Antibiotics for acute otitis media in children

BACKGROUND

Acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common diseases in childhood for which antibiotics are commonly prescribed; a systematic review reported a pooled prevalence of 85.6% in high-income countries. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in the Cochrane Library in 1997 and updated in 1999, 2005, 2009, 2013 and 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antibiotics for children with AOM.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Current Contents, CINAHL, LILACS and two trial registers. The date of the search was 14 February 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing 1) antimicrobial drugs with placebo, and 2) immediate antibiotic treatment with expectant observation (including delayed antibiotic prescribing) in children with AOM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion and extracted data using the standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were: 1) pain at various time points (24 hours, two to three days, four to seven days, 10 to 14 days), and 2) adverse effects likely to be related to the use of antibiotics. Secondary outcomes were: 1) abnormal tympanometry findings, 2) tympanic membrane perforation, 3) contralateral otitis (in unilateral cases), 4) AOM recurrences, 5) serious complications related to AOM and 6) long-term effects (including the number of parent-reported AOM symptom episodes, antibiotic prescriptions and health care utilisation as assessed at least one year after randomisation). We used the GRADE approach to rate the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome of interest.

MAIN RESULTS

Antibiotics versus placebo We included 13 trials (3401 children and 3938 AOM episodes) from high-income countries, which we assessed at generally low risk of bias. Antibiotics do not reduce pain at 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.01; 5 trials, 1394 children; high-certainty evidence), or at four to seven days (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.14; 7 trials, 1264 children), but result in almost a third fewer children having pain at two to three days (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.88; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 20; 7 trials, 2320 children; high-certainty evidence), and likely result in two-thirds fewer having pain at 10 to 12 days (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66; NNTB 7; 1 trial, 278 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Antibiotics increase the risk of adverse events such as vomiting, diarrhoea or rash (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.63; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 14; 8 trials, 2107 children; high-certainty evidence). Antibiotics reduce the risk of children having abnormal tympanometry findings at two to four weeks (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96; NNTB 11; 7 trials, 2138 children), slightly reduce the risk of experiencing tympanic membrane perforations (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.89; NNTB 33; 5 trials, 1075 children) and halve the risk of contralateral otitis episodes (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.95; NNTB 11; 4 trials, 906 children). However, antibiotics do not reduce the risk of abnormal tympanometry findings at six to eight weeks (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.13; 3 trials, 953 children) and at three months (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.34; 3 trials, 809 children) or late AOM recurrences (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.11; 6 trials, 2200 children). Severe complications were rare, and the evidence suggests that serious complications do not differ between children treated with either antibiotics or placebo. Immediate antibiotics versus expectant observation We included six trials (1556 children) from high-income countries. The evidence suggests that immediate antibiotics may result in a reduction of pain at two to three days (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.79; NNTB 8; 1 trial, 396 children; low-certainty evidence), but probably do not reduce the risk of pain at three to seven days (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.12; 4 trials, 959 children; moderate-certainty evidence), and may not reduce the risk of pain at 11 to 14 days (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10; 1 trial, 247 children; low-certainty evidence). Immediate antibiotics increase the risk of vomiting, diarrhoea or rash (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.51; NNTH 10; 3 trials, 946 children; high-certainty evidence). Immediate antibiotics probably do not reduce the proportion of children with abnormal tympanometry findings at four weeks and evidence suggests that immediate antibiotics may not reduce the risk of tympanic membrane perforation and AOM recurrences. No serious complications occurred in either group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review reveals that antibiotics probably have no effect on pain at 24 hours, a slight effect on pain in the days following and only a modest effect on the number of children with tympanic perforations, contralateral otitis episodes and abnormal tympanometry findings at two to four weeks compared with placebo in children with AOM. In high-income countries, most cases of AOM spontaneously remit without complications. The benefits of antibiotics must be weighed against the possible harms: for every 14 children treated with antibiotics, one child experienced an adverse event (such as vomiting, diarrhoea or rash) that would not have occurred if antibiotics were withheld. For most children with mild disease in high-income countries, an expectant observational approach seems justified. Therefore, clinical management should emphasise advice about adequate analgesia and the limited role for antibiotics.

