scoring systems for more accurate predictions of the need for prolonged mechanical ventilation should be developed and used in new RCTs to ensure safer indication and patient safety. High-quality (prospectively registered) NRSIs should be conducted in the future to provide valuable answers to clinical questions. This could enable us to draw more reliable conclusions about the potential benefits and harms of early tracheostomy in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Interventions for improving health literacy in migrants

BACKGROUND

Health literacy (HL) is a determinant of health and important for autonomous decision-making. Migrants are at high risk for limited HL. Improving HL is important for equitable promotion of migrants' health.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for improving HL in migrants. To assess whether female or male migrants respond differently to the identified interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran electronic searches to 2 February 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL. We also searched trial registries. We used a study filter for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (RCT classifier).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs and cluster-RCTs addressing HL either as a concept or its components (access, understand, appraise, apply health information).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane and followed the PRISMA-E guidelines. Outcome categories were: a) HL, b) quality of life (QoL), c) knowledge, d) health outcomes, e) health behaviour, f) self-efficacy, g) health service use and h) adverse events. We conducted meta-analysis where possible, and reported the remaining results as a narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 28 RCTs and six cluster-RCTs (8249 participants), all conducted in high-income countries. Participants were migrants with a wide range of conditions. All interventions were adapted to culture, language and literacy. We did not find evidence that HL interventions cause harm, but only two studies assessed adverse events (e.g. anxiety). Many studies reported results for short-term assessments (less than six weeks after total programme completion), reported here. For several comparisons, there were also findings at later time points, which are presented in the review text. Compared with no HL intervention (standard care/no intervention) or an unrelated HL intervention (similar intervention but different information topic) Self-management programmes (SMP) probably improve self-efficacy slightly (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.50; 2 studies, 333 participants; moderate certainty). SMP may improve HIV-related HL (understanding (mean difference (MD) 4.25, 95% CI 1.32 to 7.18); recognition of HIV terms (MD 3.32, 95% CI 1.28 to 5.36)) (1 study, 69 participants). SMP may slightly improve health behaviours (3 studies, 514 participants), but may have little or no effect on knowledge (2 studies, 321 participants) or subjective health status (MD 0.38, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.89; 1 study, 69 participants) (low certainty). We are uncertain of the effects of SMP on QoL, health service use or adverse events due to a lack of evidence. HL skills building courses (HLSBC) may improve knowledge (MD 10.87, 95% CI 5.69 to 16.06; 2 studies, 111 participants) and any generic HL (SMD 0.48, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.75; 2 studies, 229 participants), but may have little or no effect on depression literacy (MD 0.17, 95% CI -1.28 to 1.62) or any health behaviour (2 studies, 229 participants) (low certainty). We are uncertain if HLSBC improve QoL, health outcomes, health service use, self-efficacy or adverse events, due to very low-certainty or a lack of evidence. Audio-/visual education without personal feedback (AVE) probably improves depression literacy (MD 8.62, 95% CI 7.51 to 9.73; 1 study, 202 participants) and health service use (MD -0.59, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.07; 1 study, 157 participants), but probably has little or no effect on health behaviour (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.25; 1 study, 135 participants) (moderate certainty). AVE may improve self-efficacy (MD 3.51, 95% CI 2.53 to 4.49; 1 study, 133 participants) and may slightly improve knowledge (MD 8.44, 95% CI -2.56 to 19.44; 2 studies, 293 participants) and intention to seek depression treatment (MD 1.8, 95% CI 0.43 to 3.17), with little or no effect on depression (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.10) (low certainty). No evidence was found for QoL and adverse events. Adapted medical instruction may improve understanding of health information (3 studies, 478 participants), with little or no effect on medication adherence (MD 0.5, 95% CI -0.1 to 1.1; 1 study, 200 participants) (low certainty). No evidence was found for QoL, health outcomes, knowledge, health service use, self-efficacy or adverse events. Compared with written information on the same topic SMP probably improves health numeracy slightly (MD 0.7, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.25) and probably improves print literacy (MD 9, 95% CI 2.9 to 15.1; 1 study, 209 participants) and self-efficacy (SMD 0.47, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.64; 4 studies, 552 participants) (moderate certainty). SMP may improve any disease-specific HL (SMD 0.67, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.07; 4 studies, 955 participants), knowledge (MD 11.45, 95% CI 4.75 to 18.15; 6 studies, 1101 participants) and some health behaviours (4 studies, 797 participants), with little or no effect on health information appraisal (MD 1.15, 95% CI -0.23 to 2.53; 1 study, 329 participants) (low certainty). We are uncertain whether SMP improves QoL, health outcomes, health service use or adverse events, due to a lack of evidence or low/very low-certainty evidence. AVE probably has little or no effect on diabetes HL (MD 2, 95% CI -0.15 to 4.15; 1 study, 240 participants), but probably improves information appraisal (MD -9.88, 95% CI -12.87 to -6.89) and application (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.77) (1 study, 608 participants; moderate certainty). AVE may slightly improve knowledge (MD 8.35, 95% CI -0.32 to 17.02; low certainty). No short-term evidence was found for QoL, depression, health behaviour, self-efficacy, health service use or adverse events. AVE compared with another AVE We are uncertain whether narrative videos are superior to factual knowledge videos as the evidence is of very low certainty. Gender differences Female migrants' diabetes HL may improve slightly more than that of males, when receiving AVE (MD 5.00, 95% CI 0.62 to 9.38; 1 study, 118 participants), but we do not know whether female or male migrants benefit differently from other interventions due to very low-certainty or a lack of evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Adequately powered studies measuring long-term effects (more than six months) of HL interventions in female and male migrants are needed, using well-validated tools and representing various healthcare systems.

Determinants of passive antibody efficacy in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials of passive antibodies as treatment and prophylaxis for COVID-19 have reported variable efficacy. However, the determinants of efficacy have not been identified. We aimed to assess how the dose and timing of administration affect treatment outcome.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we extracted data from published studies of passive antibody treatment from Jan 1, 2019, to Jan 31, 2023, that were identified by searching multiple databases, including MEDLINE, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included only randomised controlled trials of passive antibody administration for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. To compare administered antibody dose between different treatments, we used data on in-vitro neutralisation titres to normalise dose by antibody potency. We used mixed-effects regression and model fitting to analyse the relationship between timing, dose and efficacy.

FINDINGS

We found 58 randomised controlled trials that investigated passive antibody therapies for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. Earlier clinical stage at treatment initiation was highly predictive of the efficacy of both monoclonal antibodies (p<0·0001) and convalescent plasma therapy (p=0·030) in preventing progression to subsequent stages, with either prophylaxis or treatment in outpatients showing the greatest effects. For the treatment of outpatients with COVID-19, we found a significant association between the dose administered and efficacy in preventing hospitalisation (relative risk 0·77; p<0·0001). Using this relationship, we predicted that no approved monoclonal antibody was expected to provide more than 30% efficacy against some omicron (B.1.1.529) subvariants, such as BQ.1.1.

INTERPRETATION

Early administration before hospitalisation and sufficient doses of passive antibody therapy are crucial to achieving high efficacy in preventing clinical progression. The relationship between dose and efficacy provides a framework for the rational assessment of future passive antibody prophylaxis and treatment strategies for COVID-19.

FUNDING

The Australian Government Department of Health, Medical Research Future Fund, National Health and Medical Research Council, the University of New South Wales, Monash University, Haematology Society of Australia and New Zealand, Leukaemia Foundation, and the Victorian Government.

Increasing the efficiency of study selection for systematic reviews using prioritization tools and a single-screening approach

BACKGROUND

Systematic literature screening is a key component in systematic reviews. However, this approach is resource intensive as generally two persons independently of each other (double screening) screen a vast number of search results. To develop approaches for increasing efficiency, we tested the use of text mining to prioritize search results as well as the involvement of only one person (single screening) in the study selection process.

METHOD

Our study is based on health technology assessments (HTAs) of drug and non-drug interventions. Using a sample size calculation, we consecutively included 11 searches resulting in 33 study selection processes. Of the three screeners for each search, two used screening tools with prioritization (Rayyan, EPPI Reviewer) and one a tool without prioritization. For each prioritization tool, we investigated the proportion of citations classified as relevant at three cut-offs or STOP criteria (after screening 25%, 50% and 75% of the citation set). For each STOP criterion, we measured sensitivity (number of correctly identified relevant studies divided by the total number of relevant studies in the study pool). In addition, we determined the number of relevant studies identified per single screening round and investigated whether missed studies were relevant to the HTA conclusion.

RESULTS

Overall, EPPI Reviewer performed better than Rayyan and identified the vast majority (88%, Rayyan 66%) of relevant citations after screening half of the citation set. As long as additional information sources were screened, it was sufficient to apply a single-screening approach to identify all studies relevant to the HTA conclusion. Although many relevant publications (n = 63) and studies (n = 29) were incorrectly excluded, ultimately only 5 studies could not be identified at all in 2 of the 11 searches (1x 1 study, 1x 4 studies). However, their omission did not change the overall conclusion in any HTA.

CONCLUSIONS

EPPI Reviewer helped to identify relevant citations earlier in the screening process than Rayyan. Single screening would have been sufficient to identify all studies relevant to the HTA conclusion. However, this requires screening of further information sources. It also needs to be considered that the credibility of an HTA may be questioned if studies are missing, even if they are not relevant to the HTA conclusion.

Antiplatelet agents for the treatment of adults with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause thrombotic events that lead to severe complications or death. Antiplatelet agents, such as acetylsalicylic acid, have been shown to effectively reduce thrombotic events in other diseases: they could influence the course of COVID-19 in general.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of antiplatelets given with standard care compared to no treatment or standard care (with/without placebo) for adults with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to December 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating antiplatelet agents for the treatment of COVID-19 in adults with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, gender or ethnicity.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Antiplatelets plus standard care versus standard care (with/without placebo) Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19 We included four studies (17,541 participants) that recruited hospitalised people with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19. A total of 8964 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (either with cyclooxygenase inhibitors or P2Y12 inhibitors) and 8577 participants in the control arm. Most people were older than 50 years and had comorbidities such as hypertension, lung disease or diabetes. The studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income countries prior to wide-scale vaccination programmes. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.05; 3 studies, 17,249 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this means that for every 177 deaths per 1000 people not receiving antiplatelets, there were 168 deaths per 1000 people who did receive the intervention (95% CI 151 to 186 per 1000 people); - probably result in little to no difference in worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to day 28) (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.01; 2 studies, 15,266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in little to no difference in improvement (participants discharged alive up to day 28) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; 2 studies, 15,454 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in a slight reduction of thrombotic events at longest follow-up (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.02; 4 studies, 17,518 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events at longest follow-up (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.57, 95% CI 0.48 to 5.14; 1 study, 1815 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events during study treatment were not reported; - probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events at longest follow-up (Peto OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.19; 4 studies, 17,527 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 We included two RCTs allocating participants, of whom 4209 had confirmed mild COVID-19 and were not hospitalised. A total of 2109 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (treated with acetylsalicylic acid) and 2100 participants in the control arm. No study included people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality at day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.22; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may slightly decrease the incidence of new thrombotic events up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may make little or no difference to the incidence of serious adverse events up to day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.64; 1 study, 3881 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events were not reported. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antiplatelets on the following outcomes (compared to standard care plus placebo): - admission to hospital or death up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10; 2 studies, 4209 participants; very low-certainty evidence); - major bleeding events up to longest follow-up (no event occurred in 328 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life and adverse events during study treatment were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease, we found moderate-certainty evidence that antiplatelets probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, but probably result in a slight reduction in thrombotic events. They probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events. Low-certainty evidence suggests that antiplatelets may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events. In people with confirmed COVID-19 and mild symptoms, we found low-certainty evidence that antiplatelets may result in little to no difference in 45-day mortality and serious adverse events, and may slightly reduce thrombotic events. The effects on the combined outcome admission to hospital or death up to day 45 and major bleeding events are very uncertain. Quality of life was not reported. Included studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income settings using antiplatelets prior to vaccination roll-outs. We identified a lack of evidence concerning quality of life assessments, adverse events and people with asymptomatic infection. The 14 ongoing and three completed, unpublished RCTs that we identified in trial registries address similar settings and research questions as in the current body of evidence. We expect to incorporate the findings of these studies in future versions of this review.

