Introduction to BMJ Rapid Recommendations

Use of induction therapy post-heart transplantation: Clinical practice recommendations based on systematic review and network meta-analysis of evidence

BACKGROUND

The use of induction therapy (IT) agents in the early post-heart transplant period remains controversial. The following recommendations aim to provide guidance on the use of IT agents, including Basiliximab and Thymoglobulin, as part of routine care in heart transplantation (HTx).

METHODS

We recruited an international, multidisciplinary panel of 15 stakeholders, including patient partners, transplant cardiologists and surgeons, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and methodologists. We commissioned a systematic review on benefits and harms of IT on patient-important outcomes, and another on patients' values and preferences to inform our recommendations. We used the GRADE framework to summarize our findings, rate certainty in the evidence, and develop recommendations. The panel considered the balance between benefits and harms, certainty in the evidence, and patient's values and preferences, to make recommendations for or against the routine post-operative use of Thymoglobulin or Basiliximab.

RESULTS

The panel made recommendations on three major clinical problems in HTx: (1) We suggest against the routine post-operative use of Basiliximab compared to no IT, (2) we suggest against the routine use of Thymoglobulin compared to no IT, and (3) for those patients for whom IT is deemed desirable, we suggest for the use of Thymoglobulin as compared to Basiliximab.

CONCLUSION

This report highlights gaps in current knowledge and provides directions for clinical research in the future to better understand the clinical utility of IT agents in the early post heart transplant period, leading to improved management and care.

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.

Management of chronic pain secondary to temporomandibular disorders: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials

OBJECTIVE

We explored the comparative effectiveness of available therapies for chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders (TMD).

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials (RCTs).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and SCOPUS were searched to May 2021, and again in January 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

Interventional RCTs that enrolled patients presenting with chronic pain associated with TMD.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Pairs of reviewers independently identified eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We captured all reported patient-important outcomes, including pain relief, physical functioning, emotional functioning, role functioning, social functioning, sleep quality, and adverse events. We conducted frequentist network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence and categorise interventions from most to least beneficial.

RESULTS

233 trials proved eligible for review, of which 153-enrolling 8713 participants and exploring 59 interventions or combinations of interventions-were included in network meta-analyses. All subsequent effects refer to comparisons with placebo or sham procedures. Effects on pain for eight interventions were supported by high to moderate certainty evidence. The three therapies probably most effective for pain relief were cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) augmented with biofeedback or relaxation therapy (risk difference (RD) for achieving the minimally important difference (MID) in pain relief of 1 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale: 36% (95% CI 33 to 39)), therapist-assisted jaw mobilisation (RD 36% (95% CI 31 to 40)), and manual trigger point therapy (RD 32% (29 to 34)). Five interventions were less effective, yet more effective than placebo, showing RDs ranging between 23% and 30%: CBT, supervised postural exercise, supervised jaw exercise and stretching, supervised jaw exercise and stretching with manual trigger point therapy, and usual care (such as home exercises, self stretching, reassurance).Moderate certainty evidence showed four interventions probably improved physical functioning: supervised jaw exercise and stretching (RD for achieving the MID of 5 points on the short form-36 physical component summary score: 43% (95% CI 33 to 51)), manipulation (RD 43% (25 to 56)), acupuncture (RD 42% (33 to 50)), and supervised jaw exercise and mobilisation (RD 36% (19 to 51)). The evidence for pain relief or physical functioning among other interventions, and all evidence for adverse events, was low or very low certainty.

CONCLUSION

When restricted to moderate or high certainty evidence, interventions that promote coping and encourage movement and activity were found to be most effective for reducing chronic TMD pain.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42021258567).

Infographic summaries for clinical practice guidelines: results from user testing of the BMJ Rapid Recommendations in primary care

OBJECTIVES

Infographics have the potential to enhance knowledge translation and implementation of clinical practice guidelines at the point of care. They can provide a synoptic view of recommendations, their rationale and supporting evidence. They should be understandable and easy to use. Little evaluation of these infographics regarding user experience has taken place. We explored general practitioners' experiences with five selected BMJ Rapid Recommendation infographics suited for primary care.

METHODS

An iterative, qualitative user testing design was applied on two consecutive groups of 10 general practitioners for five selected infographics. The physicians used the infographics before clinical encounters and we performed hybrid think-aloud interviews afterwards. 20 interviews were analysed using the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven.

RESULTS

Many clinicians reported that the infographics were simple and rewarding to use, time-efficient and easy to understand. They were perceived as innovative and their knowledge basis as trustworthy and supportive for decision-making. The interactive, expandable format was preferred over a static version as general practitioners focused mainly on the core message. Rapid access through the electronic health record was highly desirable. The main issues were about the use of complex scales and terminology. Understanding terminology related to evidence appraisal as well as the interpretation of statistics and unfamiliar scales remained difficult, despite the infographics.

CONCLUSIONS

General practitioners perceive infographics as useful tools for guideline translation and implementation in primary care. They offer information in an enjoyable and user friendly format and are used mainly for rapid, tailored and just in time information retrieval. We recommend future infographic producers to provide information as concise as possible, carefully define the core message and explore ways to enhance the understandability of statistics and difficult concepts related to evidence appraisal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

MP011977.

Insights Into Metformin XR Pharmacotherapy Knowledge Among Community Pharmacists: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background

There is a little knowledge on the extent to which healthcare providers understand and accept the professional recommendations and appropriate dosing strategy regarding metformin XR.

Objectives

To evaluate UAE community pharmacists' knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) concerning metformin XR.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional research study conducted amongst licensed community pharmacists. The survey took place via a questionnaire and physical interviews were held. The survey used in this study included questions on demographics and questions on the participants' attitudes, knowledge and practices concerning metformin XR. The factors influencing KAP regarding metformin XR were examined via simple logistic regression analysis.

