Compelling evidence from meta-epidemiological studies demonstrates overestimation of effects in randomized trials that fail to optimize randomization and blind patients and outcome assessors

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the impact of potential risk of bias elements on effect estimates in randomized trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a systematic survey of meta-epidemiological studies examining the influence of potential risk of bias elements on effect estimates in randomized trials. We included only meta-epidemiological studies that either preserved the clustering of trials within meta-analyses (compared effect estimates between trials with and without the potential risk of bias element within each meta-analysis, then combined across meta-analyses; between-trial comparisons), or preserved the clustering of substudies within trials (compared effect estimates between substudies with and without the element, then combined across trials; within-trial comparisons). Separately for studies based on between- and within-trial comparisons, we extracted ratios of odds ratios (RORs) from each study and combined them using a random-effects model. We made overall inferences and assessed certainty of evidence based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, development, and Evaluation and Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses.

RESULTS

Forty-one meta-epidemiological studies (34 of between-, 7 of within-trial comparisons) proved eligible. Inadequate random sequence generation (ROR 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.97) and allocation concealment (ROR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88-0.97) probably lead to effect overestimation (moderate certainty). Lack of patients blinding probably overestimates effects for patient-reported outcomes (ROR 0.36, 95% CI 0.28-0.48; moderate certainty). Lack of blinding of outcome assessors results in effect overestimation for subjective outcomes (ROR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51-0.93; high certainty). The impact of patients or outcome assessors blinding on other outcomes, and the impact of blinding of health-care providers, data collectors, or data analysts, remain uncertain. Trials stopped early for benefit probably overestimate effects (moderate certainty). Trials with imbalanced cointerventions may overestimate effects, while trials with missing outcome data may underestimate effects (low certainty). Influence of baseline imbalance, compliance, selective reporting, and intention-to-treat analysis remain uncertain.

CONCLUSION

Failure to ensure random sequence generation or adequate allocation concealment probably results in modest overestimates of effects. Lack of patients blinding probably leads to substantial overestimates of effects for patient-reported outcomes. Lack of blinding of outcome assessors results in substantial effect overestimation for subjective outcomes. For other elements, though evidence for consistent systematic overestimate of effect remains limited, failure to implement these safeguards may still introduce important bias.

Management of chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders: a clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTION

What is the comparative effectiveness of available therapies for chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders (TMD)?

CURRENT PRACTICE

TMD are the second most common musculoskeletal chronic pain disorder after low back pain, affecting 6-9% of adults globally. TMD are associated with pain affecting the jaw and associated structures and may present with headaches, earache, clicking, popping, or crackling sounds in the temporomandibular joint, and impaired mandibular function. Current clinical practice guidelines are largely consensus-based and provide inconsistent recommendations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

For patients living with chronic pain (≥3 months) associated with TMD, and compared with placebo or sham procedures, the guideline panel issued: (1) strong recommendations in favour of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) with or without biofeedback or relaxation therapy, therapist-assisted mobilisation, manual trigger point therapy, supervised postural exercise, supervised jaw exercise and stretching with or without manual trigger point therapy, and usual care (such as home exercises, stretching, reassurance, and education); (2) conditional recommendations in favour of manipulation, supervised jaw exercise with mobilisation, CBT with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), manipulation with postural exercise, and acupuncture; (3) conditional recommendations against reversible occlusal splints (alone or in combination with other interventions), arthrocentesis (alone or in combination with other interventions), cartilage supplement with or without hyaluronic acid injection, low level laser therapy (alone or in combination with other interventions), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, gabapentin, botulinum toxin injection, hyaluronic acid injection, relaxation therapy, trigger point injection, acetaminophen (with or without muscle relaxants or NSAIDS), topical capsaicin, biofeedback, corticosteroid injection (with or without NSAIDS), benzodiazepines, and β blockers; and (4) strong recommendations against irreversible oral splints, discectomy, and NSAIDS with opioids.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

An international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced these recommendations in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel approached the formulation of recommendations from the perspective of patients, rather than a population or health system perspective.

THE EVIDENCE

Recommendations are informed by a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms of conservative, pharmacologic, and invasive interventions for chronic pain secondary to TMD.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION

These recommendations apply to patients living with chronic pain (≥3 months duration) associated with TMD as a group of conditions, and do not apply to the management of acute TMD pain. When considering management options, clinicians and patients should first consider strongly recommended interventions, then those conditionally recommended in favour, then conditionally against. In doing so, shared decision making is essential to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and preference, availability of interventions, and what they may have already tried. Further research is warranted and may alter recommendations in the future.

A novel framework for incorporating patient values and preferences in making guideline recommendations: guideline panel surveys

OBJECTIVE

Universally acknowledged standards for trustworthy guidelines include the necessity to ground recommendations in patient values and preferences. When information is limited-which is typically the case-guideline panels often find it difficult to explicitly integrate patient values and preferences into their recommendations. Our objective was to develop and evaluate a framework for systematically navigating guideline panels in incorporating patient values and preferences in making recommendations.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

In the context of developing a guideline for colorectal cancer screening, we generated an initial framework for creating panel surveys to elicit guideline panelists' views of patient values and preferences and to inform panel discussions on recommendations. With further applications in guidelines of diverse topic areas, we dynamically refined the framework through iterative discussions and consensus.

RESULTS

The finial framework consists of five steps for creating and implementing panel surveys. The surveys can serve three objectives following from the quantitative information regarding patient values and preferences that guideline panels usually require. An accompanying video provides detailed instructions of the survey.

CONCLUSION

The framework for creating and implementing panel surveys offers explicit guidance for guideline panels considering transparently and systematically incorporating patient values and preferences into guideline recommendations.

Qualitative study of guideline panelists: innovative surveys provided valuable insights regarding patient values and preferences

OBJECTIVES

To explore guideline panelists' understanding of panel surveys for eliciting panels' inferences regarding patient values and preferences, and the influence of the surveys on making recommendations.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We performed sampling and data collection from all four guideline panels that had conducted the surveys through October 2020. We collected the records of all panel meetings and interviewed some panelists in different roles. We applied inductive thematic analysis for analyzing and interpreting data.