Meta-epidemiological review identified variable reporting and handling of time-to-event analyses in publications of trials included in meta-analyses of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVES

Previous findings indicate limited reporting of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of time-to-event (TTE) outcomes. We assessed corresponding available information in trial publications included in such meta-analyses.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We extracted data from all randomized trials in pairwise, hazard ratio (HR)-based meta-analyses of primary outcomes and overall survival of 50 systematic reviews systematically identified from the Cochrane Database and Core Clinical Journals. Data on methods and characteristics relevant for TTE analysis of reviews, trials, and outcomes were extracted.

RESULTS

Meta-analyses included 235 trials with 315 trial analyses. Most prominently assessed was overall survival (91%). Definitions (61%), censoring reasons (41%), and follow-up specifications (56%) for trial outcomes were often missing. Available TTE data per trial were most frequently survival curves (83%), log-rank P values (76%), and HRs (72%). When trial TTE data recalculation was reported, reviews mostly specified HRs or P values (each 5%). Reviews primarily included intention-to-treat analyses (64%) and analyses not adjusted for covariates (25%). Except for missing outcome data, TTE-relevant trial characteristics, for example, informative censoring, treatment switching, and proportional hazards, were sporadically addressed in trial publications. Reporting limitations in trial publications translate to the review level.

CONCLUSION

TTE (meta)-analyses, in trial and review publications, need clear reporting standards.

GRADE concept 4: rating the certainty of evidence when study interventions or comparators differ from PICO targets

OBJECTIVES

This Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) concept article offers systematic reviewers, guideline authors, and other users of evidence assistance in addressing randomized trial situations in which interventions or comparators differ from those in the target people, interventions, comparators, and outcomes. To clarify what GRADE considers under indirectness of interventions and comparators, we focus on a particular example: when comparator arm participants receive some or all aspects of the intervention management strategy (treatment switching).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

An interdisciplinary panel of the GRADE working group members developed this concept article through an iterative review of examples in multiple teleconferences, small group sessions, and e-mail correspondence. After presentation at a GRADE working group meeting in November 2022, attendees approved the final concept paper, which we support with examples from systematic reviews and individual trials.

RESULTS

In the presence of safeguards against risk of bias, trials provide unbiased estimates of the effect of an intervention on the people as enrolled, the interventions as implemented, the comparators as implemented, and the outcomes as measured. Within the GRADE framework, differences in the people, interventions, comparators, and outcomes elements between the review or guideline recommendation targets and the trials as implemented constitute issues of indirectness. The intervention or comparator group management strategy as implemented, when it differs from the target comparator, constitutes one potential source of indirectness: Indirectness of interventions and comparators-comparator group receipt of the intervention constitutes a specific subcategory of said indirectness. The proportion of comparator arm participants that received the intervention and the apparent magnitude of effect bear on whether one should rate down, and if one does, to what extent.

CONCLUSION

Treatment switching and other differences between review or guideline recommendation target interventions and comparators vs. interventions and comparators as implemented in otherwise relevant trials are best considered issues of indirectness.

Polyclonal anti-thymocyte globulins for the prophylaxis of graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic stem cell or bone marrow transplantation in adults

BACKGROUND

Allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (SCT) is an established treatment for many malignant and non-malignant haematological disorders. Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), a condition frequently occurring after an allogeneic SCT, is the result of host tissues being attacked by donor immune cells. It affects more than half of the patients after transplant either as acute and or chronic GVHD. One strategy for the prevention of GVHD is the administration of anti-thymocyte globulins (ATGs), a set of polyclonal antibodies directed against a variety of immune cell epitopes, leading to immunosuppression and immunomodulation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of ATG used for the prevention of GVHD in patients undergoing allogeneic SCT with regard to overall survival, incidence and severity of acute and chronic GVHD, incidence of relapse, non-relapse mortality, graft failure and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, trial registers and conference proceedings on the 18th November 2022 along with reference checking and contacting study authors to identify additional studies. We did not apply language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the impact of ATG on GVHD prophylaxis in adults suffering from haematological diseases and undergoing allogeneic SCT. The selection criteria were modified from the previous version of this review. Paediatric studies and studies where patients aged < 18 years constituted more than 20 % of the total number were excluded. Treatment arms had to differ only in the addition of ATG to the standard GVHD prophylaxis regimen.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration for data collection, extraction and analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update we included seven new RCTs, leading to a total of ten studies investigating 1413 participants. All patients had a haematological condition which warranted an allogeneic SCT. The risk of bias was estimated as low for seven and unclear for three studies. ATG probably has little or no influence on overall survival (HR (hazard ratio) 0.93 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.13, nine studies, n = 1249, moderate-certainty evidence)). Estimated absolute effect: 430 surviving people per 1000 people not receiving ATG compared to 456 people surviving per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95 % CI 385 to 522 per 1000 people). ATG results in a reduction in acute GVHD II to IV with relative risk (RR) 0.68 (95 % CI 0.60 to 0.79, 10 studies, n = 1413, high-certainty evidence). Estimated absolute effect: 418 acute GVHD II to IV per 1000 people not receiving ATG compared to 285 per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95 % CI 251 to 331 per 1000 people). Addition of ATG results in a reduction of overall chronic GvHD with a RR of 0.53 (95 % CI 0.45 to 0.61, eight studies, n = 1273, high-certainty evidence). Estimated absolute effect: 506 chronic GVHD per 1000 people not receiving ATG compared to 268 per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95 % CI 228 to 369 per 1000 people). Further data on severe acute GVHD and extensive chronic GVHD are available in the manuscript. ATG probably slightly increases the incidence of relapse with a RR of 1.21 (95 % CI 0.99 to 1.49, eight studies,  n =1315, moderate-certainty evidence). Non relapse mortality is probably slightly or not affected by ATG with an HR of 0.86 (95 % CI 0.67 to 1.11, nine studies, n=1370, moderate-certainty evidence).   ATG prophylaxis may result in no increase in graft failure with a RR of 1.55 (95 % CI 0.54 to 4.44, eight studies, n = 1240, low-certainty evidence).  Adverse events could not be analysed due to the serious heterogeneity in the reporting between the studies, which limited comparability (moderate-certainty evidence) and are reported in a descriptive manner.   Subgroup analyses on ATG types, doses and donor type are available in the manuscript.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review suggests that the addition of ATG during allogeneic SCT probably has little or no influence on overall survival. ATG results in a reduction in the incidence and severity of acute and chronic GvHD. ATG intervention probably slightly increases the incidence of relapse and probably does not affect the non relapse mortality. Graft failure may not be affected by ATG prophylaxis. Analysis of data on adverse events was reported in a narrative manner. A limitation for the analysis was the imprecision in reporting between the studies thereby reducing the confidence in the certainty of evidence.

Efficacy and safety of molnupiravir for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of molnupiravir for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment is unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review until 1 November 2022 searching for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving COVID-19 patients comparing molnupiravir [±standard of care (SoC)] versus SoC and/or placebo. Data were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. Certainty of evidence was assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs were identified, eight investigated outpatients (29 254 participants) and one inpatients (304 participants). Compared with placebo/SoC, molnupiravir does not reduce mortality [risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% CI 0.07-1.02, high-certainty evidence] and probably does not reduce the risk for 'hospitalization or death' (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.55-1.20, moderate-certainty evidence) by Day 28 in COVID-19 outpatients. We are uncertain whether molnupiravir increases symptom resolution by Day 14 (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02-1.41, very-low-certainty evidence) but it may make no difference by Day 28 (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92-1.19, low-certainty evidence). In inpatients, molnupiravir may increase mortality by Day 28 compared with placebo (RR 3.78, 95% CI 0.50-28.82, low-certainty evidence). There is little to no difference in serious adverse and adverse events during the study period in COVID-19 inpatients/outpatients treated with molnupiravir compared with placebo/SoC (moderate- to high-certainty evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

In a predominantly immunized population of COVID-19 outpatients, molnupiravir has no effect on mortality, probably none on 'hospitalization or death' and effects on symptom resolution are uncertain. Molnupiravir was safe during the study period in outpatients although a potential increase in inpatient mortality requires careful monitoring in ongoing clinical research. Our analysis does not support routine use of molnupiravir for COVID-19 treatment in immunocompetent individuals.

Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have very-low to low certainty evidence for most primary outcomes and moderate certainty for hospital admission or death. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

Prioritising Cochrane reviews to be updated with health equity focus

BACKGROUND

The prioritisation of updating published systematic reviews of interventions is vital to prevent research waste and ensure relevance to stakeholders. The consideration of health equity in reviews is also important to ensure interventions will not exacerbate the existing inequities of the disadvantaged if universally implemented. This study aimed to pilot a priority setting exercise based on systematic reviews of interventions published in the Cochrane Library, to identify and prioritise reviews to be updated with a focus on health equity.

METHODS

We conducted a priority setting exercise with a group of 13 international stakeholders. We identified Cochrane reviews of interventions that showed a reduction in mortality, had at least one Summary of Findings table and that focused on one of 42 conditions with a high global burden of disease from the 2019 WHO Global Burden of Disease report. This included 21 conditions used as indicators of success of the United Nations Universal Health Coverage in attaining the Sustainable Development Goals. Stakeholders prioritised reviews that were relevant to disadvantaged populations, or to characteristics of potential disadvantage within the general population.

RESULTS

After searching for Cochrane reviews of interventions within 42 conditions, we identified 359 reviews that assessed mortality and included at least one Summary of Findings table. These pertained to 29 of the 42 conditions; 13 priority conditions had no reviews with the outcome mortality. Reducing the list to only reviews showing a clinically important reduction in mortality left 33 reviews. Stakeholders ranked these reviews in order of priority to be updated with a focus on health equity.