Results

Threehundred fifty-three (n = 353) participants were recruited in the study. Independent pharmacies constituted 57.5% of this study sample and 42.5% were chain pharmacies. The average knowledge score about metformin XR tablets was 42.5% with a confidence interval (CI) of 95% [37.3%, 47.4]. Better knowledge scores on metformin XR tablets was observed in respondents aged ⩾40 years (OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.63-5.4), having greater than 10 years in terms of experience (OR 2.28; 95% CI 1.25-4.16) and pharmacist graduated from Regional or international universities (OR 2.08; 95% CI 1.34-3.24). About 78% (n = 275) of the participants believed that metformin XR tablets have better efficacy and 63.2% (n = 233) indicated that metformin IR was associated with greater adverse effects.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated a distinct gap in knowledge, attitude and practice pertaining to metformin XR among community pharmacists in the UAE. The community pharmacists need to enhance their practice by receiving accurate and reliable data to support their decision-making on the prescribing of metformin XR. The implementation of novel guidelines and evidence dissemination strategies may help bridge this gap.

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.

Quality appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for motor neuron diseases or related disorders using the AGREE II instrument

Objectives

This study aimed to systematically assess the quality of CPGs for motor neuron diseases (MNDs) or related disorders and identify the gaps that limit evidence-based practice.

Methods

Four scientific databases and six guideline repositories were searched for eligible CPGs. Three researchers assessed the eligible CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II instrument. The distribution of the level of evidence and strength of recommendation of these CPGs were determined. The univariate regression analysis was used to explore the characteristic factors affecting the quality of CPGs.

Results

Fifteen CPGs met the eligibility criteria: 10 were for MND and 5 were for spinal muscular atrophy. The mean overall rating score was 44.5%, and only 3 of 15 CPGs were of high quality. The domains that achieved low mean scores were applicability (24.4%), rigor of development (39.9%), and stakeholder involvement (40.3%). Most recommendations were based on low-quality evidence and had a weak strength. The CPGs that were updated, meant for adults, and evidence based, and used a CPG quality tool and a grading system were associated with higher scores in certain specific domains and overall rating.

Conclusion

The overall quality of CPGs for MNDs or related disorders was poor and recommendations were largely based on low-quality evidence. Many areas still need improvement to develop high-quality CPGs, and the use of CPG quality tools should be emphasized. A great deal of research on MNDs or related disorders is still needed to fill the large evidence gap.

Acupuncture for treatment of knee osteoarthritis: A clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTION

Is acupuncture effective in treating knee osteoarthritis (KOA)?

CURRENT PRACTICE

Although increasingly used in the clinical setting, acupuncture is not mentioned or weakly recommended in guidelines for the treatment of KOA.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We suggest acupuncture rather than no treatment in adult KOA (weak recommendation, moderate certainty evidence), and acupuncture combined with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) rather than acupuncture alone when KOA symptoms are severe (weak recommendation, moderate certainty evidence), with duration of acupuncture for 4-8 weeks depending on KOA severity and treatment response (weak recommendation, moderate certainty evidence), and discussing with patients in shared decision-making.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

This rapid recommendation was developed following the Making GRADE the Irresistible Choice (MAGIC) methodological framework. First, the clinical specialist identified the topic of recommendation and demand for evidence. Then the independent evidence synthesis group performed a systematic review to summarize available evidence and evaluate the evidence using the GRADE approach. Finally, the clinical specialist group produced recommendations for practice through a consensus procedure.

THE EVIDENCE

The linked systematic review and meta-analysis included 9422 KOA patients, 61.1% of whom were women. The median mean age was 61.8 years. Compared with no treatment, acupuncture had beneficial effect on KOA in improving the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total score (moderate certainty evidence), and WOMAC pain (very low certainty evidence), WOMAC stiffness (low certainty evidence), and WOMAC function (low certainty evidence) subscale scores. Compared with usual care, acupuncture improved WOMAC stiffness subscale score (moderate certainty evidence). Subgroup analyses showed different effects in the improvement of WOMAC total scores by different durations of acupuncture and whether acupuncture combined with NSAIDs, but no difference between manual acupuncture and electroacupuncture was found.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS

Compared with no treatment, acupuncture is suggested to reduce pain, stiffness, and disfunction in KOA patients, ultimately improving the patient's health status. Acupuncture can be used as an alternative therapy when usual care is ineffective or there are adverse reactions so that patients can no longer continue the treatment. Manual acupuncture or electroacupuncture is suggested for 4-8 weeks to improve the health status of KOA. The patient's values and preferences should be considered when selecting acupuncture for KOA treatment.

Digital encounter decision aids linked to clinical practice guidelines: results from user testing SHARE-IT decision aids in primary care

BACKGROUND

Encounter decision aids (EDAs) are tools that can support shared decision making (SDM), up to the clinical encounter. However, adoption of these tools has been limited, as they are hard to produce, to keep up-to-date, and are not available for many decisions. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation has created a new generation of decision aids that are generically produced along digitally structured guidelines and evidence summaries, in an electronic authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp). We explored general practitioners' (GPs) and patients' experiences with five selected decision aids linked to BMJ Rapid Recommendations in primary care.

METHODS

We applied a qualitative user testing design to evaluate user experiences for both GPs and patients. We translated five EDAs relevant to primary care, and observed the clinical encounters of 11 GPs when they used the EDA with their patients. We conducted a semi-structured interview with each patient after the consultation and a think-aloud interview with each GPs after multiple consultations. We used the Qualitative Analysis Guide (QUAGOL) for data analysis.

RESULTS

Direct observations and user testing analysis of 31 clinical encounters showed an overall positive experience. The EDAs created better involvement in decision making and resulted in meaningful insights for patients and clinicians. The design and its interactive, multilayered structure made the tool enjoyable and well-organized. Difficult terminology, scales and numbers hindered understanding of certain information, which was sometimes perceived as too specialized or even intimidating. GPs thought the EDA was not suitable for every patient. They perceived a learning curve was required and the need for time investment was a concern. The EDAs were considered trustworthy as they were provided by a credible source.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that EDAs can be useful tools in primary care by supporting actual shared decision making and enhancing patient involvement. The graphical approach and clear representation help patients better understand their options. To overcome barriers such as health literacy and GPs attitudes, effort is still needed to make the EDAs as accessible, intuitive and inclusive as possible through use of plain language, uniform design, rapid access and training.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study protocol was approved by the The Research Ethics Committee UZ/KU Leuven (Belgium) on 31-10-2019 with reference number MP011977.