RESULTS

We enrolled four guideline panels with 99 panelists in total and interviewed 25 of them. Most panelists found the survey was easy to follow and facilitated the incorporation of patient values and preferences in the tradeoffs between benefits and harms or burdens. The variation of patient preferences and uncertainty regarding patient values and preferences reflected in the surveys helped the panels ponder the strength of recommendations. In doing so, the survey results enhanced a rationale for panels' decision on the recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The panel surveys have proved to help guideline panels explicitly consider and incorporate patient values and preferences in making recommendations. Guideline panels would benefit from widespread use of the panel surveys, particularly when primary evidence regarding patient values and preferences is scarce.

Instruments assessing risk of bias of randomized trials frequently included items that are not addressing risk of bias issues

OBJECTIVES

To establish whether items included in instruments published in the last decade assessing risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are indeed addressing risk of bias.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus from 2010 to October 2021 for instruments assessing risk of bias of RCTs. By extracting items and summarizing their essential content, we generated an item list. Items that two reviewers agreed clearly did not address risk of bias were excluded. We included the remaining items in a survey in which 13 experts judged the issue each item is addressing: risk of bias, applicability, random error, reporting quality, or none of the above.

RESULTS

Seventeen eligible instruments included 127 unique items. After excluding 61 items deemed as clearly not addressing risk of bias, the item classification survey included 66 items, of which the majority of respondents deemed 20 items (30.3%) as addressing risk of bias; the majority deemed 11 (16.7%) as not addressing risk of bias; and there proved substantial disagreement for 35 (53.0%) items.

CONCLUSION

Existing risk of bias instruments frequently include items that do not address risk of bias. For many items, experts disagree on whether or not they are addressing risk of bias.

PCSK9 inhibitors and ezetimibe for the reduction of cardiovascular events: a clinical practice guideline with risk-stratified recommendations

CLINICAL QUESTION

In adults with low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels >1.8 mmol/L (>70 mg/dL) who are already taking the maximum dose of statins or are intolerant to statins, should another lipid-lowering drug be added, either a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor or ezetimibe, to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events? If so, which drug is preferred? Having decided to use one, should we add the other lipid-lowering drug?

CURRENT PRACTICE

Most guidelines emphasise LDL cholesterol targets in their recommendations for prescribing PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe in adults at high risk of experiencing a major adverse cardiovascular event. However, to achieve these goals in very high risk patients with statins alone is almost impossible, so physicians are increasingly considering other lipid-lowering drugs solely for achieving LDL cholesterol treatment goals rather than for achieving important absolute cardiovascular risk reduction. Most guidelines do not systematically assess the cardiovascular benefits of adding PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe for all risk groups across primary and secondary prevention, nor do they report, in accordance with explicit judgments of assumed patients' values and preferences, absolute benefits and harms and potential treatment burdens.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The guideline panel provided mostly weak recommendations, which means we rely on shared decision making when applying these recommendations. For adults already using statins, the panel suggests adding a second lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but recommends against adding it in people at low cardiovascular risk. For adults who are intolerant to statins, the panel recommends using a lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but against adding it in those at low cardiovascular risk. When choosing to add another lipid-lowering drug, the panel suggests ezetimibe in preference to PCSK9 inhibitors. The panel suggests further adding a PCSK9 inhibitor to ezetimibe for adults already taking statins at very high risk and those at very high and high risk who are intolerant to statins.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

An international panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations following standards for trustworthy guidelines and using the GRADE approach. The panel identified four risk groups of patients (low, moderate, high, and very high cardiovascular risk) and primarily applied an individual patient perspective in moving from evidence to recommendations, though societal issues were a secondary consideration. The panel considered the balance of benefits and harms and burdens of starting a PCSK9 inhibitor and/or ezetimibe, making assumptions of adults' average values and preferences. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids accompany multi-layered recommendations, developed in an online authoring and publication platform (www.magicapp.org) that also allows re-use and adaptation.

THE EVIDENCE

A linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (14 trials including 83 660 participants) of benefits found that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe probably reduce myocardial infarctions and stroke in patients with very high and high cardiovascular risk, with no impact on mortality (moderate to high certainty evidence), but not in those with moderate and low cardiovascular risk. PCSK9 inhibitors may have similar effects to ezetimibe on reducing non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke (low certainty evidence). These relative benefits were consistent, but their absolute magnitude varied based on cardiovascular risk in individual patients (for example, for 1000 people treated with PCSK9 inhibitors in addition to statins over five years, benefits ranged from 2 fewer strokes in the lowest risk to 21 fewer in the highest risk). Two systematic reviews on harms found no important adverse events for these drugs (moderate to high certainty evidence). PCSK9 inhibitors require injections that sometimes result in injection site reactions (best estimate 15 more per 1000 in a 5 year timeframe), representing a burden and harm that may matter to patients. The MATCH-IT decision support tool allows you to interact with the evidence and your patients across the alternative options: https://magicevidence.org/match-it/220504dist-lipid-lowering-drugs/.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS

The stratification into four cardiovascular risk groups means that, to use the recommendations, physicians need to identify their patient's risk first. We therefore suggest, specific to various geographical regions, using some reliable risk calculators that estimate patients' cardiovascular risk based on a mix of known risk factors. The largely weak recommendations concerning the addition of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors reflect what the panel considered to be a close balance between small reductions in stroke and myocardial infarctions weighed against the burdens and limited harms.Because of the anticipated large variability of patients' values and preferences, well informed choices warrant shared decision making. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids linked to the recommendations can facilitate such shared decisions. The strong recommendations against adding another drug in people at low cardiovascular risk reflect what the panel considered to be a burden without important benefits. The strong recommendation for adding either ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors in people at high and very high cardiovascular risk reflect a clear benefit.The panel recognised the key uncertainty in the evidence concerning patient values and preferences, namely that what most people consider important reductions in cardiovascular risks, weighed against burdens and harms, remains unclear. Finally, availability and costs will influence decisions when healthcare systems, clinicians, or people consider adding ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors.

Plasma exchange and glucocorticoid dosing for patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis: a clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTIONS

What is the role of plasma exchange and what is the optimal dose of glucocorticoids in the first 6 months of therapy of patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV)? This guideline was triggered by the publication of a new randomised controlled trial.