Efficacy of sustained knowledge translation (KT) interventions in chronic disease management in older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of complex interventions

BACKGROUND

Chronic disease management (CDM) through sustained knowledge translation (KT) interventions ensures long-term, high-quality care. We assessed implementation of KT interventions for supporting CDM and their efficacy when sustained in older adults.

METHODS

Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis engaging 17 knowledge users using integrated KT.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults (> 65 years old) with chronic disease(s), their caregivers, health and/or policy-decision makers receiving a KT intervention to carry out a CDM intervention for at least 12 months (versus other KT interventions or usual care).

INFORMATION SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from each database's inception to March 2020.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Sustainability, fidelity, adherence of KT interventions for CDM practice, quality of life (QOL) and quality of care (QOC). Data extraction, risk of bias (ROB) assessment: We screened, abstracted and appraised articles (Effective Practice and Organisation of Care ROB tool) independently and in duplicate.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We performed both random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses and estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data.

RESULTS

We included 158 RCTs (973,074 participants [961,745 patients, 5540 caregivers, 5789 providers]) and 39 companion reports comprising 329 KT interventions, involving patients (43.2%), healthcare providers (20.7%) or both (10.9%). We identified 16 studies described as assessing sustainability in 8.1% interventions, 67 studies as assessing adherence in 35.6% interventions and 20 studies as assessing fidelity in 8.7% of the interventions. Most meta-analyses suggested that KT interventions improved QOL, but imprecisely (36 item Short-Form mental [SF-36 mental]: MD 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] [- 1.25, 3.47], 14 RCTs, 5876 participants, I2 = 96%; European QOL-5 dimensions: MD 0.01, 95% CI [- 0.01, 0.02], 15 RCTs, 6628 participants, I2 = 25%; St George's Respiratory Questionnaire: MD - 2.12, 95% CI [- 3.72, - 0.51] 44 12 RCTs, 2893 participants, I2 = 44%). KT interventions improved QOC (OR 1.55, 95% CI [1.29, 1.85], 12 RCTS, 5271 participants, I2 = 21%).

CONCLUSIONS

KT intervention sustainability was infrequently defined and assessed. Sustained KT interventions have the potential to improve QOL and QOC in older adults with CDM. However, their overall efficacy remains uncertain and it varies by effect modifiers, including intervention type, chronic disease number, comorbidities, and participant age.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018084810.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

BACKGROUND

Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020. We include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and two trials registers in October 2022, with backwards and forwards citation analysis on the new studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, glasses, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included 12 trials (10 cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI)/COVID-19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza/SARS-CoV-2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low-certainty evidence).  One previously reported ongoing RCT has now been published and observed that medical/surgical masks were non-inferior to N95 respirators in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID-19 patients.  Hand hygiene compared to control Nineteen trials compared hand hygiene interventions with controls with sufficient data to include in meta-analyses. Settings included schools, childcare centres and homes. Comparing hand hygiene interventions with controls (i.e. no intervention), there was a 14% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.90; 9 trials, 52,105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 380 events per 1000 people to 327 per 1000 people (95% CI 308 to 342). When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; 11 trials, 34,503 participants; low-certainty evidence), and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials, 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence), suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled 19 trials (71, 210 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. Pooled data showed that hand hygiene may be beneficial with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 200 events per 1000 people to 178 per 1000 people (95% CI 166 to 188). Few trials measured and reported harms (very low-certainty evidence). We found no RCTs on gowns and gloves, face shields, or screening at entry ports.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

Anticholinergic burden measures, symptoms, and fall-associated risk in older adults with polypharmacy: Development and validation of a prognostic model