A Delphi consensus checklist helped assess the need to develop rapid guideline recommendations

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

We aimed to develop a checklist to aid guideline developers in determining which scientific or societal cause ("triggers") are relevant when considering to initiate a rapid recommendation procedure.

METHODS

We conducted a two-round modified Delphi procedure with a panel of Dutch guideline experts, clinicians, and patient representatives. A previously conducted systematic literature review and semistructured interviews with four science journalists were used to generate a list of potential items. This item list was submitted to the panel for discussion, reduction and refinement into a checklist.

RESULTS

Thirteen experts took part. Two questionnaires were completed in which participants scored an initial list of 64 items based on relevance. During two online meetings, the scores were discussed, irrelevant items were removed, and relevant items were reformulated into seven questions. The final "quickscan assessment of the need for a rapid recommendation" covers user perspective, scientific evidence, clinical relevance, clinical practice variation, applicability, quality of care and public health outcomes, and ethical/legal considerations.

CONCLUSION

The quickscan aids guideline developers in systematically assessing whether a trigger expresses a valid need for developing a rapid recommendation. Future research could focus on the applicability and validity of the checklist within guideline development programs.

Long-term and serious harms of medical cannabis and cannabinoids for chronic pain: a systematic review of non-randomised studies

OBJECTIVE

To establish the prevalence of long-term and serious harms of medical cannabis for chronic pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CENTRAL from inception to 1 April 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Non-randomised studies reporting on harms of medical cannabis or cannabinoids in adults or children living with chronic pain with ≥4 weeks of follow-up.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

A parallel guideline panel provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of adverse events for consideration. Two reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, screened the search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We used random-effects models for all meta-analyses and the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

We identified 39 eligible studies that enrolled 12 143 adult patients with chronic pain. Very low certainty evidence suggests that adverse events are common (prevalence: 26.0%; 95% CI 13.2% to 41.2%) among users of medical cannabis for chronic pain, particularly any psychiatric adverse events (prevalence: 13.5%; 95% CI 2.6% to 30.6%). Very low certainty evidence, however, indicates serious adverse events, adverse events leading to discontinuation, cognitive adverse events, accidents and injuries, and dependence and withdrawal syndrome are less common and each typically occur in fewer than 1 in 20 patients. We compared studies with <24 weeks and ≥24 weeks of cannabis use and found more adverse events reported among studies with longer follow-up (test for interaction p<0.01). Palmitoylethanolamide was usually associated with few to no adverse events. We found insufficient evidence addressing the harms of medical cannabis compared with other pain management options, such as opioids.

CONCLUSIONS

There is very low certainty evidence that adverse events are common among people living with chronic pain who use medical cannabis or cannabinoids, but that few patients experience serious adverse events.

Safety of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the harms of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors in people who need lipid-lowering therapy.

METHODS

This systematic review included randomised controlled trials that compared PCSK9 inhibitors with placebo, standard care or active lipid-lowering comparators in people who need lipid-lowering therapy with the follow-up duration of at least 24 weeks. We summarised the relative effects for potential harms from PCSK9 inhibitors using random-effect pairwise meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) for each outcome.

RESULTS

We included 32 trials with 65 861 participants (with the median follow-up duration of 40 weeks, ranging from 24 to 146 weeks). The meta-analysis showed an incidence of injection-site reaction leading to discontinuation (absolute incidence of 15 events (95% CI 11 to 20) per 1000 persons in a 5-year time frame, high certainty evidence). PCSK9 inhibitors do not increase the risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus, neurocognitive events, cataracts or gastrointestinal haemorrhage with high certainty evidence. PCSK9 inhibitors probably do not increase the risks of myalgia or muscular pain leading to discontinuation or any adverse events leading to discontinuation with moderate evidence certainty. Given very limited evidence, PCSK9 inhibitors might not increase influenza-like symptoms leading to discontinuation (risk ratio 1.5; 95% CI 0.06 to 36.58). We did not identify credible subgroup analyses results, including shorter versus longer follow-up duration of trials.

CONCLUSIONS

PCSK9 inhibitors slightly increase the risk of severe injection-site reaction but not cataracts, gastrointestinal haemorrhage, neurocognitive events, new-onset diabetes or severe myalgia or muscular pain.

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.

Adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir when used for COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

To summarise specific adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched 32 databases through 27 October 2020. We included randomised trials comparing any of the drugs of interest to placebo or standard care, or against each other. We conducted fixed-effects pairwise meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation approach.

RESULTS

We included 16 randomised trials which enrolled 8152 patients. For most interventions and outcomes the certainty of the evidence was very low to low except for gastrointestinal adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine, which was moderate certainty. Compared with standard care or placebo, low certainty evidence suggests that remdesivir may not have an important effect on acute kidney injury (risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 27 fewer to 21 more) or cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI 12 fewer to 19 more). Low certainty evidence suggests that hydroxychloroquine may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity (RD 10 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 more to 30 more) and cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 33 more per 1000, 95% CI 18 fewer to 84 more), whereas moderate certainty evidence suggests hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea (RD 106 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 175 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 62 more per 1000, 95% CI 23 more to 110 more) compared with standard care or placebo. Low certainty evidence suggests lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea (RD 168 more per 1000, 95% CI 58 more to 330 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 160 more per 1000, 95% CI 100 more to 210 more) compared with standard care or placebo.

DISCUSSION

Hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting and may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity and cognitive dysfunction/delirium. Lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting. Remdesivir may have no important effect on risk of acute kidney injury or cognitive dysfunction/delirium. These findings provide important information to support the development of evidence-based management strategies for patients with COVID-19.

Adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir when used for COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

To summarise specific adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched 32 databases through 27 October 2020. We included randomised trials comparing any of the drugs of interest to placebo or standard care, or against each other. We conducted fixed-effects pairwise meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation approach.

RESULTS

We included 16 randomised trials which enrolled 8152 patients. For most interventions and outcomes the certainty of the evidence was very low to low except for gastrointestinal adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine, which was moderate certainty. Compared with standard care or placebo, low certainty evidence suggests that remdesivir may not have an important effect on acute kidney injury (risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 27 fewer to 21 more) or cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI 12 fewer to 19 more). Low certainty evidence suggests that hydroxychloroquine may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity (RD 10 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 more to 30 more) and cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 33 more per 1000, 95% CI 18 fewer to 84 more), whereas moderate certainty evidence suggests hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea (RD 106 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 175 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 62 more per 1000, 95% CI 23 more to 110 more) compared with standard care or placebo. Low certainty evidence suggests lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea (RD 168 more per 1000, 95% CI 58 more to 330 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 160 more per 1000, 95% CI 100 more to 210 more) compared with standard care or placebo.

DISCUSSION

Hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting and may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity and cognitive dysfunction/delirium. Lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting. Remdesivir may have no important effect on risk of acute kidney injury or cognitive dysfunction/delirium. These findings provide important information to support the development of evidence-based management strategies for patients with COVID-19.

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.

Safety of ezetimibe in lipid-lowering treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies

Objective

To determine the harms of ezetimibe in people who need lipid-lowering treatment.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

Randomised controlled trials and cohort studies.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Studies comparing ezetimibe with placebo, standard care, or other lipid-lowering agents in people who need lipid-lowering treatment with a follow-up duration of at least six months (or 24 weeks). The relative effects for potential harms of ezetimibe were pooled by use of random effect pairwise meta-analyses for randomised controlled trials and the evidence from observational studies was narratively summarised. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.

Results

48 randomised controlled trials with 28 444 participants (median follow-up 34 weeks, range 24-312 weeks) and four observational studies with 1667 participants (median follow-up 282 weeks, range 72-400 weeks) were included. The meta-analyses of randomised trials showed moderate to high certainty that ezetimibe was not associated with cancer (relative risk 1.01; 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 1.11), fractures (0.90; 0.74 to 1.10), discontinuation due to any adverse event (0.87; 0.74 to 1.03), gastrointestinal adverse events leading to discontinuation (1.34; 0.58 to 3.08), myalgia or muscular pain leading to discontinuation (0.82; 0.51 to 1.33), neurocognitive events (1.48; 0.58 to 3.81), or new-onset diabetes (0.88; 0.61 to 1.28). The narrative analysis of observational studies provided consistent findings. No credible subgroup effects were identified for the harm outcomes, including shorter versus longer follow-up duration of trials.

Conclusions

Ezetimibe results in little to no difference in adverse events or other undesirable effects compared with placebo, usual care or other lipid-lowering agents.

Review registration

PROSPERO CRD42020187437.

How to Interpret and Use a Clinical Practice Guideline or Recommendation: Users' Guides to the Medical Literature

IMPORTANCE

Clinicians may rely on recommendations from clinical practice guidelines for management of patients.

OBSERVATIONS

A clinical practice guideline is a published statement that includes recommendations that are intended to optimize patient care. In the guideline development process, a panel of experts formulates recommendation questions that guide the retrieval of evidence that is used to inform the recommendations. Typically, methods of guideline development, a summary of the supporting evidence, and a justification of the panel's decisions accompany the recommendations. To use such guidelines optimally, clinicians must understand the implications of the recommendations, assess the trustworthiness of the development process, and evaluate the extent to which the recommendations are applicable to patients in their practice settings. Helpful recommendations are clear and actionable, and explicitly specify whether they are strong or weak, are appropriate for all patients, or depend on individual patients' circumstances and values. Rigorous guidelines and recommendations are informed by appropriately conducted, up-to-date systematic reviews that consider outcomes important to patients. Because judgments are involved in the interpretation of the evidence and the process of moving from evidence to recommendations, useful guidelines consider all relevant factors that have a bearing in a clinical decision and are not influenced by conflicts of interest.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In considering a guideline's recommendations, clinicians must decide whether there are important differences between the factors the guideline panel has considered in making recommendations and their own practice setting.

How trustworthy guidelines can impact outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

If developed using rigorous methods and produced in a timely manner, clinical practice guidelines have the potential to improve patient outcomes. Although the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the challenges involved in generating reliable clinical guidance, it has also provided an opportunity to address these challenges.

RECENT FINDINGS

New research addressing drugs for COVID-19 is being produced at unprecedented rates. Incorporating this new knowledge into patient care can be daunting for the average clinician. In collaboration with the BMJ and MAGIC, the WHO has developed a living guideline initiative with the goal of providing rapid and trustworthy clinical guidance in response to practice-changing evidence. As new evidence becomes available, it is incorporated into a living network meta-analysis that informs these guidelines, which are iteratively updated. Until this point, the group has generated guidelines addressing the use of corticosteroids, remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and ivermectin for COVID-19.

SUMMARY

We provide an example of how rapid and rigorous guidelines can be accomplished, even in the setting of a pandemic, capitalizing on expertise, large and dedicated teams, and focused scope. We highlight the benefits of multifaceted knowledge dissemination through multiple formats to ensure global dissemination and in order to maximize impact.

Antibody and cellular therapies for treatment of covid-19: a living systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).

DESIGN

Living systematic review and network meta-analysis, with pairwise meta-analysis for outcomes with insufficient data.

DATA SOURCES

WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and six Chinese databases (up to 21 July 2021).

STUDY SELECTION

Trials randomising people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 to antiviral antibody therapies, blood products, or standard care or placebo. Paired reviewers determined eligibility of trials independently and in duplicate.