CURRENT PRACTICE

Existing guideline recommendations vary regarding the use of plasma exchange in AAV and lack explicit recommendations regarding the tapering regimen of glucocorticoids during induction therapy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The guideline panel makes a weak recommendation against plasma exchange in patients with low or low-moderate risk of developing end stage kidney disease (ESKD), and a weak recommendation in favour of plasma exchange in patients with moderate-high or high risk of developing ESKD. For patients with pulmonary haemorrhage without renal involvement, the panel suggests not using plasma exchange (weak recommendation). The panel made a strong recommendation in favour of a reduced dose rather than standard dose regimen of glucocorticoids, which involves a more rapid taper rate and lower cumulative dose during the first six months of therapy.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

A guideline panel including patients, a care giver, clinicians, content experts, and methodologists produced these recommendations using GRADE and in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines. The recommendations are based on two linked systematic reviews. The panel took an individual patient perspective in the development of recommendations.

THE EVIDENCE

The systematic review of plasma exchange identified nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled 1060 patients with AAV. Plasma exchange probably has little or no effect on mortality or disease relapse (moderate and low certainty). Plasma exchange probably reduces the one year risk of ESKD (approximately 0.1% reduction in those with low risk, 2.1% reduction in those with low-moderate risk, 4.6% reduction in those with moderate-high risk, and 16.0% reduction in those with high risk or requiring dialysis) but increases the risk of serious infections (approximately 2.7% increase in those with low risk, 4.9% increase in those with low-moderate risk, 8.5% increase in those with moderate-high risk, to 13.5% in high risk group) at 1 year (moderate to high certainty). The guideline panel agreed that most patients with low or low-moderate risk of developing ESKD would consider the harms to outweigh the benefits, while most of those with moderate-high or high risk would consider the benefits to outweigh the harms. For patients with pulmonary haemorrhage without kidney involvement, based on indirect evidence, plasma exchange may have little or no effect on death (very low certainty) but may have an important increase in serious infections at 1 year (approximately 6.8% increase, low certainty). The systematic review of different dose regimens of glucocorticoids identified two RCTs at low risk of bias with 704 and 140 patients respectively. A reduced dose regimen of glucocorticoid probably reduces the risk of serious infections by approximately 5.9% to 12.8% and probably does not increase the risk of ESKD at the follow-up of 6 months to longer than 1 year (moderate certainty for both outcomes).

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION

The recommendations were made with the understanding that patients would place a high value on reduction in ESKD and less value on avoiding serious infections. The panel concluded that most (50-90%) of fully informed patients with AAV and with low or low-moderate risk of developing ESKD with or without pulmonary haemorrhage would decline plasma exchange, whereas most patients with moderate-high or high risk or requiring dialysis with or without pulmonary haemorrhage would choose to receive plasma exchange. The panel also inferred that the majority of fully informed patients with pulmonary haemorrhage without kidney involvement would decline plasma exchange and that all or almost all (≥90%) fully informed patients with AAV would choose a reduced dose regimen of glucocorticoids during the first 6 months of therapy.

Patient-important outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic treatments for COVID-19: a protocol of a META-epidemiological study

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 19 (covid-19) pandemic has underscored the need to expedite clinical research, which may lead investigators to shift away from measuring patient-important outcomes (PIO), limiting research applicability. We aim to investigate if randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of covid-19 pharmacological therapies include PIOs.

METHODS

We will perform a meta-epidemiological study of RCTs that included people at risk for, or with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19, examining any pharmacological treatment or blood product aimed at prophylaxis or treatment. We will obtain data from all RCTs identified in a living network metanalysis (NMA). The main data sources are the living WHO covid-19 database up to 1 March 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Two reviewers independently will review each citation, full-text article, and abstract data. To categorize the outcomes according to their importance to patients, we will adapt a previously defined hierarchy: a) mortality, b) quality of life/ functional status/symptoms, c) morbidity, and d) surrogate outcomes. Outcomes within the category a) and b) will be considered critically important to patients, and outcomes within the category c) will be regarded as important. We will use descriptive statistics to assess the proportion of studies that report each category of outcomes. We will perform univariable and multivariable analysis to explore associations between trial characteristics and the likelihood of reporting PIOs.

DISCUSSION

The findings from this meta-epidemiological study will help health care professionals and researchers understand if the current covid-19 trials are effectively assessing and reporting the outcomes that are important to patients. If a deficiency in capturing PIOs is identified, this information may help inform the development of future RCTs in covid-19.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATIONS

Open Science Framework registration: osf.io/6xgjz .

Medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain: a clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTION

What is the role of medical cannabis or cannabinoids for people living with chronic pain due to cancer or non-cancer causes?

CURRENT PRACTICE

Chronic pain is common and distressing and associated with considerable socioeconomic burden globally. Medical cannabis is increasingly used to manage chronic pain, particularly in jurisdictions that have enacted policies to reduce use of opioids; however, existing guideline recommendations are inconsistent, and cannabis remains illegal for therapeutic use in many countries.

RECOMMENDATION

The guideline expert panel issued a weak recommendation to offer a trial of non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids, in addition to standard care and management (if not sufficient), for people living with chronic cancer or non-cancer pain.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

An international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel applied an individual patient perspective.

THE EVIDENCE

This recommendation is informed by a linked series of four systematic reviews summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms, as well as patient values and preferences, regarding medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION

The recommendation is weak because of the close balance between benefits and harms of medical cannabis for chronic pain. It reflects a high value placed on small to very small improvements in self reported pain intensity, physical functioning, and sleep quality, and willingness to accept a small to modest risk of mostly self limited and transient harms. Shared decision making is required to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and personal context. Further research is warranted and may alter this recommendation.

SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists for adults with type 2 diabetes: a clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTION

What are the benefits and harms of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists when added to usual care (lifestyle interventions and/or other diabetes drugs) in adults with type 2 diabetes at different risk for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes?