BACKGROUND

Anticholinergic burden has been associated with adverse outcomes such as falls. To date, no gold standard measure has been identified to assess anticholinergic burden, and no conclusion has been drawn on which of the different measure algorithms best predicts falls in older patients from general practice. This study compared the ability of five measures of anticholinergic burden to predict falls. To account for patients' individual susceptibility to medications, the added predictive value of typical anticholinergic symptoms was further quantified in this context.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

To predict falls, models were developed and validated based on logistic regression models created using data from two German cluster-randomized controlled trials. The outcome was defined as "≥ 1 fall" vs. "no fall" within a 6-month follow-up period. Data from the RIME study (n = 1,197) were used in model development, and from PRIMUM (n = 502) for external validation. The models were developed step-wise in order to quantify the predictive ability of anticholinergic burden measures, and anticholinergic symptoms. In the development set, 1,015 patients had complete data and 188 (18.5%) experienced ≥ 1 fall within the 6-month follow-up period. The overall predictive value of the five anticholinergic measures was limited, with neither the employed anticholinergic variable (binary / count / burden), nor dose-dependent or dose-independent measures differing significantly in their ability to predict falls. The highest c-statistic was obtained using the German Anticholinergic Burden Score (0.73), whereby the optimism-corrected c-statistic was 0.71 after interval validation using bootstrapping and 0.63 in the external validation. Previous falls and dizziness / vertigo had the strongest prognostic value in all models.

CONCLUSIONS

The ability of anticholinergic burden measures to predict falls does not appear to differ significantly, and the added value they contribute to risk classification in fall-prediction models is limited. Previous falls and dizziness / vertigo contributed most to model performance.

Amitriptyline's anticholinergic adverse drug reactions-A systematic multiple-indication review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Half the US population uses drugs with anticholinergic properties. Their potential harms may outweigh their benefits. Amitriptyline is among the most frequently prescribed anticholinergic medicinal products, is used for multiple indications, and rated as strongly anticholinergic. Our objective was to explore and quantify (anticholinergic) adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in patients taking amitriptyline vs. placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults and healthy individuals.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases from their inception until 09/2022, and clinical trial registries from their inception until 09/2022. We also performed manual reference searches. Two independent reviewers selected RCTs with ≥100 participants of ≥18 years, that compared amitriptyline (taken orally) versus placebo for all indications. No language restrictions were applied. One reviewer extracted study data, ADRs, and assessed study quality, which two others verified. The primary outcome was frequency of anticholinergic ADRs as a binary outcome (absolute number of patients with/without anticholinergic ADRs) in amitriptyline vs. placebo groups.

RESULTS

Twenty-three RCTs (mean dosage 5mg to 300mg amitriptyline/day) and 4217 patients (mean age 40.3 years) were included. The most frequently reported anticholinergic ADRs were dry mouth, drowsiness, somnolence, sedation, fatigue, constitutional, and unspecific anticholinergic ADRs. Random-effects meta-analyses showed anticholinergic ADRs had a higher odd's ratio for amitriptyline versus placebo (OR = 7.41; [95% CI, 4.54 to 12.12]). Non-anticholinergic ADRs were as frequent for amitriptyline as placebo. Meta-regression analysis showed anticholinergic ADRs were not dose-dependent.

DISCUSSION

The large OR in our analysis shows that ADRs indicative of anticholinergic activities can be attributed to amitriptyline. The low average age of participants in our study may limit the generalizability of the frequency of anticholinergic ADRs in older patients. A lack of dose-dependency may reflect limited reporting of the daily dosage when the ADRs occurred. The exclusion of small studies (<100 participants) decreased heterogeneity between studies, but may also have reduced our ability to detect rare events. Future studies should focus on older people, as they are more susceptible to anticholinergic ADRs.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD42020111970.