METHODS

After duplicate data abstraction, we performed random effects bayesian meta-analysis, including network meta-analysis for outcomes with sufficient data. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We meta-analysed interventions with ≥100 patients randomised or ≥20 events per treatment arm.

RESULTS

As of 21 July 2021, we identified 47 trials evaluating convalescent plasma (21 trials), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (5 trials), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (5 trials), bamlanivimab (4 trials), casirivimab-imdevimab (4 trials), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (2 trials), control plasma (2 trials), peripheral blood non-haematopoietic enriched stem cells (2 trials), sotrovimab (1 trial), anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg (1 trial), therapeutic plasma exchange (1 trial), XAV-19 polyclonal antibody (1 trial), CT-P59 monoclonal antibody (1 trial) and INM005 polyclonal antibody (1 trial) for the treatment of covid-19. Patients with non-severe disease randomised to antiviral monoclonal antibodies had lower risk of hospitalisation than those who received placebo: casirivimab-imdevimab (odds ratio (OR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.47); risk difference (RD) -4.2%; moderate certainty), bamlanivimab (OR 0.24 (0.06 to 0.86); RD -4.1%; low certainty), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (OR 0.31 (0.11 to 0.81); RD -3.8%; low certainty), and sotrovimab (OR 0.17 (0.04 to 0.57); RD -4.8%; low certainty). They did not have an important impact on any other outcome. There was no notable difference between monoclonal antibodies. No other intervention had any meaningful effect on any outcome in patients with non-severe covid-19. No intervention, including antiviral antibodies, had an important impact on any outcome in patients with severe or critical covid-19, except casirivimab-imdevimab, which may reduce mortality in patients who are seronegative.

CONCLUSION

In patients with non-severe covid-19, casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduces hospitalisation; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab may reduce hospitalisation. Convalescent plasma, IVIg, and other antibody and cellular interventions may not confer any meaningful benefit.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a data supplement.

FUNDING

This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR- IRSC:0579001321).

READERS' NOTE

This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Interim updates and additional study data will be posted on our website (www.covid19lnma.com).

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.

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Metformin Extended-Release Tablets Among Clinicians in China: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Background: Metformin extended-release (XR) is a once-daily alternative conventional immediate-release (IR) tablet for adults with type 2 diabetes.

Aim: This study aimed to investigate the knowledge, attitude, and practice of the use of metformin XR tablets among clinicians.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey among endocrinologists, general practitioners, and internists, who are taking routine care of adults with type 2 diabetes in health institutes at all levels in Sichuan Province, China. We designed an online questionnaire including the demographic information, knowledge, attitude, and practice about metformin XR tablets.

Results: We included 158 clinicians, 67.7% of whom were females and 63.9% were from tertiary hospitals. The median age was 39.6 years (ranging between 22 and 62 years). Only 8.2% of the clinicians correctly answered the knowledge questions, 82.3% and 62.0% of the responders assumed that metformin XR had superior efficacy and tolerability to the metformin IR, respectively. Only 46.8% of the clinicians prescribed the metformin XR based on the patient’s preference for once daily frequency.

Conclusion: The knowledge, attitude, and practice of metformin XR among Chinese clinicians need improving. Clinicians need credible information to support their clinical decision-making regarding metformin XR.

Values, preferences and burden of treatment for the initiation of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors in adult patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Assess values, preferences and burden of treatment that patients with type 2 diabetes consider when initiating glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) compared with other glucose-lowering options.

METHODS

Paired reviewers independently included studies reporting quantitative or qualitative methods to assess values, preferences and burden of treatment reported by patients with type 2 diabetes regarding the initiation of GLP-1 RA or SGLT-2i over other alternatives. A systematic search in MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until May 2020 was performed by an experienced librarian. Risk of bias was assessed with a specifically designed tool for values and preferences studies.

RESULTS

17 studies (7296 patients) proved eligible. Studies fulfilling criteria for SGLT-2i were not identified. Five studies (2662 patients) evaluated preferences for GLP-1 RA compared with other glucose-lowering medications. 12 studies (4634 patients) evaluated preferences between, at least, two kinds of GLP-1 RA or their injection devices based on the following attributes: efficacy, dose, application frequency, device characteristics. Among studies comparing GLP-1 RA to other glucose-lowering medications, some preferences were observed for dypeptil peptidase-4 inhibitors compared with once daily liraglutide. Comparing different attributes of GLP-1 RA drugs and devices, cardiovascular risk reduction, glucose lowering potential, once weekly and simple administered regimens were the most preferred.

CONCLUSIONS

As no evidence for preferences on SGLT-2i was available, only preferences for GLP-1 RA were assessed; however, evidence is still limited for the latter. Studies comparing preferences for GLP1-RA to other glucose-lowering alternatives only included twice daily or once daily injection regimens of GLP-1 RA drugs. According to our findings, once weekly alternatives are widely preferred than the formers. The extent to which patients with type 2 diabetes value reduced adverse cardiovascular and kidney outcomes, weighed benefits against harms and burden of treatment is limited and with very low certainty.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020159284.

Availability and use of number needed to treat (NNT) based decision aids for pharmaceutical interventions

Background

The number needed to treat (NNT) is a medical statistic used to gauge the efficacy of therapeutic interventions. The versatility of this absolute effect measure has allowed its use in the formulation of many decision aids to support patients and practitioners in making informed healthcare choices. With the rising number of tools available to health professionals, this review synthesizes what is known of the current NNT-based tools which depict the efficacy of pharmaceutical interventions.

Objectives

To explore the current spectrum of NNT-based decision aids accessible to health professionals with a focus on the potential utility of these devices by pharmacist practitioners.

Methods

A literature review was performed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsychINFO and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Methodology Register) for studies published between January 1st 2000 and August 29th 2019. The language was restricted to English unless an appropriate translation existed. Studies that reported NNT-based decision aids of pharmaceutical or therapeutic interventions were included. One author performed study selection and data extraction.