CONCLUSIONS

This project developed and implemented a methodology to set priorities for updating systematic reviews spanning multiple health topics with a health equity focus. It prioritised reviews that reduce overall mortality, are relevant to disadvantaged populations, and focus on conditions with a high global burden of disease. This approach to the prioritisation of systematic reviews of interventions that reduce mortality provides a template that can be extended to reducing morbidity, and the combination of mortality and morbidity as represented in Disability-Adjusted Life Years and Quality-Adjusted Life Years.

First-line therapy for adults with advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Since the approval of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, angiogenesis inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the treatment landscape for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed fundamentally. Today, combined therapies from different drug categories have a firm place in a complex first-line therapy. Due to the large number of drugs available, it is necessary to identify the most effective therapies, whilst considering their side effects and impact on quality of life (QoL).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the benefits and harms of first-line therapies for adults with advanced RCC, and to produce a clinically relevant ranking of therapies. Secondary objectives were to maintain the currency of the evidence by conducting continuous update searches, using a living systematic review approach, and to incorporate data from clinical study reports (CSRs).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings and relevant trial registries up until 9 February 2022. We searched several data platforms to identify CSRs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating at least one targeted therapy or immunotherapy for first-line treatment of adults with advanced RCC. We excluded trials evaluating only interleukin-2 versus interferon-alpha as well as trials with an adjuvant treatment setting. We also excluded trials with adults who received prior systemic anticancer therapy if more than 10% of participants were previously treated, or if data for untreated participants were not separately extractable.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All necessary review steps (i.e. screening and study selection, data extraction, risk of bias and certainty assessments) were conducted independently by at least two review authors. Our outcomes were overall survival (OS), QoL, serious adverse events (SAEs), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), the number of participants who discontinued study treatment due to an AE, and the time to initiation of first subsequent therapy. Where possible, analyses were conducted for the different risk groups (favourable, intermediate, poor) according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Score (IMDC) or the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) criteria. Our main comparator was sunitinib (SUN). A hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) lower than 1.0 is in favour of the experimental arm.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 36 RCTs and 15,177 participants (11,061 males and 4116 females). Risk of bias was predominantly judged as being 'high' or 'some concerns' across most trials and outcomes. This was mainly due to a lack of information about the randomisation process, the blinding of outcome assessors, and methods for outcome measurements and analyses. Additionally, study protocols and statistical analysis plans were rarely available. Here we present the results for our primary outcomes OS, QoL, and SAEs, and for all risk groups combined for contemporary treatments: pembrolizumab + axitinib (PEM+AXI), avelumab + axitinib (AVE+AXI), nivolumab + cabozantinib (NIV+CAB), lenvatinib + pembrolizumab (LEN+PEM), nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIV+IPI), CAB, and pazopanib (PAZ). Results per risk group and results for our secondary outcomes are reported in the summary of findings tables and in the full text of this review. The evidence on other treatments and comparisons can also be found in the full text. Overall survival (OS) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI (HR 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.07, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.00, moderate certainty) probably improve OS, compared to SUN, respectively. LEN+PEM may improve OS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.03, low certainty), compared to SUN. There is probably little or no difference in OS between PAZ and SUN (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.32, moderate certainty), and we are uncertain whether CAB improves OS when compared to SUN (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.64, very low certainty). The median survival is 28 months when treated with SUN. Survival may improve to 43 months with LEN+PEM, and probably improves to: 41 months with NIV+IPI, 39 months with PEM+AXI, and 31 months with PAZ. We are uncertain whether survival improves to 34 months with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB. Quality of life (QoL) One RCT measured QoL using FACIT-F (score range 0 to 52; higher scores mean better QoL) and reported that the mean post-score was 9.00 points higher (9.86 lower to 27.86 higher, very low certainty) with PAZ than with SUN. Comparison data were not available for PEM+AXI, AVE+AXI, NIV+CAB, LEN+PEM, NIV+IPI, and CAB. Serious adverse events (SAEs) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI probably increases slightly the risk for SAEs (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.85, moderate certainty) compared to SUN. LEN+PEM (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.19, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.97, moderate certainty) probably increase the risk for SAEs, compared to SUN, respectively. There is probably little or no difference in the risk for SAEs between PAZ and SUN (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.31, moderate certainty). We are uncertain whether CAB reduces or increases the risk for SAEs (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.43, very low certainty) when compared to SUN. People have a mean risk of 40% for experiencing SAEs when treated with SUN. The risk increases probably to: 61% with LEN+PEM, 57% with NIV+IPI, and 52% with PEM+AXI. It probably remains at 40% with PAZ. We are uncertain whether the risk reduces to 37% with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings concerning the main treatments of interest comes from direct evidence of one trial only, thus results should be interpreted with caution. More trials are needed where these interventions and combinations are compared head-to-head, rather than just to SUN. Moreover, assessing the effect of immunotherapies and targeted therapies on different subgroups is essential and studies should focus on assessing and reporting relevant subgroup data. The evidence in this review mostly applies to advanced clear cell RCC.

Identifying and managing problematic trials: A research integrity assessment tool for randomized controlled trials in evidence synthesis

Evidence synthesis findings depend on the assumption that the included studies follow good clinical practice and results are not fabricated or false. Studies which are problematic due to scientific misconduct, poor research practice, or honest error may distort evidence synthesis findings. Authors of evidence synthesis need transparent mechanisms to identify and manage problematic studies to avoid misleading findings. As evidence synthesis authors of the Cochrane COVID-19 review on ivermectin, we identified many problematic studies in terms of research integrity and regulatory compliance. Through iterative discussion, we developed a research integrity assessment (RIA) tool for randomized controlled trials for the update of this Cochrane review. In this paper, we explain the rationale and application of the RIA tool in this case study. RIA assesses six study criteria: study retraction, prospective trial registration, adequate ethics approval, author group, plausibility of methods (e.g., randomization), and plausibility of study results. RIA was used in the Cochrane review as part of the eligibility check during screening of potentially eligible studies. Problematic studies were excluded and studies with open questions were held in awaiting classification until clarified. RIA decisions were made independently by two authors and reported transparently. Using the RIA tool resulted in the exclusion of >40% of studies in the first update of the review. RIA is a complementary tool prior to assessing "Risk of Bias" aiming to establish the integrity and authenticity of studies. RIA provides a platform for urgent development of a standard approach to identifying and managing problematic studies.

Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma and Related Entities

BACKGROUND

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common malignant B-cell neoplasm, with an incidence of 5.6 per 100 000 persons per year and a mean age of onset of approximately 65 years. It is an aggressive type of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma requiring urgent treatment with curative intent. Evidence-based guidelines have not been available to date.

METHODS

For this first international evidence-based DLBCL-specific guideline, various systematic literature searches were performed. 5 systematic reviews, 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and 36 non-randomized studies were used to formulate 42 recommendations. 142 were formulated on the basis of expert consensus. All recommendations were approved in a structured consensus-finding process.

RESULTS

For staging, combined positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET/CT) should be performed (evidence: a prospective registry study). For all patients with a new diagnosis of DLBCL and without contraindications, R-CHOP based immunochemotherapy (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) should be initiated with curative intent (evidence: RCTs). The individual treatment strategy is tailored to the patient's age and risk constellation. Once immunochemotherapy has been completed, PET/CT should be performed again to check for remission. Patients with PET-positive residual disease that is amenable to radiotherapy should be treated with consolidating irradiation (evidence: retrospective cohort study).

CONCLUSION

This clinical practice guideline on the diagnosis, treatment, and followup of patients with DLBCL and related entities provides a standardized clinical management approach, identifies areas where improvement would be desirable, and can serve as a basis for the development of further studies.

Effectiveness, Immunogenicity and Harms of Additional SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Doses in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) who have a highly impaired immune response are in need of intensified and safe vaccination strategies to achieve seroconversion and prevent severe disease.

METHODS

We searched the Web of Science Core Collection, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the WHO COVID-19 global literature on coronavirus disease from January 2020 to 22 July 2022 for prospective studies that assessed immunogenicity and efficacy after three or more SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses.

RESULTS

In 37 studies on 3429 patients, de novo seroconversion after three and four vaccine doses ranged from 32 to 60% and 25 to 37%. Variant-specific neutralization was 59 to 70% for Delta and 12 to 52% for Omicron. Severe disease after infection was rarely reported but all concerned KTRs lacked immune responses after vaccination. Studies investigating the clinical course of COVID-19 found remarkably higher rates of severe disease than in the general population. Serious adverse events and acute graft rejections were very rare. Substantial heterogeneity between the studies limited their comparability and summary.

CONCLUSION

Additional SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses are potent and safe in general terms as well as regarding transplant-specific outcomes whilst the Omicron wave remains a significant threat to KTRs without adequate immune responses.

The effectiveness of clinical guideline implementation strategies in oncology-a systematic review

IMPORTANCE

Guideline recommendations do not necessarily translate into changes in clinical practice behaviour or better patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to identify recent clinical guideline implementation strategies in oncology and to determine their effect primarily on patient-relevant outcomes and secondarily on healthcare professionals' adherence.

METHODS

A systematic search of five electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, GIN, CENTRAL, CINAHL) was conducted on 16 december 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) assessing the effectiveness of guideline implementation strategies on patient-relevant outcomes (overall survival, quality of life, adverse events) and healthcare professionals' adherence outcomes (screening, referral, prescribing, attitudes, knowledge) in the oncological setting were targeted. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the ROBINS-I tool were used for assessing the risk of bias. Certainty in the evidence was evaluated according to GRADE recommendations. This review was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with the identification number CRD42021268593.

FINDINGS

Of 1326 records identified, nine studies, five cluster RCTs and four controlled before-and after studies, were included in the narrative synthesis. All nine studies assess the effect of multi-component interventions in 3577 cancer patients and more than 450 oncologists, nurses and medical staff.

PATIENT-LEVEL

Educational meetings combined with materials, opinion leaders, audit and feedback, a tailored intervention or academic detailing may have little to no effect on overall survival, quality of life and adverse events of cancer patients compared to no intervention, however, the evidence is either uncertain or very uncertain.

PROVIDER-LEVEL

Multi-component interventions may increase or slightly increase guideline adherence regarding screening, referral and prescribing behaviour of healthcare professionals according to guidelines, but the certainty in evidence is low. The interventions may have little to no effect on attitudes and knowledge of healthcare professionals, still, the evidence is very uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Knowledge and skill accumulation through team-oriented or online educational training and dissemination of materials embedded in multi-component interventions seem to be the most frequently researched guideline implementation strategies in oncology recently. This systematic review provides an overview of recent guideline implementation strategies in oncology, encourages future implementation research in this area and informs policymakers and professional organisations on the development and adoption of implementation strategies.