Antibiotics for treatment of sore throat in children and adults

BACKGROUND

Sore throat is a common reason for people to present for medical care and to be prescribed antibiotics. Overuse of antibiotics in primary medicine is a concern, hence it is important to establish their efficacy in treating sore throat and preventing secondary complications.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antibiotics for reducing symptoms of sore throat for child and adult patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL 2021, Issue 2, MEDLINE (January 1966 to April week 1, 2021), Embase (January 1990 to April 2021), and two trial registries (searched 6 April 2021).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of antibiotics versus control assessing typical sore throat symptoms or complications amongst children and adults seeking medical care for sore throat symptoms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion and extracted data, resolving any differences in opinion by discussion. We contacted the trial authors from three studies for additional information. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for the efficacy of antibiotics on our primary outcomes (sore throat at day three and one week) and secondary outcomes (fever and headache symptoms and incidence of acute rheumatic fever, acute glomerulonephritis, acute otitis media, acute sinusitis, and quinsy).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 trials with 15,337 cases of sore throat. The majority of included studies were conducted in the 1950s, during which time the rates of serious complications (especially acute rheumatic fever) were much higher than today. Although clinical antibiotic trials for sore throat and respiratory symptoms are still being conducted, it is unusual for them to include placebo or 'no treatment' control arms, which is a requirement for inclusion in the review. The age of participants ranged from younger than one year to older than 50 years, but most participants across all studies were adults. Although all studies recruited patients presenting with symptoms of sore throat, few of them distinguished between bacterial and viral aetiology. Bias may have been introduced through non-clarity in treatment allocation procedures and lack of blinding in some studies. Harms from antibiotics were poorly or inconsistently reported, and were thus not quantified for this review. 1. Symptoms Throat soreness and headache at day three were reduced by using antibiotics, although 82% of participants in the placebo or no treatment group were symptom-free by one week. The reduction in sore throat symptoms at day three (risk ratio (RR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.80; 16 studies, 3730 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) was greater than at one week in absolute numbers (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.75; 14 studies, 3083 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) due to many cases in both treatment groups having resolved by this time. The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) to prevent one sore throat at day three was less than six; at week one it was 18. Compared with placebo or no treatment, antibiotics did not significantly reduce fever at day three (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.07; 8 studies, 1443 participants; high-certainty evidence), but did reduce headache at day three (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.70; 4 studies, 1020 participants; high-certainty evidence). 2. Suppurative complications Whilst the prevalence of suppurative complications was low, antibiotics reduced the incidence of acute otitis media within 14 days (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.40; 10 studies, 3646 participants; high-certainty evidence) and quinsy within two months (Peto OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.35; 8 studies, 2433 participants; high-certainty evidence) compared to those receiving placebo or no treatment, but not acute sinusitis within 14 days (Peto OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.05; 8 studies, 2387 participants; high-certainty evidence). 3. Non-suppurative complications There were too few cases of acute glomerulonephritis to determine whether there was a protective effect of antibiotics compared with placebo against this complication (Peto OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.32; 10 studies, 5147 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antibiotics reduced acute rheumatic fever within two months when compared to the control group (Peto OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.50; 18 studies, 12,249 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It should be noted that the overall prevalence of acute rheumatic fever was very low, particularly in the later studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotics probably reduce the number of people experiencing sore throat, and reduce the likelihood of headache, and some sore throat complications. As the effect on symptoms can be small, clinicians must judge on an individual basis whether it is clinically justifiable to use antibiotics to produce this effect, and whether the underlying cause of the sore throat is likely to be of bacterial origin. Furthermore, the balance between modest symptom reduction and the potential hazards of antimicrobial resistance must be recognised. Few trials have attempted to measure symptom severity. If antibiotics reduce the severity as well as the duration of symptoms, their benefit will have been underestimated in this meta-analysis. Additionally, more trials are needed in low-income countries, in socio-economically deprived sections of high-income countries, as well as in children.

