Claims for improved survival from systemic corticosteroids in diverse conditions: an umbrella review

Typhoid fever

Typhoid fever is an invasive bacterial disease associated with bloodstream infection that causes a high burden of disease in Africa and Asia. Typhoid primarily affects individuals ranging from infants through to young adults. The causative organism, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Typhi is transmitted via the faecal-oral route, crossing the intestinal epithelium and disseminating to systemic and intracellular sites, causing an undifferentiated febrile illness. Blood culture remains the practical reference standard for diagnosis of typhoid fever, where culture testing is available, but novel diagnostic modalities are an important priority under investigation. Since 2017, remarkable progress has been made in defining the global burden of both typhoid fever and antimicrobial resistance; in understanding disease pathogenesis and immunological protection through the use of controlled human infection; and in advancing effective vaccination programmes through strategic multipartner collaboration and targeted clinical trials in multiple high-incidence priority settings. This Primer thus offers a timely update of progress and perspective on future priorities for the global scientific community.

A pragmatic randomized controlled trial of standard care versus steroids plus standard care for treatment of pneumonia in adults admitted to Kenyan hospitals (SONIA)

Background: It is unclear if adjunctive steroid therapy reduces mortality in community-acquired pneumonia, as very few studies have had mortality as a primary outcome. This question has become even more relevant following demonstration of a mortality benefit of dexamethasone when used in patients with COVID-19 who had severe disease. This has led to increased prescription of steroids in adults with community acquired pneumonia in low-resource settings even when their COVID-19 diagnosis is uncertain due to low testing rates. This pragmatic parallel randomised-controlled open-label trial will determine if adjunctive low-dose steroids for treatment of adults admitted to hospital with community acquired pneumonia whose SARS-CoV-2 status is either unknown or negative reduces mortality. Methods: We will enroll and randomize 2180 patients admitted with a clinical diagnosis of community acquired pneumonia into two arms; in Stratum A-participants will receive standard care for the treatment of community acquired pneumonia. In Stratum B-participants will receive a 10-day course of low-dose oral corticosteroids in addition to standard care. All participants will be followed up to 30 days post randomization and their final status recorded (alive or dead). An immunology sub study will be conducted on a subset of the trial participants (50 per arm) to determine the correlation of pre-existing and treatment induced immune and metabolic changes with study outcomes. Discussion: Mortality among adults admitted to hospital with community acquired pneumonia in resource-limited settings is high. Steroids are readily available in these settings. If the addition of steroids to standard care for community acquired pneumonia is found to be beneficial, this easily scalable intervention would significantly reduce the currently high mortality associated with the illness.

The genome sequence of the acorn piercer, Pammene fasciana (Linnaeus, 1761)

We present a genome assembly from an individual male Pammene fasciana (acorn piercer; Arthropoda; Insecta; Lepidoptera; Tortricidae). The genome sequence is 564 megabases in span. The majority of the assembly (99.94%) is scaffolded into 28 chromosomal pseudomolecules with the Z sex chromosome assembled. The complete mitochondrial genome was also assembled and is 16.4 kilobases in length.

High-dose Dexamethasone in a Child With Enteric Encephalopathy Caused by Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi

Increased antimicrobial resistance to Salmonella species threatens successful treatment of typhoid and other infectious diseases. Consequently, rare complications arising from incompletely treated typhoid could increase in frequency. We describe a case of enteric encephalopathy caused by Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi and the utility of adjunct treatment with corticosteroids.