Results

A total of 365 records were identified, of which 19 NNT-based tools met the eligibility criteria, comprising of 8 tool databases and 11 individual decision aids. Decision aids appeared in multiple forms: databases, pictograms, graphs, interactive applications, calculators and charts. All aids were accessible online with a printer-friendly option, and very few came at a cost (e.g. requiring a subscription or access fee). The main tool innovators were the United Kingdom (UK) and United States (US), with English being the language of choice.

Conclusions

Evidence that NNT-based decision aids can contribute to greater satisfaction and involvement of patients in medical decision making is limited and inconclusive. A case for the utilization of these tools by pharmacists has yet to be fully examined in the medical research. NNT tools may provide a valuable resource to upskill pharmacists in communication of research evidence.

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.

Prophylaxis against covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

UPDATES

This is the second version (first update) of the living systematic review, replacing the previous version (available as a data supplement). When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.

OBJECTIVE

To determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).

DESIGN

Living systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).

DATA SOURCES

World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 4 March 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised trials in which people at risk of covid-19 were allocated to prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.

METHODS

After duplicate data abstraction, we conducted random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included studies using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

The second iteration of this living NMA includes 32 randomised trials which enrolled 25 147 participants and addressed 21 different prophylactic drugs; adding 21 trials (66%), 18 162 participants (75%) and 16 (76%) prophylactic drugs. Of the 16 prophylactic drugs analysed, none provided convincing evidence of a reduction in the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. For admission to hospital and mortality outcomes, no prophylactic drug proved different than standard care or placebo. Hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C combined with zinc probably increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation—risk difference for hydroxychloroquine (RD) 6 more per 1000 (95% credible interval (CrI) 2 more to 10 more); for vitamin C combined with zinc, RD 69 more per 1000 (47 more to 90 more), moderate certainty evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Much of the evidence remains very low certainty and we therefore anticipate future studies evaluating drugs for prophylaxis may change the results for SARS-CoV-2 infection, admission to hospital and mortality outcomes. Both hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C combined with zinc probably increase adverse effects.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement.

FUNDING

This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR-IRSC:0579001321).

Patient values and preferences on valve replacement for aortic stenosis: a systematic review

The review aims to summarise evidence addressing patients’ values, preferences and practical issues on deciding between transcatheter aortic valve insertion (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for aortic stenosis. We searched databases and grey literature until June 2020. We included studies of adults with aortic stenosis eliciting values and preferences about treatment, excluding medical management or palliative care. Qualitative findings were synthesised using thematic analysis, and quantitative findings were narratively described. Evidence certainty was assessed using CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We included eight studies. Findings ranged from low to very low certainty. Most studies only addressed TAVI. Studies addressing both TAVI and SAVR reported on factors affecting patients’ decision-making along with treatment effectiveness, instead of trade-offs between procedures. Willingness to accept risk varied considerably. To improve their health status, participants were willing to accept higher mortality risk than current evidence suggests for either procedure. No study explicitly addressed valve reintervention, and one study reported variability in willingness to accept shorter duration of known effectiveness of TAVI compared with SAVR. The most common themes were desire for symptom relief and improved function. Participants preferred minimally invasive procedures with shorter hospital stay and recovery. The current body of evidence on patients’ values, preferences and practical issues related to aortic stenosis management is of suboptimal rigour and reports widely disparate results regarding patients’ perceptions. These findings emphasise the need for higher quality studies to inform clinical practice guidelines and the central importance of shared decision-making to individualise care fitted to each patient.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter protein-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes at varying cardiovascular and renal risk.

DESIGN

Network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to 11 August 2020.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials comparing SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists with placebo, standard care, or other glucose lowering treatment in adults with type 2 diabetes with follow up of 24 weeks or longer. Studies were screened independently by two reviewers for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Frequentist random effects network meta-analysis was carried out and GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) used to assess evidence certainty. Results included estimated absolute effects of treatment per 1000 patients treated for five years for patients at very low risk (no cardiovascular risk factors), low risk (three or more cardiovascular risk factors), moderate risk (cardiovascular disease), high risk (chronic kidney disease), and very high risk (cardiovascular disease and kidney disease). A guideline panel provided oversight of the systematic review.

RESULTS

764 trials including 421 346 patients proved eligible. All results refer to the addition of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists to existing diabetes treatment. Both classes of drugs lowered all cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and kidney failure (high certainty evidence). Notable differences were found between the two agents: SGLT-2 inhibitors reduced admission to hospital for heart failure more than GLP-1 receptor agonists, and GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced non-fatal stroke more than SGLT-2 inhibitors (which appeared to have no effect). SGLT-2 inhibitors caused genital infection (high certainty), whereas GLP-1 receptor agonists might cause severe gastrointestinal events (low certainty). Low certainty evidence suggested that SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists might lower body weight. Little or no evidence was found for the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists on limb amputation, blindness, eye disease, neuropathic pain, or health related quality of life. The absolute benefits of these drugs vary substantially across patients from low to very high risk of cardiovascular and renal outcomes (eg, SGLT-2 inhibitors resulted in 3 to 40 fewer deaths in 1000 patients over five years; see interactive decision support tool (https://magicevidence.org/match-it/200820dist/#!/) for all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with type 2 diabetes, SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, with some differences in benefits and harms. Absolute benefits are determined by individual risk profiles of patients, with clear implications for clinical practice, as reflected in the BMJ Rapid Recommendations directly informed by this systematic review.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019153180.

Closing schools for SARS-CoV-2: a pragmatic rapid recommendation

BACKGROUND

In Belgium, schools closed during the first lockdown in March 2020, with a partial reopening in May. They fully reopened in September. During the summer, infections started to increase in the general population, speeding up in September. Some measures were taken to limit social contacts but those were insufficient to mitigate the exponential rise of infections in October. Children were still receiving all lessons at school at that time and it was questioned whether this position was tenable. We systematically compared the benefits and harms of closing primary and secondary schools and developed a recommendation.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel, including school pupils and teachers, educational experts, clinicians and researchers, produced this recommendation in compliance with the standards for trustworthy rapid guidelines. The recommendation is based on data collected through national surveillance or studies from Belgium, and supported by a rapid literature review.