Predicting negative health outcomes in older general practice patients with chronic illness: Rationale and development of the PROPERmed harmonized individual participant data database

The prevalence of multimorbidity and polypharmacy increases significantly with age and are associated with negative health consequences. However, most current interventions to optimize medication have failed to show significant effects on patient-relevant outcomes. This may be due to ineffectiveness of interventions themselves but may also reflect other factors: insufficient sample sizes, heterogeneity of population. To address this issue, the international PROPERmed collaboration was set up to obtain/synthesize individual participant data (IPD) from five cluster-randomized trials. The trials took place in Germany and The Netherlands and aimed to optimize medication in older general practice patients with chronic illness. PROPERmed is the first database of IPD to be drawn from multiple trials in this patient population and setting. It offers the opportunity to derive prognostic models with increased statistical power for prediction of patient-relevant outcomes resulting from the interplay of multimorbidity and polypharmacy. This may help patients from this heterogeneous group to be stratified according to risk and enable clinicians to identify patients that are likely to benefit most from resource/time-intensive interventions. The aim of this manuscript is to describe the rationale behind PROPERmed collaboration, characteristics of the included studies/participants, development of the harmonized IPD database and challenges faced during this process.

Are Anticholinergic Symptoms a Risk Factor for Falls in Older General Practice Patients With Polypharmacy? Study Protocol for the Development and Validation of a Prognostic Model

Background: Cumulative anticholinergic exposure, also known as anticholinergic burden, is associated with a variety of adverse outcomes. However, studies show that anticholinergic effects tend to be underestimated by prescribers, and anticholinergics are the most frequently prescribed potentially inappropriate medication in older patients. The grading systems and drugs included in existing scales to quantify anticholinergic burden differ considerably and do not adequately account for patients’ susceptibility to medications. Furthermore, their ability to link anticholinergic burden with adverse outcomes such as falls is unclear. This study aims to develop a prognostic model that predicts falls in older general practice patients, to assess the performance of several anticholinergic burden scales, and to quantify the added predictive value of anticholinergic symptoms in this context.

Methods: Data from two cluster-randomized controlled trials investigating medication optimization in older general practice patients in Germany will be used. One trial (RIME, n = 1,197) will be used for the model development and the other trial (PRIMUM, n = 502) will be used to externally validate the model. A priori, candidate predictors will be selected based on a literature search, predictor availability, and clinical reasoning. Candidate predictors will include socio-demographics (e.g. age, sex), morbidity (e.g. single conditions), medication (e.g. polypharmacy, anticholinergic burden as defined by scales), and well-being (e.g. quality of life, physical function). A prognostic model including sociodemographic and lifestyle-related factors, as well as variables on morbidity, medication, health status, and well-being, will be developed, whereby the prognostic value of extending the model to include additional patient-reported symptoms will be also assessed. Logistic regression will be used for the binary outcome, which will be defined as “no falls” vs. “≥1 fall” within six months of baseline, as reported in patient interviews.

Discussion: As the ability of different anticholinergic burden scales to predict falls in older patients is unclear, this study may provide insights into their relative importance as well as into the overall contribution of anticholinergic symptoms and other patient characteristics. The results may support general practitioners in their clinical decision-making and in prescribing fewer medications with anticholinergic properties.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