Exercise interventions for adults with cancer receiving radiation therapy alone

BACKGROUND

Radiation therapy (RT) is given to about half of all people with cancer. RT alone is used to treat various cancers at different stages. Although it is a local treatment, systemic symptoms may occur. Cancer- or treatment-related side effects can lead to a reduction in physical activity, physical performance, and quality of life (QoL). The literature suggests that physical exercise can reduce the risk of various side effects of cancer and cancer treatments, cancer-specific mortality, recurrence of cancer, and all-cause mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of exercise plus standard care compared with standard care alone in adults with cancer receiving RT alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL, conference proceedings and trial registries up to 26 October 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people who were receiving RT without adjuvant systemic treatment for any type or stage of cancer. We considered any type of exercise intervention, defined as a planned, structured, repetitive, objective-oriented physical activity programme in addition to standard care. We excluded exercise interventions that involved physiotherapy alone, relaxation programmes, and multimodal approaches that combined exercise with other non-standard interventions such as nutritional restriction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology and the GRADE approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence. Our primary outcome was fatigue and the secondary outcomes were QoL, physical performance, psychosocial effects, overall survival, return to work, anthropometric measurements, and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Database searching identified 5875 records, of which 430 were duplicates. We excluded 5324 records and the remaining 121 references were assessed for eligibility. We included three two-arm RCTs with 130 participants. Cancer types were breast and prostate cancer. Both treatment groups received the same standard care, but the exercise groups also participated in supervised exercise programmes several times per week while undergoing RT. Exercise interventions included warm-up, treadmill walking (in addition to cycling and stretching and strengthening exercises in one study), and cool-down. In some analysed endpoints (fatigue, physical performance, QoL), there were baseline differences between exercise and control groups. We were unable to pool the results of the different studies owing to substantial clinical heterogeneity. All three studies measured fatigue. Our analyses, presented below, showed that exercise may reduce fatigue (positive SMD values signify less fatigue; low certainty). • Standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 1.64; 37 participants (fatigue measured with Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI)) • SMD 2.42, 95% CI 1.71 to 3.13; 54 participants (fatigue measured with BFI) • SMD 1.44, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.42; 21 participants (fatigue measured with revised Piper Fatigue Scale) All three studies measured QoL, although one provided insufficient data for analysis. Our analyses, presented below, showed that exercise may have little or no effect on QoL (positive SMD values signify better QoL; low certainty). • SMD 0.40, 95% CI -0.26 to 1.05; 37 participants (QoL measured with Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate) • SMD 0.47, 95% CI -0.40 to 1.34; 21 participants (QoL measured with World Health Organization QoL questionnaire (WHOQOL-BREF)) All three studies measured physical performance. Our analyses of two studies, presented below, showed that exercise may improve physical performance, but we are very unsure about the results (positive SMD values signify better physical performance; very low certainty) • SMD 1.25, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.97; 37 participants (shoulder mobility and pain measured on a visual analogue scale) • SMD⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ 3.13 (95% CI 2.32 to 3.95; 54 participants (physical performance measured with the six-minute walk test) Our analyses of data from the third study showed that exercise may have little or no effect on physical performance measured with the stand-and-sit test, but we are very unsure about the results (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.86, positive SMD values signify better physical performance; 21 participants; very low certainty). Two studies measured psychosocial effects. Our analyses (presented below) showed that exercise may have little or no effect on psychosocial effects, but we are very unsure about the results (positive SMD values signify better psychosocial well-being; very low certainty). • SMD 0.48, 95% CI -0.18 to 1.13; 37 participants (psychosocial effects measured on the WHOQOL-BREF social subscale) • SMD 0.29, 95% CI -0.57 to 1.15; 21 participants (psychosocial effects measured with the Beck Depression Inventory) Two studies recorded adverse events related to the exercise programmes and reported no events. We estimated the certainty of the evidence as very low. No studies reported adverse events unrelated to exercise. No studies reported the other outcomes we intended to analyse (overall survival, anthropometric measurements, return to work).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence on the effects of exercise interventions in people with cancer who are receiving RT alone. While all included studies reported benefits for the exercise intervention groups in all assessed outcomes, our analyses did not consistently support this evidence. There was low-certainty evidence that exercise improved fatigue in all three studies. Regarding physical performance, our analysis showed very low-certainty evidence of a difference favouring exercise in two studies, and very low-certainty evidence of no difference in one study. We found very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between the effects of exercise and no exercise on quality of life or psychosocial effects. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for possible outcome reporting bias, imprecision due to small sample sizes in a small number of studies, and indirectness of outcomes. In summary, exercise may have some beneficial outcomes in people with cancer who are receiving RT alone, but the evidence supporting this statement is of low certainty. There is a need for high-quality research on this topic.

Automated monitoring of adherence to evidenced-based clinical guideline recommendations: Design and implementation study

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed statements intended to optimize patient care. However, a gap-less implementation of guideline recommendations requires health care personnel not only to be aware of the recommendations and to support their content, but also to recognize every situation in which they are applicable. To not miss situations in which guideline recommendations should be applied, computerized clinical decision support could be given through a system that allows an automated monitoring of adherence to clinical guideline recommendation in individual patients.

OBJECTIVE

(1) To collect and analyze the requirements for a system that allows to monitor the adherence to evidence-based clinical guideline recommendations in individual patients, and based on these requirements, (2) to design & implement a software prototype that integrates clinical guideline recommendations with individual patient data and (3) to demonstrate the prototype's utility on a guideline treatment recommendation.

METHODS

We performed a work process analysis with experienced intensive care clinicians to develop a conceptual model of how to support guideline adherence monitoring in clinical routine and identified which steps in the model could be supported electronically. We then identified the core requirements of a software system for supporting recommendation adherence monitoring in a consensus-based requirements analysis within loosely structured focus group work of key stakeholders (clinicians, guideline developers, health data engineers, software developers). Based on these requirements, we designed and implemented a modular system architecture. To demonstrate its utility, we applied the prototype to monitor adherence to a COVID-19 treatment guideline recommendation using clinical data from a large European university hospital.

RESULTS

We have designed a system that integrates guideline recommendations with real-time clinical data to evaluate individual guideline recommendation adherence, and developed a functional prototype. The needs analysis with clinical staff resulted in a flow chart describing the work process of how the adherence to guideline recommendations should be monitored. Four core requirements were identified, including the ability to decide whether a guideline recommendation is applicable and implemented for a specific patient, the ability to integrate clinical data from different data formats and data structures, the ability to display raw patient data, and the use of a FHIR-based format for the representation of clinical practice guideline recommendations to provide an interoperable, standards-based guideline recommendation exchange format.

CONCLUSIONS

Our system holds advantages for individual patient treatment and quality management in hospitals. However, further studies are needed to measure the impact on patient outcomes and evaluate its resource-effectiveness in different clinical settings. We specified a modular software architecture that allows experts from different fields to work independently and focus on their area of expertise. We have released the source code of our system under an open-source license and invite for cooperation and collaborative further development of the system.

Conceptualizing the reporting of living systematic reviews

OBJECTIVES

As part of an effort to develop an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (LSRs), we discuss conceptual issues relevant to the reporting of LSRs and highlight a few challenges.

METHODS

Discussion of conceptual issues based on a scoping review of the literature and discussions among authors.

RESULTS

We first briefly describe aspects of the LSR production process relevant to reporting. The production cycles differ by whether the literature surveillance identifies new evidence and whether newly identified evidence is judged to be consequential. This impacts the timing, content, and format of LSR versions. Second, we discuss four types of information that are specific to the reporting of LSRs: justification for adopting the living mode, LSR specific methods, changes between LSR versions, and LSR updating status. We also discuss the challenge of conveying changes between versions to the reader. Third, we describe two commonly used reporting formats of LSRs: full and partial reports. Although partial reports are easier to produce and publish, they lead to the scattering of information across different versions. Full reports ensure the completeness of reporting. We discuss the implications for the extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for LSRs.

CONCLUSION

We argue that a dynamic publication platform would facilitate complete and timely reporting of LSRs.

Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have low certainty evidence for our primary outcomes. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

Hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIVIG) contains polyclonal antibodies, which can be prepared from large amounts of pooled convalescent plasma or prepared from animal sources through immunisation. They are being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This review was previously part of a parent review addressing convalescent plasma and hIVIG for people with COVID-19 and was split to address hIVIG and convalescent plasma separately.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of hIVIG therapy for the treatment of people with COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Research Database, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform and Medline and Embase from 1 January 2019 onwards. We carried out searches on 31 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated hIVIG for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies that evaluated standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used RoB 2. We rated the certainty of evidence, using the GRADE approach, for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, improvement and worsening of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), quality of life, adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs with 947 participants, of whom 688 received hIVIG prepared from humans, 18 received heterologous swine glyco-humanised polyclonal antibody, and 241 received equine-derived processed and purified F(ab')2 fragments. All participants were hospitalised with moderate-to-severe disease, most participants were not vaccinated (only 12 participants were vaccinated). The studies were conducted before or during the emergence of several SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. There are no data for people with COVID-19 with no symptoms (asymptomatic) or people with mild COVID-19. We identified a further 10 ongoing studies evaluating hIVIG. Benefits of hIVIG prepared from humans We included data on one RCT (579 participants) that assessed the benefits and harms of hIVIG 0.4 g/kg compared to saline placebo. hIVIG may have little to no impact on all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.44; absolute effect 77 per 1000 with placebo versus 61 per 1000 (33 to 111) with hIVIG; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on worsening of clinical status at day 7 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.23; very low-certainty evidence). It probably has little to no impact on improvement of clinical status on day 28 (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.08; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify any studies that reported quality-of-life outcomes, so we do not know if hIVIG has any impact on quality of life. Harms of hIVIG prepared from humans hIVIG may have little to no impact on adverse events at any grade on day 1 (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.18; 431 per 1000; 1 study 579 participants; low-certainty evidence). Patients receiving hIVIG probably experience more adverse events at grade 3-4 severity than patients who receive placebo (RR 4.09, 95% CI 1.39 to 12.01; moderate-certainty evidence). hIVIG may have little to no impact on the composite outcome of serious adverse events or death up to day 28 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence). We also identified additional results on the benefits and harms of other dose ranges of hIVIG, not included in the summary of findings table, but summarised in additional tables. Benefits of animal-derived polyclonal antibodies We included data on one RCT (241 participants) to assess the benefits and harms of receptor-binding domain-specific polyclonal F(ab´)2 fragments of equine antibodies (EpAbs) compared to saline placebo. EpAbs may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.37; absolute effect 114 per 1000 with placebo versus 68 per 1000 (30 to 156) ; low-certainty evidence). EpAbs may reduce worsening of clinical status up to day 28 (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.18; absolute effect 203 per 1000 with placebo versus 136 per 1000 (77 to 240); low-certainty evidence). It may have some effect on improvement of clinical status on day 28 (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.17; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any studies that reported quality-of-life outcomes, so we do not know if EpAbs have any impact on quality of life. Harms of animal-derived polyclonal antibodies EpAbs may have little to no impact on the number of adverse events at any grade up to 28 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.31; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events at grade 3-4 severity were not reported. Individuals receiving EpAbs may experience fewer serious adverse events than patients receiving placebo (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.19; low-certainty evidence). We also identified additional results on the benefits and harms of other animal-derived polyclonal antibody doses, not included in the summary of findings table, but summarised in additional tables.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We included data from five RCTs that evaluated hIVIG compared to standard therapy, with participants with moderate-to-severe disease. As the studies evaluated different preparations (from humans or from various animals) and doses, we could not pool them. hIVIG prepared from humans may have little to no impact on mortality, and clinical improvement and worsening. hIVIG may increase grade 3-4 adverse events. Studies did not evaluate quality of life. RBD-specific polyclonal F(ab´)2 fragments of equine antibodies may reduce mortality and serious adverse events, and may reduce clinical worsening. However, the studies were conducted before or during the emergence of several SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and prior to widespread vaccine rollout. As no studies evaluated hIVIG for participants with asymptomatic infection or mild disease, benefits for these individuals remains uncertain. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.

Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir is an antiviral medicine approved for the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This led to widespread implementation, although the available evidence remains inconsistent. This update aims to fill current knowledge gaps by identifying, describing, evaluating, and synthesising all evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of remdesivir on clinical outcomes in COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of remdesivir and standard care compared to standard care plus/minus placebo on clinical outcomes in patients treated for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv) as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies, without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 31 May 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included RCTs evaluating remdesivir and standard care for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to standard care plus/minus placebo irrespective of disease severity, gender, ethnicity, or setting. We excluded studies that evaluated remdesivir for the treatment of other coronavirus diseases.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for outcomes that were reported according to our prioritised categories: all-cause mortality, in-hospital mortality, clinical improvement (being alive and ready for discharge up to day 28) or worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to day 28), quality of life, serious adverse events, and adverse events (any grade). We differentiated between non-hospitalised individuals with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 and hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs with 11,218 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and a mean age of 53.6 years, of whom 5982 participants were randomised to receive remdesivir. Most participants required low-flow oxygen at baseline. Studies were mainly conducted in high- and upper-middle-income countries. We identified two studies that are awaiting classification and five ongoing studies. Effects of remdesivir in hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19 With moderate-certainty evidence, remdesivir probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.06; risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 6 more; 4 studies, 7142 participants), day 60 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; RD 35 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 73 fewer to 12 more; 1 study, 1281 participants), or in-hospital mortality at up to day 150 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.03; RD 11 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 25 fewer to 5 more; 1 study, 8275 participants). Remdesivir probably increases the chance of clinical improvement at up to day 28 slightly (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.17; RD 68 more per 1000, 95% CI 37 more to 105 more; 4 studies, 2514 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It probably decreases the risk of clinical worsening within 28 days (hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.82; RD 135 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 198 fewer to 69 fewer; 2 studies, 1734 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Remdesivir may make little or no difference to the rate of adverse events of any grade (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.18; RD 23 more per 1000, 95% CI 46 fewer to 104 more; 4 studies, 2498 participants; low-certainty evidence), or serious adverse events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.07; RD 44 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 96 fewer to 19 more; 4 studies, 2498 participants; low-certainty evidence). We considered risk of bias to be low, with some concerns for mortality and clinical course. We had some concerns for safety outcomes because participants who had died did not contribute information. Without adjustment, this leads to an uncertain amount of missing values and the potential for bias due to missing data. Effects of remdesivir in non-hospitalised individuals with mild COVID-19 One of the nine RCTs was conducted in the outpatient setting and included symptomatic people with a risk of progression. No deaths occurred within the 28 days observation period. We are uncertain about clinical improvement due to very low-certainty evidence. Remdesivir probably decreases the risk of clinical worsening (hospitalisation) at up to day 28 (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.75; RD 46 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 57 fewer to 16 fewer; 562 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not find any data for quality of life. Remdesivir may decrease the rate of serious adverse events at up to 28 days (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.70; RD 49 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 60 fewer to 20 fewer; 562 participants; low-certainty evidence), but it probably makes little or no difference to the risk of adverse events of any grade (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.10; RD 42 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 111 fewer to 46 more; 562 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We considered risk of bias to be low for mortality, clinical improvement, and safety outcomes. We identified a high risk of bias for clinical worsening.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence up to 31 May 2022, remdesivir probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality or in-hospital mortality of individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19. The hospitalisation rate was reduced with remdesivir in one study including participants with mild to moderate COVID-19. It may be beneficial in the clinical course for both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients, but certainty remains limited. The applicability of the evidence to current practice may be limited by the recruitment of participants from mostly unvaccinated populations exposed to early variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus at the time the studies were undertaken.  Future studies should provide additional data on the efficacy and safety of remdesivir for defined core outcomes in COVID-19 research, especially for different population subgroups.

Physical exercise for people with Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Physical exercise is effective in managing Parkinson's disease (PD), but the relative benefit of different exercise types remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of different types of physical exercise in adults with PD on the severity of motor signs, quality of life (QoL), and the occurrence of adverse events, and to generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking using network meta-analyses (NMAs).

SEARCH METHODS

An experienced information specialist performed a systematic search for relevant articles in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and five other databases to 17 May 2021. We also searched trial registries, conference proceedings, and reference lists of identified studies up to this date.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one type of physical exercise for adults with PD to another type of exercise, a control group, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. A third author was involved in case of disagreements.  We categorized the interventions and analyzed their effects on the severity of motor signs, QoL, freezing of gait, and functional mobility and balance up to six weeks after the intervention using NMAs. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias using the risk of bias 2 (RoB 2) tool and rated the confidence in the evidence using the CINeMA approach for results on the severity of motor signs and QoL. We consulted a third review author to resolve any disagreements. Due to heterogeneous reporting of adverse events, we summarized safety data narratively and rated our confidence in the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 156 RCTs with a total of 7939 participants with mostly mild to moderate disease and no major cognitive impairment. The number of participants per study was small (mean 51, range from 10 to 474). The NMAs on the severity of motor signs and QoL included data from 71 (3196 participants), and 55 (3283 participants) trials, respectively. Eighty-five studies (5192 participants) provided safety data. Here, we present the main results. We observed evidence of beneficial effects for most types of physical exercise included in our review compared to a passive control group. The effects on the severity of motor signs and QoL are expressed as scores on the motor scale of the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS-M) and the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire 39 (PDQ-39), respectively. For both scales, higher scores denote higher symptom burden. Therefore, negative estimates reflect improvement (minimum clinically important difference: -2.5 for UPDRS-M and -4.72 for PDQ-39). Severity of motor signs The evidence from the NMA (71 studies; 3196 participants) suggests that dance has a moderate beneficial effect on the severity of motor signs (mean difference (MD) -10.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) -15.54 to -4.96; high confidence), and aqua-based, gait/balance/functional, and multi-domain training might have a moderate beneficial effect on the severity of motor signs (aqua-based: MD -7.77, 95% CI -13.27 to -2.28; gait/balance/functional: MD -7.37, 95% CI -11.39 to -3.35; multi-domain: MD -6.97, 95% CI -10.32 to -3.62; low confidence). The evidence also suggests that mind-body training and endurance training might have a small beneficial effect on the severity of motor signs (mind-body: MD -6.57, 95% CI -10.18 to -2.81; endurance: MD -6.43, 95% CI -10.72 to -2.28; low confidence). Flexibility training might have a trivial or no effect on the severity of motor signs (MD 2.01, 95% CI -4.82 to 8.98; low confidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of strength/resistance training and "Lee Silverman Voice training BIG" (LSVT BIG) on the severity of motor signs (strength/resistance: MD -6.97, 95% CI -11.93 to -2.01; LSVT BIG: MD -5.49, 95% CI -14.74 to 3.62; very low confidence). Quality of life The evidence from the NMA (55 studies; 3283 participants) suggests that aqua-based training probably has a large beneficial effect on QoL (MD -14.98, 95% CI -23.26 to -6.52; moderate confidence). The evidence also suggests that endurance training might have a moderate beneficial effect, and that gait/balance/functional and multi-domain training might have a small beneficial effect on QoL (endurance: MD -9.16, 95% CI -15.68 to -2.82; gait/balance/functional: MD -5.64, 95% CI -10.04 to -1.23; multi-domain: MD -5.29, 95% CI -9.34 to -1.06; low confidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of mind-body training, gaming, strength/resistance training, dance, LSVT BIG, and flexibility training on QoL (mind-body: MD -8.81, 95% CI -14.62 to -3.00; gaming: MD -7.05, 95% CI -18.50 to 4.41; strength/resistance: MD -6.34, 95% CI -12.33 to -0.35; dance: MD -4.05, 95% CI -11.28 to 3.00; LSVT BIG: MD 2.29, 95% CI -16.03 to 20.44; flexibility: MD 1.23, 95% CI -11.45 to 13.92; very low confidence). Adverse events Only 85 studies (5192 participants) provided some kind of safety data, mostly only for the intervention groups. No adverse events (AEs) occurred in 40 studies and no serious AEs occurred in four studies. AEs occurred in 28 studies. The most frequently reported events were falls (18 studies) and pain (10 studies). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of physical exercise on the risk of adverse events (very low confidence). Across outcomes, we observed little evidence of differences between exercise types.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence of beneficial effects on the severity of motor signs and QoL for most types of physical exercise for people with PD included in this review, but little evidence of differences between these interventions. Thus, our review highlights the importance of physical exercise regarding our primary outcomes severity of motor signs and QoL, while the exact exercise type might be secondary. Notably, this conclusion is consistent with the possibility that specific motor symptoms may be treated most effectively by PD-specific programs. Although the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of exercise on the risk of adverse events, the interventions included in our review were described as relatively safe. Larger, well-conducted studies are needed to increase confidence in the evidence. Additional studies recruiting people with advanced disease severity and cognitive impairment might help extend the generalizability of our findings to a broader range of people with PD.

Comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis on physical health conditions in lesbian- and bisexual-identified women compared with heterosexual-identified women

BACKGROUND

Sexual minority individuals experience discrimination, leading to mental health disparities. Physical health disparities have not been examined to the same extent in systematic reviews so far.

OBJECTIVES

To provide a systematic review and, where possible, meta-analyses on the prevalence of physical health conditions in sexual minority women (i.e. lesbian- and bisexual-identified women) compared to heterosexual-identified women.

DESIGN

The study design is a systematic review with meta-analyses.

DATA SOURCES AND METHODS

A systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases was conducted on epidemiologic studies on physical health conditions, classified in the Global Burden of Disease project, published between 2000 and 2021. Meta-analyses pooling odds ratios were calculated.

RESULTS

In total, 23,649 abstracts were screened and 44 studies were included in the systematic review. Meta-analyses were run for arthritis, asthma, back pain, cancer, chronic kidney diseases, diabetes, headache disorders, heart attacks, hepatitis, hypertension, and stroke. Most significant differences in prevalence by sexual identity were found for chronic respiratory conditions, especially asthma. Overall, sexual minority women were significantly 1.5-2 times more likely to have asthma than heterosexual women. Furthermore, evidence of higher prevalence in sexual minority compared to heterosexual women was found for back pain, headaches/migraines, hepatitis B/C, periodontitis, urinary tract infections, and acne. In contrast, bisexual women had lower cancer rates. Overall, sexual minority women had lower odds of heart attacks, diabetes, and hypertension than heterosexual women (in terms of diabetes and hypertension possibly due to non-consideration of pregnancy-related conditions).