What causes psychosis? An umbrella review of risk and protective factors

Psychosis is a heterogeneous psychiatric condition for which a multitude of risk and protective factors have been suggested. This umbrella review aimed to classify the strength of evidence for the associations between each factor and psychotic disorders whilst controlling for several biases. The Web of Knowledge database was searched to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies which examined associations between socio-demographic, parental, perinatal, later factors or antecedents and psychotic disorders, and which included a comparison group of healthy controls, published from 1965 to January 31, 2017. The literature search and data extraction followed PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. The association between each factor and ICD or DSM diagnoses of non-organic psychotic disorders was graded into convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or non-significant according to a standardized classification based on: number of psychotic cases, random-effects p value, largest study 95% confidence interval, heterogeneity between studies, 95% prediction interval, small study effect, and excess significance bias. In order to assess evidence for temporality of association, we also conducted sensitivity analyses restricted to data from prospective studies. Fifty-five meta-analyses or systematic reviews were included in the umbrella review, corresponding to 683 individual studies and 170 putative risk or protective factors for psychotic disorders. Only the ultra-high-risk state for psychosis (odds ratio, OR=9.32, 95% CI: 4.91-17.72) and Black-Caribbean ethnicity in England (OR=4.87, 95% CI: 3.96-6.00) showed convincing evidence of association. Six factors were highly suggestive (ethnic minority in low ethnic density area, second generation immigrants, trait anhedonia, premorbid IQ, minor physical anomalies, and olfactory identification ability), and nine were suggestive (urbanicity, ethnic minority in high ethnic density area, first generation immigrants, North-African immigrants in Europe, winter/spring season of birth in Northern hemisphere, childhood social withdrawal, childhood trauma, Toxoplasma gondii IgG, and non-right handedness). When only prospective studies were considered, the evidence was convincing for ultra-high-risk state and suggestive for urbanicity only. In summary, this umbrella review found several factors to be associated with psychotic disorders with different levels of evidence. These risk or protective factors represent a starting point for further etiopathological research and for the improvement of the prediction of psychosis.

Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked: a report to David Sackett

This is a confession building on a conversation with David Sackett in 2004 when I shared with him some personal adventures in evidence-based medicine (EBM), the movement that he had spearheaded. The narrative is expanded with what ensued in the subsequent 12 years. EBM has become far more recognized and adopted in many places, but not everywhere, for example, it never acquired much influence in the USA. As EBM became more influential, it was also hijacked to serve agendas different from what it originally aimed for. Influential randomized trials are largely done by and for the benefit of the industry. Meta-analyses and guidelines have become a factory, mostly also serving vested interests. National and federal research funds are funneled almost exclusively to research with little relevance to health outcomes. We have supported the growth of principal investigators who excel primarily as managers absorbing more money. Diagnosis and prognosis research and efforts to individualize treatment have fueled recurrent spurious promises. Risk factor epidemiology has excelled in salami-sliced data-dredged articles with gift authorship and has become adept to dictating policy from spurious evidence. Under market pressure, clinical medicine has been transformed to finance-based medicine. In many places, medicine and health care are wasting societal resources and becoming a threat to human well-being. Science denialism and quacks are also flourishing and leading more people astray in their life choices, including health. EBM still remains an unmet goal, worthy to be attained.

Scientific hypotheses can be tested by comparing the effects of one treatment over many diseases in a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To describe the use of systematic reviews or overviews (systematic reviews of systematic reviews) to synthesize quantitative evidence of intervention effects across multiple indications (multiple-indication reviews) and to highlight issues pertaining to such reviews.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

MEDLINE was searched from 2003 to January 2014. We selected multiple-indication reviews of interventions of allopathic medicine that included evidence from randomized controlled trials. We categorized the subject areas evaluated by these reviews and examined their methodology. Utilities and caveats of multiple-indication reviews are illustrated with examples drawn from published literature.

RESULTS

We retrieved 52 multiple-indication reviews covering a wide range of interventions. The method has been used to detect unintended effects, improve precision by pooling results across indications, and examine scientific hypotheses across disease classes.

CONCLUSION

Systematic reviews of interventions are typically used to evaluate the effects of treatments, one indication at a time. Here, we argue that, with due attention to methodological caveats, much can be learned by comparing the effects of a given treatment across many related indications.

Effects of interventions on survival in acute respiratory distress syndrome: an umbrella review of 159 published randomized trials and 29 meta-analyses

PURPOSE

Multiple interventions have been tested in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We examined the entire agenda of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in ARDS that reported on mortality and of respective meta-analyses.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Knowledge until July 2013. We included RCTs in ARDS published in English. We excluded trials of newborns and children; and those on short-term interventions, ARDS prevention, or post-traumatic lung injury. We also reviewed all meta-analyses of RCTs in this field that addressed mortality. Treatment modalities were grouped in five categories: mechanical ventilation strategies and respiratory care, enteral or parenteral therapies, inhaled/intratracheal medications, nutritional support, and hemodynamic monitoring.