CURRENT PRACTICE

Clinical decisions about treatment of type 2 diabetes have been led by glycaemic control for decades. SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists are traditionally used in people with elevated glucose level after metformin treatment. This has changed through trials demonstrating atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) benefits independent of medications' glucose-lowering potential.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The guideline panel issued risk-stratified recommendations concerning the use of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists in adults with type 2 diabetes• Three or fewer cardiovascular risk factors without established CVD or CKD: Weak recommendation against starting SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists.• More than three cardiovascular risk factors without established CVD or CKD: Weak recommendation for starting SGLT-2 inhibitors and weak against starting GLP-1 receptor agonists.• Established CVD or CKD: Weak recommendation for starting SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists.• Established CVD and CKD: Strong recommendation for starting SGLT-2 inhibitors and weak recommendation for starting GLP-1 receptor agonists.• For those committed to further reducing their risk for CVD and CKD outcomes: Weak recommendation for starting SGLT-2 inhibitors rather than GLP-1 receptor agonists.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

An international panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists created these recommendations following standards for trustworthy guidelines and using the GRADE approach. The panel applied an individual patient perspective.

THE EVIDENCE

A linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (764 randomised trials included 421 346 participants) of benefits and harms found that SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists generally reduce overall death, and incidence of myocardial infarctions, and end-stage kidney disease or kidney failure (moderate to high certainty evidence). These medications exert different effects on stroke, hospitalisations for heart failure, and key adverse events in different subgroups. Absolute effects of benefit varied widely based on patients' individual risk (for example, from five fewer deaths in the lowest risk to 48 fewer deaths in the highest risk, for 1000 patients treated over five years). A prognosis review identified 14 eligible risk prediction models, one of which (RECODe) informed most baseline risk estimates in evidence summaries to underpin the risk-stratified recommendations. Concerning patients' values and preferences, the recommendations were supported by evidence from a systematic review of published literature, a patient focus group study, a practical issues summary, and a guideline panel survey.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION

We stratified the recommendations by the levels of risk for CVD and CKD and systematically considered the balance of benefits, harms, other considerations, and practical issues for each risk group. The strong recommendation for SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with CVD and CKD reflects what the panel considered to be a clear benefit. For all other adults with type 2 diabetes, the weak recommendations reflect what the panel considered to be a finer balance between benefits, harms, and burdens of treatment options. Clinicians using the guideline can identify their patient's individual risk for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes using credible risk calculators such as RECODe. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids may support well informed treatment choices, including shared decision making.

Gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis for critically ill patients: a clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTION

What is the role of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis (stress ulcer prophylaxis) in critically ill patients? This guideline was prompted by the publication of a new large randomised controlled trial.

CURRENT PRACTICE

Gastric acid suppression with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) is commonly done to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. Existing guidelines vary in their recommendations of which population to treat and which agent to use.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This guideline panel makes a weak recommendation for using gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients at high risk (>4%) of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, and a weak recommendation for not using prophylaxis in patients at lower risk of clinically important bleeding (≤4%). The panel identified risk categories based on evidence, with variable certainty regarding risk factors. The panel suggests using a PPI rather than a H2RA (weak recommendation) and recommends against using sucralfate (strong recommendation).

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations using standards for trustworthy guidelines and the GRADE approach. The recommendations are based on a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis. A weak recommendation means that both options are reasonable.

THE EVIDENCE

The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis estimated the benefit and harm of these medications in 12 660 critically ill patients in 72 trials. Both PPIs and H2RAs reduce the risk of clinically important bleeding. The effect is larger in patients at higher bleeding risk (those with a coagulopathy, chronic liver disease, or receiving mechanical ventilation but not enteral nutrition or two or more of mechanical ventilation with enteral nutrition, acute kidney injury, sepsis, and shock) (moderate certainty). PPIs and H2RAs might increase the risk of pneumonia (low certainty). They probably do not have an effect on mortality (moderate certainty), length of hospital stay, or any other important outcomes. PPIs probably reduce the risk of bleeding more than H2RAs (moderate certainty).

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION

In most critically ill patients, the reduction in clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding from gastric acid suppressants is closely balanced with the possibility of pneumonia. Clinicians should consider individual patient values, risk of bleeding, and other factors such as medication availability when deciding whether to use gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis. Visual overviews provide the relative and absolute benefits and harms of the options in multilayered evidence summaries and decision aids available on MAGICapp.

Efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine, in critically ill patients, the relative impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), sucralfate, or no gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis (or stress ulcer prophylaxis) on outcomes important to patients.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registers, and grey literature up to March 2019.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES AND METHODS

We included randomised controlled trials that compared gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided critical oversight of the systematic review, including identifying outcomes important to patients. We performed random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. When results differed between low risk and high risk of bias studies, we used the former as best estimates.

RESULTS

Seventy two trials including 12 660 patients proved eligible. For patients at highest risk (>8%) or high risk (4-8%) of bleeding, both PPIs and H2RAs probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding compared with placebo or no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 0.61 (95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.89), 3.3% fewer for highest risk and 2.3% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 0.46 (0.27 to 0.79), 4.6% fewer for highest risk and 3.1% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty). Both may increase the risk of pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 1.39 (0.98 to 2.10), 5.0% more, low certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 1.26 (0.89 to 1.85), 3.4% more, low certainty). It is likely that neither affect mortality (PPIs 1.06 (0.90 to 1.28), 1.3% more, moderate certainty; H2RAs 0.96 (0.79 to 1.19), 0.9% fewer, moderate certainty). Otherwise, results provided no support for any affect on mortality, Clostridium difficile infection, length of intensive care stay, length of hospital stay, or duration of mechanical ventilation (varying certainty of evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

For higher risk critically ill patients, PPIs and H2RAs likely result in important reductions in gastrointestinal bleeding compared with no prophylaxis; for patients at low risk, the reduction in bleeding may be unimportant. Both PPIs and H2RAs may result in important increases in pneumonia. Variable quality evidence suggested no important effects of interventions on mortality or other in-hospital morbidity outcomes.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019126656.

Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTION

Recent 15-year updates of sigmoidoscopy screening trials provide new evidence on the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Prompted by the new evidence, we asked: "Does colorectal cancer screening make an important difference to health outcomes in individuals initiating screening at age 50 to 79? And which screening option is best?"