RESULTS

Closing schools during the first lockdown probably resulted in a large learning delay and possibly led to more cases of child abuse. We are uncertain about the effect on the infection rate, hospitalisations, transmission rates, mental health of children, teachers and parents. The panel concluded that the balance of benefits and harms of closing schools clearly shifts against closing schools. Detrimental effects are even worse for vulnerable children. This recommendation is affected by the local virus circulation.

CONCLUSION

The guideline panel issues a strong recommendation against closing schools when the virus circulation is low to moderate, and a weak recommendation against closing schools when the virus circulation is high. It does not apply when the school system cannot function due to lack of teachers, too many children who are at home or a shortage of support services. As the results of international studies are consistent with Belgian study results, this recommendation may also be relevant internationally.

A framework for practical issues was developed to inform shared decision-making tools and clinical guidelines

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to develop and test feasibility of a framework of patient-important practical issues.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Guidelines and shared decision-making tools help facilitate discussions about patient-important outcomes of care alternatives, but typically ignore practical issues patients consider when implementing care into their daily routines. Using grounded theory, practical issues in the HealthTalk.org registry and in Option Grids were identified and categorized into a framework. We integrated the framework into the MAGIC authoring and publication platform and digitally structured authoring and publication platform and appraised its use in The BMJ Rapid Recommendations.

RESULTS

The framework included the following 15 categories: medication routine, tests and visits, procedure and device, recovery and adaptation, coordination of care, adverse effects, interactions and antidote, physical well-being, emotional well-being, pregnancy and nursing, costs and access, food and drinks, exercise and activities, social life and relationships, work and education, travel and driving. Implementation in 15 BMJ Rapid Recommendations added 283 issues to 35 recommendations. The most frequently used category was procedure and device, and the least frequent was social life and relationship.

CONCLUSION

Adding practical issues systematically to evidence summaries is feasible and can inform guidelines and tools for shared decision-making. How this inclusion can improve patient-centered care remains to be determined.

Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).

DESIGN

Living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 3 December 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 1 December 2021 were included in the analysis.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.

METHODS

After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance.

RESULTS

463 trials enrolling 166 581 patients were included; 267 (57.7%) trials and 89 814 (53.9%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 265 (57.2%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, three drugs reduced mortality in patients with mostly severe disease with at least moderate certainty: systemic corticosteroids (risk difference 23 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 40 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), interleukin-6 receptor antagonists when given with corticosteroids (23 fewer per 1000, 36 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), and Janus kinase inhibitors (44 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 20 fewer, high certainty). Compared with standard care, two drugs probably reduce hospital admission in patients with non-severe disease: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (36 fewer per 1000, 41 fewer to 26 fewer, moderate certainty) and molnupiravir (19 fewer per 1000, 29 fewer to 5 fewer, moderate certainty). Remdesivir may reduce hospital admission (29 fewer per 1000, 40 fewer to 6 fewer, low certainty). Only molnupiravir had at least moderate quality evidence of a reduction in time to symptom resolution (3.3 days fewer, 4.8 fewer to 1.6 fewer, moderate certainty); several others showed a possible benefit. Several drugs may increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation; hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of mechanical ventilation (moderate certainty).

CONCLUSION

Corticosteroids, interleukin-6 receptor antagonists, and Janus kinase inhibitors probably reduce mortality and confer other important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir probably reduce admission to hospital in patients with non-severe covid-19.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material.

READERS' NOTE

This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fifth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.

Remdesivir for severe covid-19: a clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTION

What is the role of remdesivir in the treatment of severe covid-19? This guideline was triggered by the ACTT-1 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine on 22 May 2020.

CURRENT PRACTICE

Remdesivir has received worldwide attention as a potentially effective treatment for severe covid-19. After rapid market approval in the US, remdesivir is already being used in clinical practice.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The guideline panel makes a weak recommendation for the use of remdesivir in severe covid-19 while recommending continuation of active enrolment of patients into ongoing randomised controlled trials examining remdesivir.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

An international panel of patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The recommendations are based on a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis. The panel considered an individual patient perspective and allowed contextual factors (such as resources) to be taken into account for countries and healthcare systems.

THE EVIDENCE

The linked systematic review (published 31 Jul 2020) identified two randomised trials with 1300 participants, showing low certainty evidence that remdesivir may be effective in reducing time to clinical improvement and may decrease mortality in patients with severe covid-19. Remdesivir probably has no important effect on need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Remdesivir may have little or no effect on hospital length of stay.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION

Most patients with severe covid-19 would likely choose treatment with remdesivir given the potential reduction in time to clinical improvement. However, given the low certainty evidence for critical outcomes and the fact that different perspectives, values, and preferences may alter decisions regarding remdesivir, the panel issued a weak recommendation with strong support for continued recruitment in randomised trials.

Proceedings of the Guideline Workshop 2019: Strategies for the Optimization of Guideline Processes in Diabetes, Cardiovascular Diseases, and Kidney Diseases

The Guideline Workshop 2019, held in October 2019 in Munich, Germany, had the purpose of facilitating discussion on strategies for optimization of guideline processes in diabetes among a group of representatives of renown national and international societies in the field of diabetes, cardiology, and nephrology. Results of this panel's discussions are presented in this article and comprise a variety of suggestions for improving the quality and usability of guidelines, as well as to accelerate the development and responsiveness of guidelines to newly published, relevant data from clinical trials such as cardiovascular outcome trials in diabetes mellitus. These include, but are not limited to, recommendations to optimize presentation of content in guidelines, use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to rating the quality of evidence to harmonize guidelines, and utilization of digital health technologies to accelerate, streamline, and optimize communication on relevant data and development of clinical guidelines and necessary updates, while reducing costs. Recognizing that achieving alignment in guideline development among various medical organizations will be a long-term process, representatives from cross-sectional medical organizations relevant to cardio/renal metabolic disease and experts in guideline methodology will work together in the future. Among other activities, it is planned to continue the activity and organize a Guideline Workshop in 2020.