RESULTS

We identified 159 published RCTs of which 93 had overall mortality reported (n = 20,671 patients)--44 trials (14,426 patients) reported mortality as a primary outcome. A statistically significant survival benefit was observed in eight trials (seven interventions) and two trials reported an adverse effect on survival. Among RCTs with more than 50 deaths in at least one treatment arm (n = 21), two showed a statistically significant mortality benefit of the intervention (lower tidal volumes and prone positioning), one showed a statistically significant mortality benefit only in adjusted analyses (cisatracurium), and one (high-frequency oscillatory ventilation) showed a significant detrimental effect. Across 29 meta-analyses, the most consistent evidence was seen for low tidal volumes and prone positioning in severe ARDS.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited supportive evidence that specific interventions can decrease mortality in ARDS. While low tidal volumes and prone positioning in severe ARDS seem effective, most sporadic findings of interventions suggesting reduced mortality are not corroborated consistently in large-scale evidence including meta-analyses.

Comparative effect sizes in randomised trials from less developed and more developed countries: meta-epidemiological assessment

OBJECTIVE

To compare treatment effects from randomised trials conducted in more developed versus less developed countries.

DESIGN

Meta-epidemiological study.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (August 2012).

DATA EXTRACTION

Meta-analyses with mortality outcomes including data from at least one randomised trial conducted in a less developed country and one in a more developed country. Relative risk estimates of more versus less developed countries were compared by calculating the relative relative risks for each topic and the summary relative relative risks across all topics. Similar analyses were performed for the primary binary outcome of each topic.

RESULTS

139 meta-analyses with mortality outcomes were eligible. No nominally significant differences between more developed and less developed countries were found for 128 (92%) meta-analyses. However, differences were beyond chance in 11 (8%) cases, always showing more favourable treatment effects in trials from less developed countries. The summary relative relative risk was 1.12 (95% confidence interval 1.06 to 1.18; P<0.001; I(2)=0%), suggesting significantly more favourable mortality effects in trials from less developed countries. Results were similar for meta-analyses with nominally significant treatment effects for mortality (1.15), meta-analyses with recent trials (1.14), and when excluding trials from less developed countries that subsequently became more developed (1.12). For the primary binary outcomes (127 meta-analyses), 20 topics had differences in treatment effects beyond chance (more favourable in less developed countries in 15/20 cases).

CONCLUSIONS

Trials from less developed countries in a few cases show significantly more favourable treatment effects than trials in more developed countries and, on average, treatment effects are more favourable in less developed countries. These discrepancies may reflect biases in reporting or study design as well as genuine differences in baseline risk or treatment implementation and should be considers when generalising evidence across different settings.

Most meta-analyses of drug interventions have narrow scopes and many focus on specific agents

OBJECTIVE

To assess the extent to which meta-analysis publications of drugs and biologics focus on specific named agents or even only a single agent, and identify characteristics associated with such focus.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We evaluated 499 articles with meta-analyses published in 2010 and estimated how many did not cover all the available comparisons of tested interventions for a given condition (not all-inclusive); focused on specific named agent(s), or focused strictly on comparisons of only one specific active agent vs. placebo/no treatment or different doses/schedules.

RESULTS

Of 499 eligible articles, 403 (80.8%) were not all-inclusive, 214 (42.9%) covered only specific named agent(s), and 74 (14.8%) examined only comparisons with one active agent vs. placebo/no treatment or different doses/schedules. Only 39 articles (7.8%) covered all possible indications for the examined agent(s). After adjusting for type of treatment/field, focus on specific named agent(s) was associated with publication in journal venues (odds ratio [OR]: 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17-3.26) vs. Cochrane, industry sponsoring (OR: 3.94; 95% CI: 1.66-10.66), and individual patient data analyses (OR: 6.59; 95% CI: 2.24-19.39). Individual patient data analyses primarily (29/34) focused on specific named agent(s).

CONCLUSION

The scope of meta-analysis publications frequently is narrow and shaped to serve particular agents.