CURRENT PRACTICE

Numerous guidelines recommend screening, but vary on recommended test, age and screening frequency. This guideline looks at the evidence and makes recommendations on screening for four screening options: faecal immunochemical test (FIT) every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

These recommendations apply to adults aged 50-79 years with no prior screening, no symptoms of colorectal cancer, and a life expectancy of at least 15 years. For individuals with an estimated 15-year colorectal cancer risk below 3%, we suggest no screening (weak recommendation). For individuals with an estimated 15-year risk above 3%, we suggest screening with one of the four screening options: FIT every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy (weak recommendation). With our guidance we publish the linked research, a graphic of the absolute harms and benefits, a clear description of how we reached our value judgments, and linked decision aids.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, content experts and methodologists produced these recommendations using GRADE and in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines. A linked systematic review of colorectal cancer screening trials and microsimulation modelling were performed to inform the panel of 15-year screening benefits and harms. The panel also reviewed each screening option's practical issues and burdens. Based on their own experience, the panel estimated the magnitude of benefit typical members of the population would value to opt for screening and used the benefit thresholds to inform their recommendations.

THE EVIDENCE

Overall there was substantial uncertainty (low certainty evidence) regarding the 15-year benefits, burdens and harms of screening. Best estimates suggested that all four screening options resulted in similar colorectal cancer mortality reductions. FIT every two years may have little or no effect on cancer incidence over 15 years, while FIT every year, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy may reduce cancer incidence, although for FIT the incidence reduction is small compared with sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Screening related serious gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse events are rare. The magnitude of the benefits is dependent on the individual risk, while harms and burdens are less strongly associated with cancer risk.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION

Based on benefits, harms, and burdens of screening, the panel inferred that most informed individuals with a 15-year risk of colorectal cancer of 3% or higher are likely to choose screening, and most individuals with a risk of below 3% are likely to decline screening. Given varying values and preferences, optimal care will require shared decision making.

Minimal important differences for improvement in shoulder condition patient-reported outcomes: a systematic review to inform a BMJ Rapid Recommendation

OBJECTIVES

To identify credible anchor-based minimal important differences (MIDs) for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) relevant to a BMJ Rapid Recommendations addressing subacromial decompression surgery for shoulder pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Estimates of anchor-based MIDs, and their credibility, for PROMs judged by the parallel BMJ Rapid Recommendations panel as important for informing their recommendation (pain, function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL)).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO up to August 2018.

STUDY SELECTION AND REVIEW METHODS

We included original studies of any intervention for shoulder conditions reporting estimates of anchor-based MIDs for relevant PROMs. Two reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible studies according to predefined selection criteria. Six reviewers, working in pairs, independently extracted data from eligible studies using a predesigned, standardised, pilot-tested extraction form and independently assessed the credibility of included studies using an MID credibility tool.

RESULTS

We identified 22 studies involving 5562 patients that reported 74 empirically estimated anchor-based MIDs for 10 candidate instruments to assess shoulder pain, function and HRQoL. We identified MIDs of high credibility for pain and function outcomes and of low credibility for HRQoL. We offered median estimates for the systematic review team who applied these MIDs in Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence summaries and in their interpretations of results in the linked systematic review addressing the effectiveness of surgery for shoulder pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review provides anchor-based MID estimates, as well as a rating of their credibility, for PROMs for patients with shoulder conditions. The MID estimates inform the interpretation for a linked systematic review and guideline addressing subacromial decompression surgery for shoulder pain, and could also prove useful for authors addressing other interventions for shoulder problems.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018106531.

Subacromial decompression surgery for adults with shoulder pain: a clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTION

Do adults with atraumatic shoulder pain for more than 3 months diagnosed as subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS), also labelled as rotator cuff disease, benefit from subacromial decompression surgery? This guideline builds on to two recent high quality trials of shoulder surgery.

CURRENT PRACTICE

SAPS is the common diagnosis for shoulder pain with several first line treatment options, including analgesia, exercises, and injections. Surgeons frequently perform arthroscopic subacromial decompression for prolonged symptoms, with guidelines providing conflicting recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION

The guideline panel makes a strong recommendation against surgery.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines and the GRADE system. The recommendation is based on two linked systematic reviews on (a) the benefits and harms of subacromial decompression surgery and (b) the minimally important differences for patient reported outcome measures. Recommendations are made actionable for clinicians and their patients through visual overviews. These provide the relative and absolute benefits and harms of surgery in multilayered evidence summaries and decision aids available in MAGIC (www.magicapp.org) to support shared decisions and adaptation.

THE EVIDENCE

Surgery did not provide important improvements in pain, function, or quality of life compared with placebo surgery or other options. Frozen shoulder may be more common with surgery.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION

The panel concluded that almost all informed patients would choose to avoid surgery because there is no benefit but there are harms and it is burdensome. Subacromial decompression surgery should not be offered to patients with SAPS. However, there is substantial uncertainty in what alternative treatment is best.

Prolonged low-dose methylprednisolone treatment is highly effective in reducing duration of mechanical ventilation and mortality in patients with ARDS

An updated meta-analysis incorporating nine randomized trials (n = 816) investigating low-to-moderate dose prolonged glucocorticoid treatment in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) show moderate-to-high quality evidence that glucocorticoid therapy is safe and reduces (i) time to endotracheal extubation, (ii) duration of hospitalization, and (iii) mortality (number to treat to save one life = 7), and increases the number of days free from (i) mechanical ventilation, (ii) intensive care unit stay, and (iii) hospitalization. Recent guideline suggests administering methylprednisolone in patients with early moderate-to-severe (1 mg/kg/day) and late persistent (2 mg/kg/day) ARDS (conditional recommendation based on moderate quality of evidence).