CONCLUSION

We found evidence for physical health disparities by sexual identity. Since some of these findings rely on few comparisons only, this review emphasizes the need for routinely including sexual identity assessment in health research and clinical practice. Providing a more detailed picture of the prevalence of physical health conditions in sexual minority women may ultimately contribute to reducing health disparities.

Physical Exercise as a Potential Treatment for Fatigue in Parkinson's Disease? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Pharmacological and Non-Pharmacological Interventions

BACKGROUND

Fatigue is one of the most common and debilitating non-motor symptoms among patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and significantly impacts quality of life. Therefore, effective treatment options are needed.

OBJECTIVE

To provide an update on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including pharmacological and non-pharmacological (but non-surgical) treatments that examine the effects of fatigue on PD patients.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases for (cross-over) RCTs on pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for treating fatigue in PD patients until May 2021. Meta-analyses for random-effects models were calculated when two or more studies on the same treatment option were available using standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Fourteen pharmacological and 16 non-pharmacological intervention RCTs were identified. For pharmacological approaches, a meta-analysis could only be performed for modafinil compared to placebo (n = 2) revealing a non-significant effect on fatigue (SMD = - 0.21, 95% CI - 0.74-0.31, p = 0.43). Regarding non-pharmacological approaches, physical exercise (n = 8) following different training approaches versus passive or placebo control groups showed a small significant effect (SMD = - 0.37, 95% CI - 0.69- - 0.05, p = 0.02) which could not be demonstrated for acupuncture vs. sham-acupuncture (SMD = 0.16, 95% CI - 0.19-0.50, p = 0.37).

CONCLUSION

Physical exercise may be a promising strategy to treat fatigue in PD patients. Further research is required to examine the efficacy of this treatment strategy and further interventions. Future studies should differentiate treatment effects on physical and mental fatigue as the different underlying mechanisms of these symptoms may lead to different treatment responses. More effort is required to develop, evaluate, and implement holistic fatigue management strategies for PD patients.

The Reporting, Use, and Validity of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Multiple Myeloma in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are becoming increasingly important in supporting clinical outcomes in clinical trials. In multiple myeloma (MM), PRO measurement is useful to reveal how treatment affects physical, psychosocial, and functional behaviour as well as symptoms and treatment-related adverse events to evaluate the benefit-risk ratio of a particular drug or drug combination. We report the types of PRO instruments used in MM, the frequency in which they are utilised in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and the consistency of their reporting.

METHODS

The European Hematology Association (EHA) supports the development of guidelines for the use of PROs in adult patients with haematological malignancies. The first step is the present systematic review of the literature. MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched for RCTs in MM between 2015 and 2020. Study design, characteristics of MM and its treatment, the primary outcomes, and the types of PRO instrument(s) were extracted using a predefined template. Additionally, in a stepwise approach, it was assessed whether the identified instruments had been validated for multiple myeloma patients, patients with haematological malignancies, or cancer patients.

RESULTS

Following screening for RCTs, 283 studies were included for review from 10,707 records retrieved, and 118 of these planned the use of PRO measures. Thirty-eight PRO instruments were reported. The most frequently used instrument (92 studies) was the EORTC QLQ-30. The EORTC-MY20 MM-specific questionnaire was the second most frequently used (50 studies), together with the EQ-5D (50 studies). Only 19 PRO instruments reported were consistent with the trial registry. Furthermore, in 58 publications, the information on PRO instruments differed between the publication and the trial registry. Further, information on PRO in HTA reports was available for 26 studies, of which 18 reports were consistent with the trial registries. Out of the 38 instruments used, six had been validated for patients with multiple myeloma (the most frequently used), six for patients with haematological malignancies, and 10 for cancer patients in general.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicate that the measurement of PROs in RCTs for MM is underutilised, underreported, and often inconsistent. Guidelines for the appropriate use of PROs in MM are needed to ensure standardisation in selection and reporting. Furthermore, not all PRO instruments identified have been validated for myeloma patients or patients with haematological malignancies. Thus, guidelines for the appropriate use and reporting of PROs are needed in MM to ensure standardisation in the selection and reporting of PROs.

Yoga for chronic non-specific low back pain

BACKGROUND

Non-specific low back pain is a common, potentially disabling condition usually treated with self-care and non-prescription medication. For chronic low back pain, current guidelines recommend exercise therapy. Yoga is a mind-body exercise sometimes used for non-specific low back pain.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of yoga for treating chronic non-specific low back pain in adults compared to sham yoga, no specific treatment, a minimal intervention (e.g. education), or another active treatment, focusing on pain, function, quality of life, and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 31 August 2021 without language or publication status restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials of yoga compared to sham yoga, no intervention, any other intervention and yoga added to other therapies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our major outcomes were 1. back-specific function, 2. pain, 3. clinical improvement, 4. mental and physical quality of life, 5. depression, and 6.

ADVERSE EVENTS

Our minor outcome was 1. work disability. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for the major outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 trials (2223 participants) from the USA, India, the UK, Croatia, Germany, Sweden, and Turkey. Participants were recruited from both clinical and community settings. Most were women in their 40s or 50s. Most trials used iyengar, hatha, or viniyoga yoga. Trials compared yoga to a non-exercise control including waiting list, usual care, or education (10 trials); back-focused exercise such as physical therapy (five trials); both exercise and non-exercise controls (four trials); both non-exercise and another mind-body exercise (qigong) (one trial); and yoga plus exercise to exercise alone (one trial). One trial comparing yoga to exercise was an intensive residential one-week program, and we analyzed this trial separately. All trials were at high risk of performance and detection bias because participants and providers were not blinded to treatment, and outcomes were self-assessed. We found no trials comparing yoga to sham yoga. Low-certainty evidence from 11 trials showed that there may be a small clinically unimportant improvement in back-specific function with yoga (mean difference [MD] -1.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.73 to -0.65 on the 0- to 24-point Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ], lower = better, minimal clinically important difference [MCID] 5 points; 1155 participants) and moderate-certainty evidence from nine trials showed a clinically unimportant improvement in pain (MD -4.53, 95% CI -6.61 to -2.46 on a 0 to 100 scale, 0 no pain, MCID 15 points; 946 participants) compared to no exercise at three months. Low-certainty evidence from four trials showed that there may be a clinical improvement with yoga (risk ratio [RR] 2.33, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.71; assessed as participant rating that back pain was improved or resolved; 353 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence from six trials showed that there is probably a small improvement in physical and mental quality of life (physical: MD 1.80, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.33 on the 36-item Short Form [SF-36] physical health scale, higher = better; mental: MD 2.38, 95% CI 0.60 to 4.17 on the SF-36 mental health scale, higher = better; both 686 participants). Low-certainty evidence from three trials showed little to no improvement in depression (MD -1.25, 95% CI -2.90 to 0.46 on the Beck Depression Inventory, lower = better; 241 participants). There was low-certainty evidence from eight trials that yoga increased the risk of adverse events, primarily increased back pain, at six to 12 months (RR 4.76, 95% CI 2.08 to 10.89; 43/1000 with yoga and 9/1000 with no exercise; 1037 participants). For yoga compared to back-focused exercise controls (8 trials, 912 participants) at three months, we found moderate-certainty evidence from four trials for little or no difference in back-specific function (MD -0.38, 95% CI -1.33 to 0.62 on the RMDQ, lower = better; 575 participants) and very low-certainty evidence from two trials for little or no difference in pain (MD 2.68, 95% CI -2.01 to 7.36 on a 0 to 100 scale, lower = better; 326 participants). We found very low-certainty evidence from three trials for no difference in clinical improvement assessed as participant rating that back pain was improved or resolved (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.31; 433 participants) and very low-certainty evidence from one trial for little or no difference in physical and mental quality of life (physical: MD 1.30, 95% CI -0.95 to 3.55 on the SF-36 physical health scale, higher = better; mental: MD 1.90, 95% CI -1.17 to 4.97 on the SF-36 mental health scale, higher = better; both 237 participants). No studies reported depression. Low-certainty evidence from five trials showed that there was little or no difference between yoga and exercise in the risk of adverse events at six to 12 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.53; 84/1000 with yoga and 91/1000 with non-yoga exercise; 640 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence that yoga compared to no exercise results in small and clinically unimportant improvements in back-related function and pain. There is probably little or no difference between yoga and other back-related exercise for back-related function at three months, although it remains uncertain whether there is any difference between yoga and other exercise for pain and quality of life. Yoga is associated with more adverse events than no exercise, but may have the same risk of adverse events as other exercise. In light of these results, decisions to use yoga instead of no exercise or another exercise may depend on availability, cost, and participant or provider preference. Since all studies were unblinded and at high risk of performance and detection bias, it is unlikely that blinded comparisons would find a clinically important benefit.

Systemic corticosteroids for the treatment of COVID-19: Equity-related analyses and update on evidence

BACKGROUND

Systemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. Nonetheless, size of effect, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether and at which doses systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, to explore equity-related aspects in subgroup analyses, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 6 January 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19. We included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids and the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care, different types, doses and timings (early versus late) of corticosteroids. We excluded corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality up to 30 and 120 days, discharged alive (clinical improvement), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (clinical worsening), serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 RCTs in 9549 participants, of whom 8271 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 4532 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 3766). These studies included participants mostly older than 50 years and male. We also identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design. Hospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19 Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo We included 11 RCTs (8019 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analyses included outcome data from 10 studies. Systemic corticosteroids plus standard care compared to standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.97; 7898 participants; estimated absolute effect: 274 deaths per 1000 people not receiving systemic corticosteroids compared to 246 deaths per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95% CI 230 to 265 per 1000 people); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.34; 485 participants). The chance of clinical improvement (discharged alive at day 28) may slightly increase (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11; 6786 participants; low-certainty evidence) while the risk of clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death) may slightly decrease (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; 5586 participants; low-certainty evidence). For serious adverse events (two RCTs, 678 participants), adverse events (three RCTs, 447 participants), hospital-acquired infections (four RCTs, 598 participants), and invasive fungal infections (one study, 64 participants), we did not perform any analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence (high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting). Different types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids We identified one RCT (86 participants) comparing methylprednisolone to dexamethasone, thus the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of methylprednisolone on all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.07; 86 participants). None of the other outcomes of interest were reported in this study. We included four RCTs (1383 participants) comparing high-dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) to low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg). High-dose dexamethasone compared to low-dose dexamethasone may reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04; 1269 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of high-dose dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 1383 participants) and it may have little or no impact on clinical improvement (discharged alive at 28 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 200 participants; low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report data on clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death). For serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections, we did not perform analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence. We could not identify studies for comparisons of different timing and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances. Equity-related subgroup analyses We conducted the following subgroup analyses to explore equity-related factors: sex, age (< 70 years; ≥ 70 years), ethnicity (Black, Asian or other versus White versus unknown) and place of residence (high-income versus low- and middle-income countries). Except for age and ethnicity, no evidence for differences could be identified. For all-cause mortality up to 30 days, participants younger than 70 years seemed to benefit from systemic corticosteroids in comparison to those aged 70 years and older. The few participants from a Black, Asian, or other minority ethnic group showed a larger estimated effect than the many White participants. Outpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease There are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Systemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality up to 30 days in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19, while the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality up to 120 days. For younger people (under 70 years of age) there was a potential advantage, as well as for Black, Asian, or people of a minority ethnic group; further subgroup analyses showed no relevant effects. Evidence related to the most effective type, dose, or timing of systemic corticosteroids remains immature. Currently, there is no evidence on asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants). Due to the low to very low certainty of the current evidence, we cannot assess safety adequately to rule out harmful effects of the treatment, therefore there is an urgent need for good-quality safety data. Findings of equity-related subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution because of their explorative nature, low precision, and missing data. We identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design, suggesting there may be possible changes of the effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future.

Nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir for preventing and treating COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. Due to its novelty, there are currently few published study results. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) plus standard of care compared to standard of care with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 and for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses. To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in-between publication of review updates.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Scopus, and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 11 July 2022.  This is a LSR. We conduct monthly update searches that are being made publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care with standard of care with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We screened all studies for research integrity. Studies were ineligible if they had been retracted, or if they were not prospectively registered including appropriate ethics approval.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology and used the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: 1. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19; 2. to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, quality of life, (serious) adverse events, and viral clearance; 3. to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP); and 4. pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) scenarios: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, and (serious) adverse events. We explored inequity by subgroup analysis for elderly people, socially-disadvantaged people with comorbidities, populations from LICs and LMICs, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds.

MAIN RESULTS

As of 11 July 2022, we included one RCT with 2246 participants in outpatient settings with mild symptomatic COVID-19 comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care with standard of care plus placebo. Trial participants were unvaccinated, without previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, had a symptom onset of no more than five days before randomization, and were at high risk for progression to severe disease. Prohibited prior or concomitant therapies included medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 for clearance and CYP3A4 inducers.  We identified eight ongoing studies. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease For the specific population of unvaccinated, high-risk patients nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.68; 1 study, 2224 participants; estimated absolute effect: 11 deaths per 1000 people receiving placebo compared to 0 deaths per 1000 people receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; low-certainty evidence, and admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27; 1 study, 2224 participants; estimated absolute effect: 61 admissions or deaths per 1000 people receiving placebo compared to eight admissions or deaths per 1000 people receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care probably has little or no effect on treatment-emergent adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably increases treatment-related adverse events such as dysgeusia and diarrhoea during the study period compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No study results were identified for improvement of clinical status, quality of life, and viral clearance.  Subgroup analyses for equity Most study participants were younger than 65 years (87.1% of the : modified intention to treat (mITT1) population with 2085 participants), of white ethnicity (71.5%), and were from UMICs or HICs (92.1% of study centres). Data on comorbidities were insufficient.  The outcome 'admission to hospital or death' was investigated for equity: age (< 65 years versus ≥ 65 years) and ethnicity (Asian versus Black versus White versus others). There was no difference between subgroups of age. The effects favoured treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for the White ethnic group. Estimated effects in the other ethnic groups included the line of no effect (RR = 1). No subgroups were reported for comorbidity status and World Bank country classification by income level. No subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate to severe disease No studies available. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-certainty evidence that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and hospital admission or death based on one trial investigating unvaccinated COVID-19 participants without previous infection that were at high risk and with symptom onset of no more than five days. There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is safe in people without prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4. Regarding equity aspects, except for ethnicity, no differences in effect size and direction were identified. No evidence is available on nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to treat hospitalized people with COVID-19 and to prevent a SARS-CoV-2 infection. We will continually update our search and make search results available on OSF.

Clinical Practice Guidelines From the Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB): COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma

DESCRIPTION

Coronavirus disease 2019 convalescent plasma (CCP) has emerged as a potential treatment of COVID-19. However, meta-analysis data and recommendations are limited. The Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB) developed clinical practice guidelines for the appropriate use of CCP.

METHODS

These guidelines are based on 2 living systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating CCP from 1 January 2019 to 26 January 2022. There were 33 RCTs assessing 21 916 participants. The results were summarized using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method. An expert panel reviewed the data using the GRADE framework to formulate recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION 1 (OUTPATIENT)

The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for outpatients with COVID-19 who are at high risk for disease progression (weak recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 2 (INPATIENT)

The AABB recommends against CCP transfusion for unselected hospitalized persons with moderate or severe disease (strong recommendation, high-certainty evidence). This recommendation does not apply to immunosuppressed patients or those who lack antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.

RECOMMENDATION 3 (INPATIENT)

The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who do not have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detected at admission (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 4 (INPATIENT)

The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and preexisting immunosuppression (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 5 (PROPHYLAXIS)

The AABB suggests against prophylactic CCP transfusion for uninfected persons with close contact exposure to a person with COVID-19 (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).

GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE STATEMENT

CCP is most effective when transfused with high neutralizing titers to infected patients early after symptom onset.

Immunity after COVID-19 vaccination in people with higher risk of compromised immune status: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

High efficacy in terms of protection from severe COVID-19 has been demonstrated for several SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. However, patients with compromised immune status develop a weaker and less stable immune response to vaccination. Strong immune response may not always translate into clinical benefit, therefore it is important to synthesise evidence on modified schemes and types of vaccination in these population subgroups for guiding health decisions. As the literature on COVID-19 vaccines continues to expand, we aimed to scope the literature on multiple subgroups to subsequently decide on the most relevant research questions to be answered by systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of the availability of existing literature on immune response and long-term clinical outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination, and to map this evidence according to the examined populations, specific vaccines, immunity parameters, and their way of determining relevant long-term outcomes and the availability of mapping between immune reactivity and relevant outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Web of Science Core Collection, and the World Health Organization COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease on 6 December 2021.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that published results on immunity outcomes after vaccination with BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, AZD1222, Ad26.COV2.S, Sputnik V or Sputnik Light, BBIBP-CorV, or CoronaVac on predefined vulnerable subgroups such as people with malignancies, transplant recipients, people undergoing renal replacement therapy, and people with immune disorders, as well as pregnant and breastfeeding women, and children. We included studies if they had at least 100 participants (not considering healthy control groups); we excluded case studies and case series.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently and in duplicate onto an online data extraction form. Data were represented as tables and as online maps to show the frequency of studies for each item. We mapped the data according to study design, country of participant origin, patient comorbidity subgroup, intervention, outcome domains (clinical, safety, immunogenicity), and outcomes.  MAIN RESULTS: Out of 25,452 identified records, 318 studies with a total of more than 5 million participants met our eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Participants were recruited mainly from high-income countries between January 2020 and 31 October 2021 (282/318); the majority of studies included adult participants (297/318).  Haematological malignancies were the most commonly examined comorbidity group (N = 54), followed by solid tumours (N = 47), dialysis (N = 48), kidney transplant (N = 43), and rheumatic diseases (N = 28, 17, and 15 for mixed diseases, multiple sclerosis, and inflammatory bowel disease, respectively). Thirty-one studies included pregnant or breastfeeding women. The most commonly administered vaccine was BNT162b2 (N = 283), followed by mRNA-1273 (N = 153), AZD1222 (N = 66), Ad26.COV2.S (N = 42), BBIBP-CorV (N = 15), CoronaVac (N = 14), and Sputnik V (N = 5; no studies were identified for Sputnik Light). Most studies reported outcomes after regular vaccination scheme.  The majority of studies focused on immunogenicity outcomes, especially seroconversion based on binding antibody measurements and immunoglobulin G (IgG) titres (N = 179 and 175, respectively). Adverse events and serious adverse events were reported in 126 and 54 studies, whilst SARS-CoV-2 infection irrespective of severity was reported in 80 studies. Mortality due to SARS-CoV-2 infection was reported in 36 studies. Please refer to our evidence gap maps for more detailed information.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Up to 6 December 2021, the majority of studies examined data on mRNA vaccines administered as standard vaccination schemes (two doses approximately four to eight weeks apart) that report on immunogenicity parameters or adverse events. Clinical outcomes were less commonly reported, and if so, were often reported as a secondary outcome observed in seroconversion or immunoglobulin titre studies. As informed by this scoping review, two effectiveness reviews (on haematological malignancies and kidney transplant recipients) are currently being conducted.

Interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Vaccines are effective in preventing severe COVID-19, a disease for which few treatments are available and which can lead to disability or death. Widespread vaccination against COVID-19 may help protect those not yet able to get vaccinated. In addition, new and vaccine-resistant mutations of SARS-CoV-2 may be less likely to develop if the spread of COVID-19 is limited. Different vaccines are now widely available in many settings. However, vaccine hesitancy is a serious threat to the goal of nationwide vaccination in many countries and poses a substantial threat to population health. This scoping review maps interventions aimed at increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake and decreasing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

OBJECTIVES

To scope the existing research landscape on interventions to enhance the willingness of different populations to be vaccinated against COVID-19, increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake, or decrease COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, and to map the evidence according to addressed populations and intervention categories.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index), WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, PsycINFO, and CINAHL to 11 October 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that assess the impact of interventions implemented to enhance the willingness of different populations to be vaccinated against COVID-19, increase vaccine uptake, or decrease COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised studies of intervention (NRSIs), observational studies and case studies with more than 100 participants. Furthermore, we included systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We did not limit the scope of the review to a specific population or to specific outcomes assessed. We excluded interventions addressing hesitancy towards vaccines for diseases other than COVID-19.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were analysed according to a protocol uploaded to the Open Science Framework. We used an interactive scoping map to visualise the results of our scoping review. We mapped the identified interventions according to pre-specified intervention categories, that were adapted to better fit the evidence. The intervention categories were: communication interventions, policy interventions, educational interventions, incentives (both financial and non-financial), interventions to improve access, and multidimensional interventions. The study outcomes were also included in the mapping. Furthermore, we mapped the country in which the study was conducted, the addressed population, and whether the design was randomised-controlled or not.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 96 studies in the scoping review, 35 of which are ongoing and 61 studies with published results. We did not identify any relevant systematic reviews. For an overview, please see the interactive scoping map (https://tinyurl.com/2p9jmx24) STUDIES WITH PUBLISHED RESULTS Of the 61 studies with published results, 46 studies were RCTs and 15 NRSIs. The interventions investigated in the studies were heterogeneous with most studies testing communication strategies to enhance COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Most studies assessed the willingness to get vaccinated as an outcome. The majority of studies were conducted in English-speaking high-income countries. Moreover, most studies investigated digital interventions in an online setting. Populations that were addressed were diverse. For example, studies targeted healthcare workers, ethnic minorities in the USA, students, soldiers, at-risk patients, or the general population.  ONGOING STUDIES Of the 35 ongoing studies, 29 studies are RCTs and six NRSIs. Educational and communication interventions were the most used types of interventions. The majority of ongoing studies plan to assess vaccine uptake as an outcome. Again, the majority of studies are being conducted in English-speaking high-income countries. In contrast to the studies with published results, most ongoing studies will not be conducted online. Addressed populations range from minority populations in the USA to healthcare workers or students. Eleven ongoing studies have estimated completion dates in 2022.   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We were able to identify and map a variety of heterogeneous interventions for increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake or decreasing vaccine hesitancy. Our results demonstrate that this is an active field of research with 61 published studies and 35 studies still ongoing. This review gives a comprehensive overview of interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake and can be the foundation for subsequent systematic reviews on the effectiveness of interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake.  A research gap was shown for studies conducted in low and middle-income countries and studies investigating policy interventions and improved access, as well as for interventions addressing children and adolescents. As COVID-19 vaccines become more widely available, these populations and interventions should not be neglected in research.

AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS

We were able to identify and map a variety of heterogeneous interventions for increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake or decreasing vaccine hesitancy. Our results demonstrate that this is an active field of research with 61 published studies and 35 studies still ongoing. This review gives a comprehensive overview of interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake and can be the foundation for subsequent systematic reviews on the effectiveness of interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake.  A research gap was shown for studies conducted in low and middle-income countries and studies investigating policy interventions and improved access, as well as for interventions addressing children and adolescents. As COVID-19 vaccines become more widely available, these populations and interventions should not be neglected in research.

A Framework for the Development of Living Practice Guidelines in Health Care

BACKGROUND

Living practice guidelines are increasingly being used to ensure that recommendations are responsive to rapidly emerging evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a framework that characterizes the processes of development of living practice guidelines in health care.

DESIGN

First, 3 background reviews were conducted: a scoping review of methods papers, a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and an analytic review of selected living practice guidelines. Second, the core team drafted the first version of the framework. Finally, the core team refined the framework through an online survey and online discussions with a multidisciplinary international group of stakeholders.

SETTING

International.

PARTICIPANTS

Multidisciplinary group of 51 persons who have experience with guidelines.

MEASUREMENTS

Not applicable.

RESULTS

A major principle of the framework is that the unit of update in a living guideline is the individual recommendation. In addition to providing definitions, the framework addresses several processes. The planning process should address the organization's adoption of the living methodology as well as each specific guideline project. The production process consists of initiation, maintenance, and retirement phases. The reporting should cover the evidence surveillance time stamp, the outcome of reassessment of the body of evidence (when applicable), and the outcome of revisiting a recommendation (when applicable). The dissemination process may necessitate the use of different venues, including one for formal publication.

LIMITATION

This study does not provide detailed or practical guidance for how the described concepts would be best implemented.

CONCLUSION

The framework will help guideline developers in planning, producing, reporting, and disseminating living guideline projects. It will also help research methodologists study the processes of living guidelines.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Gender differences of health literacy in persons with a migration background: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate gender differences of health literacy in individuals with a migration background.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis. OVID/MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL were searched in March 2018 and July 2020.

SETTING

Studies had to provide health literacy data for adult women and men with a migration background, collected with a standardised instrument, or report results that demonstrated the collection of such data. Health literacy data were extracted from eligible studies or requested from the respective authors. Using a random-effects model, a meta-analysis was conducted to assess standardised mean differences (SMDs) of health literacy in men and women. Two researchers independently assessed risk of bias for each included study using the Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies were included in this systematic review. Thereof, 22 studies (8012 female and 5380 male participants) were included in the meta-analyses. In six studies, gender-specific health literacy scores were reported. The authors of additional 15 studies provided their data upon request and for one further study data were available online. Women achieved higher health literacy scores than men: SMD=0.08, 95% CI 0.002 to 0.159, p=0.04, I2=65%. Another 27 studies reported data on female participants only and could not be included due to a lack of comparable studies with male participants only. Authors of 56 other eligible studies were asked for data, but without success.

CONCLUSION

Men with a migration background-while being much less frequently examined-may have lower health literacy than women. As heterogeneity between studies was high and the difference became statistically insignificant when excluding studies with a high risk of bias, this result must be interpreted with caution. There is a paucity of research on the social and relational aspects of gender in relation to health literacy among people with a migration background, especially for men.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018085555.

Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and HTA database weekly to identify completed and ongoing trials without language restrictions to 16 December 2021. Additionally, we included trials with > 1000 participants up to April 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms.  For this review update, we reappraised eligible trials for research integrity: only RCTs prospectively registered in a trial registry according to WHO guidelines for clinical trial registration were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for outcomes in the following settings and populations: 1) to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, 2) to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19 (outcomes: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, (serious) adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance), and 3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection (outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital, mortality, adverse events and quality of life).

MAIN RESULTS

We excluded seven of the 14 trials included in the previous review version; six were not prospectively registered and one was non-randomized. This updated review includes 11 trials with 3409 participants investigating ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo. No trial investigated ivermectin for prevention of infection or compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. Five trials treated participants with moderate COVID-19 (inpatient settings); six treated mild COVID-19 (outpatient settings). Eight trials were double-blind and placebo-controlled, and three were open-label. We assessed around 50% of the trial results as low risk of bias. We identified 31 ongoing trials. In addition, there are 28 potentially eligible trials without publication of results, or with disparities in the reporting of the methods and results, held in 'awaiting classification' until the trial authors clarify questions upon request. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate-to-severe disease We are uncertain whether ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo reduces or increases all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 3 trials, 230 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or clinical worsening, assessed by participants with new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.04; 2 trials, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or serious adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.89; 2 trials, 197 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may have little or no effect on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants discharged alive at day 28 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 trial, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.79; 3 trials, 228 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at 7 days (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.58; 3 trials, 231 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trial investigated quality of life at any time point. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.25; 6 trials, 2860 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and little or no effect on quality of life, measured with the PROMIS Global-10 scale (physical component mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.98; and mental component MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.08 to 1.08; 1358 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect on clinical worsening, assessed by admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.20 to 6.02; 2 trials, 590 participants; low-certainty evidence); on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants with all initial symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.36; 2 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence); on serious adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.62 to 8.31; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.76; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at day 7 compared to placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48; 2 trials, 331 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for meta-analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For outpatients, there is currently low- to high-certainty evidence that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19. Based on the very low-certainty evidence for inpatients, we are still uncertain whether ivermectin prevents death or clinical worsening or increases serious adverse events, while there is low-certainty evidence that it has no beneficial effect regarding clinical improvement, viral clearance and adverse events. No evidence is available on ivermectin to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this update, certainty of evidence increased through higher quality trials including more participants. According to this review's living approach, we will continually update our search.

Intravenous iron versus oral iron versus no iron with or without erythropoiesis- stimulating agents (ESA) for cancer patients with anaemia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Anaemia is common among cancer patients and they may require red blood cell transfusions. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and iron might help in reducing the need for red blood cell transfusions. However, it remains unclear whether the combination of both drugs is preferable compared to using one drug.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the effect of intravenous iron, oral iron or no iron in combination with or without ESAs to prevent or alleviate anaemia in cancer patients and to generate treatment rankings using network meta-analyses (NMAs).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies by searching bibliographic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase; until June 2021). We also searched various registries, conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing intravenous, oral or no iron, with or without ESAs for the prevention or alleviation of anaemia resulting from chemotherapy, radiotherapy, combination therapy or the underlying malignancy in cancer patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes were on-study mortality, number of patients receiving red blood cell transfusions, number of red blood cell units, haematological response, overall mortality and adverse events. We conducted NMAs and generated treatment rankings. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Ninety-six trials (25,157 participants) fulfilled our inclusion criteria; 62 trials (24,603 participants) could be considered in the NMA (12 different treatment options). Here we present the comparisons of ESA with or without iron and iron alone versus no treatment. Further results and subgroup analyses are described in the full text. On-study mortality We estimated that 92 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia died up to 30 days after the active study period. Evidence from NMA (55 trials; 15,074 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (12 of 1000; risk ratio (RR) 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.29; low certainty) or oral iron (34 of 1000; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.01 to 27.38; low certainty) may decrease or increase and ESA alone (103 of 1000; RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.35; moderate certainty) probably slightly increases on-study mortality. Additionally, treatment with intravenous iron alone (271 of 1000; RR 2.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 12.34; low certainty) may increase and oral iron alone (24 of 1000; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.00 to 19.73; low certainty) may increase or decrease on-study mortality. Haematological response We estimated that 90 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia had a haematological response. Evidence from NMA (31 trials; 6985 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (604 of 1000; RR 6.71, 95% CI 4.93 to 9.14; moderate certainty), ESA and oral iron (527 of 1000; RR 5.85, 95% CI 4.06 to 8.42; moderate certainty), and ESA alone (467 of 1000; RR 5.19, 95% CI 4.02 to 6.71; moderate certainty) probably increases haematological response. Additionally, treatment with oral iron alone may increase haematological response (153 of 1000; RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.69 to 4.20; low certainty). Red blood cell transfusions We estimated that 360 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia needed at least one transfusion. Evidence from NMA (69 trials; 18,684 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (158 of 1000; RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.63; moderate certainty), ESA and oral iron (144 of 1000; RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.66; moderate certainty) and ESA alone (212 of 1000; RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.69; moderate certainty) probably decreases the need for transfusions. Additionally, treatment with intravenous iron alone (268 of 1000; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.28; low certainty) and with oral iron alone (333 of 1000; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.57; low certainty) may decrease or increase the need for transfusions. Overall mortality We estimated that 347 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia died overall. Low-certainty evidence from NMA (71 trials; 21,576 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (507 of 1000; RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.43) or oral iron (482 of 1000; RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.22) and intravenous iron alone (521 of 1000; RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.63 to 3.56) or oral iron alone (534 of 1000; RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.56) may decrease or increase overall mortality. Treatment with ESA alone may lead to little or no difference in overall mortality (357 of 1000; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.10; low certainty). Thromboembolic events We estimated that 36 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia developed thromboembolic events. Evidence from NMA (50 trials; 15,408 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA and intravenous iron (66 of 1000; RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.41; moderate certainty) probably slightly increases and with ESA alone (66 of 1000; RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.47; high certainty) slightly increases the number of thromboembolic events. None of the trials reported results on the other comparisons. Thrombocytopenia or haemorrhage We estimated that 76 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia developed thrombocytopenia/haemorrhage. Evidence from NMA (13 trials, 2744 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA alone probably leads to little or no difference in thrombocytopenia/haemorrhage (76 of 1000; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.48; moderate certainty). None of the trials reported results on other comparisons. Hypertension We estimated that 10 of 1000 participants without treatment for anaemia developed hypertension. Evidence from NMA (24 trials; 8383 participants) suggests that treatment with ESA alone probably increases the number of hypertensions (29 of 1000; RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.19 to 7.25; moderate certainty). None of the trials reported results on the other comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When considering ESAs with iron as prevention for anaemia, one has to balance between efficacy and safety. Results suggest that treatment with ESA and iron probably decreases number of blood transfusions, but may increase mortality and the number of thromboembolic events. For most outcomes the different comparisons within the network were not fully connected, so ranking of all treatments together was not possible. More head-to-head comparisons including all evaluated treatment combinations are needed to fill the gaps and prove results of this review.