Misinformation During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Outbreak: How Knowledge Emerges From Noise

Although the amount of information generated during this most recent coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is enormous, much is of uncertain trustworthiness. This review summaries the many potential sources of information that clinicians turn to during pandemic illness, the challenges associated with performing methodologically sound research in this setting and potential approaching to conducting well done research during a health crisis.

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.

Antifungal agents for invasive candidiasis in non-neutropenic critically ill adults: What do the guidelines recommend?

OBJECTIVES

Recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPG) may differ and cause confusion. Our objective was to appraise CPGs for antifungal treatment of invasive candidiasis (IC) in non-neutropenic critically ill adult patients.

METHODS

We systematically searched the literature for CPGs published between 2008 and 2018. We assessed the quality of each guideline using six domains of the AGREE II instrument. We extracted and compared recommendations for different treatment strategies and assessed content quality.

RESULTS

Of 19 guidelines, the mean overall AGREE II score was 58%. The domain 'clarity of presentation' received the highest scores (88%) and 'applicability' the lowest (18%). CPGs provided detailed recommendations on antifungal prophylaxis (n = 10), with fluconazole recommended as initial prophylaxis in all seven CPGs citing a specific drug. Echinocandin was recommended as the initial drug in all 16 CPGs supporting empirical/pre-emptive treatment; and in 18 of 19 for targeted invasive candidiasis treatment. However, it remains unclear when to initiate prophylaxis, empirical or pre-emptive therapy or when to step down.

CONCLUSIONS

The methodological quality of CPGs for antifungal treatment of IC in non-neutropenic critically ill patients is suboptimal. Some treatment recommendations were inconsistent across indications and require local guidance to help clinicians make better informed decisions.

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.

Colorectal cancer screening with faecal testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate effectiveness, harms and burdens of faecal blood testing, sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer over 15 years.

DESIGN

We performed an update of a Cochrane systematic review, and performed network meta-analysis comparing randomised trials evaluating colorectal cancer screening with guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) (annual, biennial), faecal immunochemical test (FIT) (annual, biennial), sigmoidoscopy (once-only) or colonoscopy (once-only) in a healthy population, aged 50-79 years. We conducted subgroup analysis on sex. Follow-up >5 years was required for analysis of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.

RESULTS

12 randomised trials proved eligible. Compared with no-screening, we found high certainty evidence for sigmoidoscopy screening slightly reducing colorectal cancer incidence (relative risk (RR) 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI 0.70 to 0.83) and mortality (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.80), while gFOBT screening had little or no difference on colorectal cancer incidence, but slightly reduced colorectal cancer mortality (annual: RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86, biennial: RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.82 to 0.93). No screening test reduced mortality nor incidence by more than six per 1000 screened over 15 years. Sigmoidoscopy had a greater effect in men, for both colorectal cancer incidence (women: RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.81 to 0.92, men: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.79), and mortality (women: RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.96, men: RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.75) (moderate certainty).

CONCLUSIONS

In a 15-year perspective, sigmoidoscopy reduces colorectal cancer incidence, while sigmoidoscopy, annual and biennial gFOBT all reduce colorectal cancer mortality. Sigmoidoscopy may reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality more in men than in women.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018093401.

Corticosteroids in Sepsis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis addresses the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in critically ill patients with sepsis.

DATA SOURCES

We updated a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and LILACS, and unpublished sources for randomized controlled trials that compared any corticosteroid to placebo or no corticosteroid in critically ill children and adults with sepsis.

STUDY SELECTION

Reviewers conducted duplicate screening of citations, data abstraction, and, using a modified Cochrane risk of bias tool, individual study risk of bias assessment.

DATA EXTRACTION

A parallel guideline committee provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including the selection of outcomes important to patients. We assessed overall certainty in evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology and performed all analyses using random-effect models. For subgroup analyses, we performed metaregression and considered p value less than 0.05 as significant.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Forty-two randomized controlled trials including 10,194 patients proved eligible. Based on low certainty, corticosteroids may achieve a small reduction or no reduction in the relative risk of dying in the short-term (28-31 d) (relative risk, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.84-1.03; 1.8% absolute risk reduction; 95% CI, 4.1% reduction to 0.8% increase), and possibly achieve a small effect on long-term mortality (60 d to 1 yr) based on moderate certainty (relative risk, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-1.00; 2.2% absolute risk reduction; 95% CI, 4.1% reduction to no effect). Corticosteroids probably result in small reductions in length of stay in ICU (mean difference, -0.73 d; 95% CI, -1.78 to 0.31) and hospital (mean difference, -0.73 d; 95% CI, -2.06 to 0.60) (moderate certainty). Corticosteroids result in higher rates of shock reversal at day 7 (relative risk, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.12-1.42) and lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores at day 7 (mean difference, -1.39; 95% CI, -1.88 to -0.89) (high certainty). Corticosteroids likely increase the risk of hypernatremia (relative risk, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.32-2.03) and hyperglycemia (relative risk, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.08-1.24) (moderate certainty), may increase the risk of neuromuscular weakness (relative risk, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.52) (low certainty), and appear to have no other adverse effects (low or very low certainty). Subgroup analysis did not demonstrate a credible subgroup effect on any of the outcomes of interest (p > 0.05 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill patients with sepsis, corticosteroids possibly result in a small reduction in mortality while also possibly increasing the risk of neuromuscular weakness.

Developing and applying a 'living guidelines' approach to WHO recommendations on maternal and perinatal health

How should the WHO most efficiently keep its global recommendations up to date? In this article we describe how WHO developed and applied a 'living guidelines' approach to its maternal and perinatal health (MPH) recommendations, based on a systematic and continuous process of prioritisation and updating. Using this approach, 25 new or updated WHO MPH recommendations have been published in 2017-2018. The new approach helps WHO ensure its guidance is responsive to emerging evidence and remains up to date for end users.