Addition of Ezetimibe to statins for patients at high cardiovascular risk: Systematic review of patient-important outcomes

Ezetimibe is widely used in combination with statins to reduce low-density lipoprotein. We sought to examine the impact of ezetimibe when added to statins on patient-important outcomes. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were searched through July, 2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ezetimibe combined with statins versus statins alone that followed patients for at least 6 months and reported on at least one of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular deaths, non-fatal myocardial infarctions (MI), and non-fatal strokes were included. Pairs of reviewers extracted study data and assessed risk of bias independently and in duplicate. Quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. We conducted a narrative review with complementary subgroup and sensitivity analyses. IMPROVE-IT study enrolled 93% of all patients enrolled in the 8 included trials. Our analysis of the IMPROVE-IT study results showed that in patients at high risk of cardiovascular events, ezetimibe added to statins was associated with i) a likely reduction in non-fatal MI (17 fewer/1000 treated over 6 years, moderate certainty in evidence); ii) a possible reduction in non-fatal stroke (6 fewer/1000 treated over 6 years, low certainty); iii) no impact on myopathy (moderate certainty); iv) potentially no impact on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death (both moderate certainty); and v) possibly no impact on cancer (low certainty). Addition of ezetimibe to moderate-dose statins is likely to result in 17 fewer MIs and possibly 6 fewer strokes/1000 treated over 6 years but is unlikely to reduce all-cause mortality or cardiovascular death. Patients who place a high value on a small absolute reduction in MI and are not adverse to use of an additional medication over a long duration may opt for ezetimibe in addition to statin therapy. Our analysis revealed no increased specific harms associated with addition of ezetimibe to statins.

Corticosteroids for treatment of sore throat: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

Objective To estimate the benefits and harms of using corticosteroids as an adjunct treatment for sore throat.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control trials.Data sources Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), trial registries up to May 2017, reference lists of eligible trials, related reviews.Study selection Randomised controlled trials of the addition of corticosteroids to standard clinical care for patients aged 5 or older in emergency department and primary care settings with clinical signs of acute tonsillitis, pharyngitis, or the clinical syndrome of sore throat. Trials were included irrespective of language or publication status.Review methods Reviewers identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the evidence, independently and in duplicate. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including the selection of outcomes important to patients. Random effects model was used for meta-analyses. Quality of evidence was assessed with the GRADE approach.Results 10 eligible trials enrolled 1426 individuals. Patients who received single low dose corticosteroids (the most common intervention was oral dexamethasone with a maximum dose of 10 mg) were twice as likely to experience pain relief after 24 hours (relative risk 2.2, 95% confidence interval 1.2 to 4.3; risk difference 12.4%; moderate quality evidence) and 1.5 times more likely to have no pain at 48 hours (1.5, 1.3 to 1.8; risk difference 18.3%; high quality). The mean time to onset of pain relief in patients treated with corticosteroids was 4.8 hours earlier (95% confidence interval -1.9 to -7.8; moderate quality) and the mean time to complete resolution of pain was 11.1 hours earlier (-0.4 to -21.8; low quality) than in those treated with placebo. The absolute pain reduction at 24 hours (visual analogue scale 0-10) was greater in patients treated with corticosteroids (mean difference 1.3, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 1.9; moderate quality). Nine of the 10 trials sought information regarding adverse events. Six studies reported no adverse effects, and three studies reported few adverse events, which were mostly complications related to disease, with a similar incidence in both groups.Conclusion Single low dose corticosteroids can provide pain relief in patients with sore throat, with no increase in serious adverse effects. Included trials did not assess the potential risks of larger cumulative doses in patients with recurrent episodes of acute sore throat.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42017067808.

Antiretroviral therapy in pregnant women living with HIV: a clinical practice guideline

Approximately 1.4 million women living with HIV become pregnant every year. Most women use antiretroviral therapy, to reduce the risk of vertical transmission or for personal health reasons. Using the GRADE framework according to the BMJ Rapid Recommendation process, we make recommendations for optimal choice of combination antiretroviral regimen considering patient values and preferences, the balance of desirable and undesirable outcomes, their uncertainty, and practical issues. We suggest a zidovudine and lamivudine-based regimen over one that includes tenofovir or emtricitabine (weak recommendation). We recommend alternatives over the combination of tenofovir, emtricitabine, and lopinavir/ritonavir (strong recommendation).

Application of minimal important differences in degenerative knee disease outcomes: a systematic review and case study to inform BMJ Rapid Recommendations

OBJECTIVES

To identify the most credible anchor-based minimal important differences (MIDs) for patient important outcomes in patients with degenerative knee disease, and to inform BMJ Rapid Recommendations for arthroscopic surgery versus conservative management DESIGN: Systematic review.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Estimates of anchor-based MIDs, and their credibility, for knee symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included original studies documenting the development of anchor-based MIDs for patient-reported outcomes (PROs) reported in randomised controlled trials included in the linked systematic review and meta-analysis and judged by the parallel BMJ Rapid Recommendations panel as critically important for informing their recommendation: measures of pain, function and HRQoL.

RESULTS

13 studies reported 95 empirically estimated anchor-based MIDs for 8 PRO instruments and/or their subdomains that measure knee pain, function or HRQoL. All studies used a transition rating (global rating of change) as the anchor to ascertain the MID. Among PROs with more than 1 estimated MID, we found wide variation in MID values. Many studies suffered from serious methodological limitations. We identified the following most credible MIDs: Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC; pain: 12, function: 13), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS; pain: 12, activities of daily living: 8) and EuroQol five dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D; 0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

We were able to distinguish between more and less credible MID estimates and provide best estimates for key instruments that informed evidence presentation in the associated systematic review and judgements made by the Rapid Recommendation panel.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016047912.

Procedure-specific Risks of Thrombosis and Bleeding in Urological Cancer Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis involves balancing a lower risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) against a higher risk of bleeding, a trade-off that critically depends on the risks of VTE and bleeding in the absence of prophylaxis (baseline risk).

OBJECTIVE

To provide estimates of the baseline risk of symptomatic VTE and bleeding requiring reoperation in urological cancer surgery.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We identified contemporary observational studies reporting symptomatic VTE or bleeding after urological procedures. We used studies with the lowest risk of bias and accounted for use of thromboprophylaxis and length of follow-up to derive best estimates of the baseline risks within 4 wk of surgery. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We included 71 studies reporting on 14 urological cancer procedures. The quality of the evidence was generally moderate for prostatectomy and cystectomy, and low or very low for other procedures. The duration of thromboprophylaxis was highly variable. The risk of VTE in cystectomies was high (2.6-11.6% across risk groups) whereas the risk of bleeding was low (0.3%). The risk of VTE in prostatectomies varied by procedure, from 0.2-0.9% in robotic prostatectomy without pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) to 3.9-15.7% in open prostatectomy with extended PLND. The risk of bleeding was 0.1-1.0%. The risk of VTE following renal procedures was 0.7-2.9% for low-risk patients and 2.6-11.6% for high-risk patients; the risk of bleeding was 0.1-2.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Extended thromboprophylaxis is warranted in some procedures (eg, open and robotic cystectomy) but not others (eg, robotic prostatectomy without PLND in low-risk patients). For "close call" procedures, decisions will depend on values and preferences with regard to VTE and bleeding.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Clinicians often give blood thinners to patients to prevent blood clots after surgery for urological cancer. Unfortunately, blood thinners also increase bleeding. This study provides information on the risk of clots and bleeding that is crucial in deciding for or against giving blood thinners.