BACKGROUND

Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011. The evidence summarised in this review does not include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL on 1 April 2020. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP on 16 March 2020. We conducted a backwards and forwards citation analysis on the newly included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of trials investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission. In previous versions of this review we also included observational studies. However, for this update, there were sufficient RCTs to address our study aims.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Three pairs of review authors independently extracted data using a standard template applied in previous versions of this review, but which was revised to reflect our focus on RCTs and cluster-RCTs for this update. We did not contact trialists for missing data due to the urgency in completing the review. We extracted data on adverse events (harms) associated with the interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 44 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs in this update, bringing the total number of randomised trials to 67. There were no included studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Six ongoing studies were identified, of which three evaluating masks are being conducted concurrent with the COVID pandemic, and one is completed. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods, but several studies were conducted during the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Thus, studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Compliance with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included nine trials (of which eight were cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and seven in the community). There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported. Two studies during COVID-19 plan to recruit a total of 72,000 people. One evaluates medical/surgical masks (N = 6000) (published Annals of Internal Medicine, 18 Nov 2020), and one evaluates cloth masks (N = 66,000). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). There is uncertainty over the effects of N95/P2 respirators when compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcomes of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; very low-certainty evidence; 3 trials; 7779 participants) and ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; low-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). The evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirator compared to a medical/surgical mask probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; moderate-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). Restricting the pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies. One ongoing study recruiting 576 people compares N95/P2 respirators with medical surgical masks for healthcare workers during COVID-19. Hand hygiene compared to control Settings included schools, childcare centres, homes, and offices. In a comparison of hand hygiene interventions with control (no intervention), there was a 16% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.86; 7 trials; 44,129 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13; 10 trials; 32,641 participants; low-certainty evidence) and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials; 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence) suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled all 16 trials (61,372 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. The pooled data showed that hand hygiene may offer a benefit with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. Few trials measured and reported harms. There are two ongoing studies of handwashing interventions in 395 children outside of COVID-19. We identified one RCT on quarantine/physical distancing. Company employees in Japan were asked to stay at home if household members had ILI symptoms. Overall fewer people in the intervention group contracted influenza compared with workers in the control group (2.75% versus 3.18%; hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97). However, those who stayed at home with their infected family members were 2.17 times more likely to be infected. We found no RCTs on eye protection, gowns and gloves, or screening at entry ports.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low compliance with the interventions during the studies hamper drawing firm conclusions and generalising the findings to the current COVID-19 pandemic. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low-moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

BACKGROUND

Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011. The evidence summarised in this review does not include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL on 1 April 2020. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP on 16 March 2020. We conducted a backwards and forwards citation analysis on the newly included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of trials investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission. In previous versions of this review we also included observational studies. However, for this update, there were sufficient RCTs to address our study aims.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Three pairs of review authors independently extracted data using a standard template applied in previous versions of this review, but which was revised to reflect our focus on RCTs and cluster-RCTs for this update. We did not contact trialists for missing data due to the urgency in completing the review. We extracted data on adverse events (harms) associated with the interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 44 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs in this update, bringing the total number of randomised trials to 67. There were no included studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Six ongoing studies were identified, of which three evaluating masks are being conducted concurrent with the COVID pandemic, and one is completed. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods, but several studies were conducted during the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Thus, studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Compliance with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included nine trials (of which eight were cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and seven in the community). There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported. Two studies during COVID-19 plan to recruit a total of 72,000 people. One evaluates medical/surgical masks (N = 6000) (published Annals of Internal Medicine, 18 Nov 2020), and one evaluates cloth masks (N = 66,000). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). There is uncertainty over the effects of N95/P2 respirators when compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcomes of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; very low-certainty evidence; 3 trials; 7779 participants) and ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; low-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). The evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirator compared to a medical/surgical mask probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; moderate-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). Restricting the pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies. One ongoing study recruiting 576 people compares N95/P2 respirators with medical surgical masks for healthcare workers during COVID-19. Hand hygiene compared to control Settings included schools, childcare centres, homes, and offices. In a comparison of hand hygiene interventions with control (no intervention), there was a 16% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.86; 7 trials; 44,129 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13; 10 trials; 32,641 participants; low-certainty evidence) and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials; 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence) suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled all 16 trials (61,372 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. The pooled data showed that hand hygiene may offer a benefit with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. Few trials measured and reported harms. There are two ongoing studies of handwashing interventions in 395 children outside of COVID-19. We identified one RCT on quarantine/physical distancing. Company employees in Japan were asked to stay at home if household members had ILI symptoms. Overall fewer people in the intervention group contracted influenza compared with workers in the control group (2.75% versus 3.18%; hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97). However, those who stayed at home with their infected family members were 2.17 times more likely to be infected. We found no RCTs on eye protection, gowns and gloves, or screening at entry ports.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low compliance with the interventions during the studies hamper drawing firm conclusions and generalising the findings to the current COVID-19 pandemic. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low-moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.