Procedure-specific Risks of Thrombosis and Bleeding in Urological Non-cancer Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis involves a trade-off between a reduction in venous thromboembolism (VTE) and increased bleeding. No guidance specific for procedure and patient factors exists in urology.

OBJECTIVE

To inform estimates of absolute risk of symptomatic VTE and bleeding requiring reoperation in urological non-cancer surgery.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We searched for contemporary observational studies and estimated the risk of symptomatic VTE or bleeding requiring reoperation in the 4 wk after urological surgery. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The 37 eligible studies reported on 11 urological non-cancer procedures. The duration of prophylaxis varied widely both within and between procedures; for example, the median was 12.3 d (interquartile range [IQR] 3.1-55) for open recipient nephrectomy (kidney transplantation) studies and 1 d (IQR 0-1.3) for percutaneous nephrolithotomy, open prolapse surgery, and reconstructive pelvic surgery studies. Studies of open recipient nephrectomy reported the highest risks of VTE and bleeding (1.8-7.4% depending on patient characteristics and 2.4% for bleeding). The risk of VTE was low for 8/11 procedures (0.2-0.7% for patients with low/medium risk; 0.8-1.4% for high risk) and the risk of bleeding was low for 6/7 procedures (≤0.5%; no bleeding estimates for 4 procedures). The quality of the evidence supporting these estimates was low or very low.

CONCLUSIONS

Although inferences are limited owing to low-quality evidence, our results suggest that extended prophylaxis is warranted for some procedures (eg, kidney transplantation procedures in high-risk patients) but not others (transurethral resection of the prostate and reconstructive female pelvic surgery in low-risk patients).

PATIENT SUMMARY

The best evidence suggests that the benefits of blood-thinning drugs to prevent clots after surgery outweigh the risks of bleeding in some procedures (such as kidney transplantation procedures in patients at high risk of clots) but not others (such as prostate surgery in patients at low risk of clots).

Low intensity pulsed ultrasound for bone healing: systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Objective To determine the efficacy of low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) for healing of fracture or osteotomy.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and trial registries up to November 2016.Study selection Randomized controlled trials of LIPUS compared with sham device or no device in patients with any kind of fracture or osteotomy.Review methods Two independent reviewers identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of outcomes important to patients. The GRADE system was used to assess the quality of evidence.Results 26 randomized controlled trials with a median sample size of 30 (range 8-501) were included. The most trustworthy evidence came from four trials at low risk of bias that included patients with tibia or clavicle fractures. Compared with control, LIPUS did not reduce time to return to work (percentage difference: 2.7% later with LIPUS, 95% confidence interval 7.7% earlier to 14.3% later; moderate certainty) or the number of subsequent operations (risk ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 1.16; moderate certainty). For pain, days to weight bearing, and radiographic healing, effects varied substantially among studies. For all three outcomes, trials at low risk of bias failed to show a benefit with LIPUS, while trials at high risk of bias suggested a benefit (interaction P<0.001). When only trials at low risk of bias trials were considered, LIPUS did not reduce days to weight bearing (4.8% later, 4.0% earlier to 14.4% later; high certainty), pain at four to six weeks (mean difference on 0-100 visual analogue scale: 0.93 lower, 2.51 lower to 0.64 higher; high certainty), and days to radiographic healing (1.7% earlier, 11.2% earlier to 8.8% later; moderate certainty).Conclusions Based on moderate to high quality evidence from studies in patients with fresh fracture, LIPUS does not improve outcomes important to patients and probably has no effect on radiographic bone healing. The applicability to other types of fracture or osteotomy is open to debate.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42016050965.

Sexually transmitted infections and viral hepatitides in patients presenting for non-occupational HIV post-exposure prophylaxis: results of a prospective cohort study

Data evaluating the screening practices for viral hepatitides and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in patients presenting for non-occupational HIV post-exposure prophylaxis (nPEP) care are limited. Screening practices and prevalences of viral hepatitides and STIs were evaluated in 126 patients presenting to a dedicated HIV prevention clinic for HIV nPEP. Three patients (2.4%) were diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C infection, 28 (22.2%) did not have surface antibodies in sufficient quantity to confer immunity to hepatitis B, and six (4.8%) were diagnosed with an STI. A multivariate regression model did not predict any demographic or clinical features predictive of HBV non-immunity. Beyond screening for HIV infection, evaluation for viral hepatitides and STIs is an important feature in the care of patients presenting for HIV nPEP.

A Case of Long-Term Seronegative Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Infection: The Importance of the Humoral Response to HIV

Background. Seronegative human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections are exceedingly rare but might inform HIV-host physiology.

Methods. We investigate the cause and consequences of a patient infected with HIV who did not mount a humoral response to HIV for 4 years.

Results. The patient was confirmed HIV-uninfected by nucleic acid testing 4 months before rapidly progressing to acquired immune deficiency syndrome. The patient's humoral deficit was specific to HIV: he mounted robust humoral responses to all challenge vaccines including influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and all T cell-dependent and -independent serotypes in the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine. The virus had similar gp120 antigenicity to HIV-positive control serum as NL4-3 and YU2 prototype strains. Two human leukocyte antigen alleles associated with rapid progression were identified (B*08 and B*35), and a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte epitope site variant was noted: E277K. Viral decay (t_1/2 ≈ 39 weeks) suggested that relatively long-lived cells were the source of ongoing viremia. Human immunodeficiency virus viremia was not suppressed until after the patient developed a humoral immune response, despite therapeutic antiretroviral levels. No resistance was detected by virtual phenotyping of virus obtained from serum or from gastrointestinal biopsies despite considerable antiretroviral selection pressure.

Conclusions. Ineffective antibody production may be associated with a subgroup of extremely rapid HIV progressors. Although antiretroviral therapy may be sufficient to slow propagation of infection, it appears to be ineffective for HIV viral clearance in the absence of a humoral response.

Corticosteroid Therapy for Patients Hospitalized With Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is common and often severe.

PURPOSE

To examine the effect of adjunctive corticosteroid therapy on mortality, morbidity, and duration of hospitalization in patients with CAP.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through 24 May 2015.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials of systemic corticosteroids in hospitalized adults with CAP.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. Quality of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system by consensus among the authors.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The median age was typically in the 60s, and approximately 60% of patients were male. Adjunctive corticosteroids were associated with possible reductions in all-cause mortality (12 trials; 1974 patients; risk ratio [RR], 0.67 [95% CI, 0.45 to 1.01]; risk difference [RD], 2.8%; moderate certainty), need for mechanical ventilation (5 trials; 1060 patients; RR, 0.45 [CI, 0.26 to 0.79]; RD, 5.0%; moderate certainty), and the acute respiratory distress syndrome (4 trials; 945 patients; RR, 0.24 [CI, 0.10 to 0.56]; RD, 6.2%; moderate certainty). They also decreased time to clinical stability (5 trials; 1180 patients; mean difference, -1.22 days [CI, -2.08 to -0.35 days]; high certainty) and duration of hospitalization (6 trials; 1499 patients; mean difference, -1.00 day [CI, -1.79 to -0.21 days]; high certainty). Adjunctive corticosteroids increased frequency of hyperglycemia requiring treatment (6 trials; 1534 patients; RR, 1.49 [CI, 1.01 to 2.19]; RD, 3.5%; high certainty) but did not increase frequency of gastrointestinal hemorrhage.

LIMITATIONS

There were few events and trials for many outcomes. Trials often excluded patients at high risk for adverse events.

CONCLUSION

For hospitalized adults with CAP, systemic corticosteroid therapy may reduce mortality by approximately 3%, need for mechanical ventilation by approximately 5%, and hospital stay by approximately 1 day.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Corticosteroids in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia: an evidence summary

A strong inflammatory response to community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is associated with excess morbidity and mortality. There is a growing interest in corticosteroids as an adjunctive treatment for patients hospitalized with CAP. We review recent randomized trials addressing the use of corticosteroids across the full range of CAP patients. Thirteen randomized controlled trials including 2005 patients have addressed the effect of short-term (single dose to 10 days) corticosteroid administration in patients with CAP. The results consistently show a shorter time to clinical stability and a shorter length of hospital stay on the order of 1 day. Some studies have also suggested a possible reduction in mortality. Adverse effects, primarily hyperglycemia and neuropsychiatric symptoms, are uncommon and neither serious nor prolonged. The results indicate a possibility that steroid administration should become a standard of care for patients with CAP.

Using root cause analysis and form redesign to reduce incorrect ordering of HIV tests

BACKGROUND

Advances in molecular biology and changes in microbial nomenclature may subject diagnostic microbiology to errors. A patient diagnosed with Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia and then with AIDS had received a negative "AIDS test"--"negative for antibodies to HTLV 1 and 2." The test requisition showed that the physician had requested HTLV-I/II testing but not an HIV-1/2 test. A root cause analysis was performed to determine if the erroneous testing represented a systemic problem. A study was conducted to identify and address such testing errors.

METHODS

For the 1,952 HTLV-I/II test requests in a 17-month period in the Southern Alberta region, a random representative sample of 555 requests for HTLV-I/II testing were evaluated for appropriateness. Physicians ordering "inappropriate" tests were surveyed to determine root causes, and the HTLV-I/II check box was subsequently removed from the requisition.

RESULTS

Some 318 (94%) of the 340 clinically directed HTLV tests were likely or definitely inappropriate--that is, only an HIV-1/2 test was required. At least 81% (127/156) of the 8% (156/1,948) of the HTLV-I/II tests ordered without an HIV-1/2 test concurrently were ordered inappropriately. In the telephone survey, all 69 physicians suspected to have incorrectly ordered HTLV-I/II tests reported erroneously requesting HTLV for HIV. A root cause analysis identified confusing viral nomenclature, diagnostic testing menu, and form design as contributing factors. A requisition recall and redesign has reduced erroneous laboratory testing.

CONCLUSIONS

A high proportion of HTLV-I/II tests were ordered erroneously and confused with HIV-1/2. Careful attention to routine test menus and form design, including the exclusion of rare and confusing pathogens, reduces risk of error for practicing physicians.

The persisting burden of invasive pneumococcal disease in HIV patients: an observational cohort study

Background

The increasing use of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) and pneumococcal immunization along with shifting community exposures may have altered the burden of Streptococcus pneumoniae disease in HIV-infected persons. We describe the burden and risk factors for pneumococcal disease in the modern era of HIV care and evaluate the use of a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV-23).

Methods

The incidence of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) between January 1^st, 2000 and January 1^st, 2010 in a regional HIV population in Southern Alberta, Canada was determined by linking comprehensive laboratory and hospital surveillance data. Clinical and epidemiologic data including risk factors for S. pneumoniae, history of pneumococcal immunization, serotypes of infections, and length of any hospitalizations for pneumococcal disease were evaluated with multivariate analysis. CD4 count and viral load at immunization were evaluated with a nested case-control analysis.

Results

In 1946 HIV-patients with 11,099 person-years of follow up, there were 68 distinct episodes of pneumococcal disease occurring in 50 patients. Increased risk was seen if female, age >60, Aboriginal ethnicity, lower education, injection drug use, smoking, nadir CD4 <200/μL, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and hepatitis C. Overall, the incidence of IPD was 342/100,000 person-years and was reduced to 187/100,000 within three years of PPV-23 immunization (P < 0.01). Although 78% of patients received PPV-23, 74% of IPD episodes were caused by PPV-23 serotypes. In a case-control analysis, HIV viral load at immunization was significantly predictive of PPV-23 failure, while CD4 count was not. 80% of IPD cases required hospitalization: median length of stay was 7 days (range: 1-71); four patients died.

Conclusions

Despite universal access to intensive measures to prevent pneumococcal disease including the widespread use of HAART and PPV-23 immunization, the incidence of IPD remains high in HIV patients with its associated morbidity and mortality.