Good or best practice statements: proposal for the operationalisation and implementation of GRADE guidance.

An evidence-based approach is considered the gold standard for health decision-making. Sometimes, a guideline panel might judge the certainty that the desirable effects of an intervention clearly outweigh its undesirable effects as high, but the body of supportive evidence is indirect. In such cases, the application of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach for grading the strength of recommendations is inappropriate. Instead, the GRADE Working Group has recommended developing ungraded best or good practice statement (GPS) and developed guidance under which circumsances they would be appropriate.Through an evaluation of COVID-1- related recommendations on the eCOVID Recommendation Map (COVID-19.recmap.org), we found that recommendations qualifying a GPS were widespread. However, guideline developers failed to label them as GPS or transparently report justifications for their development. We identified ways to improve and facilitate the operationalisation and implementation of the GRADE guidance for GPS.Herein, we propose a structured process for the development of GPSs that includes applying a sequential order for the GRADE guidance for developing GPS. This operationalisation considers relevant evidence-to-decision criteria when assessing the net consequences of implementing the statement, and reporting information supporting judgments for each criterion. We also propose a standardised table to facilitate the identification of GPS and reporting of their development. This operationalised guidance, if endorsed by guideline developers, may palliate some of the shortcomings identified. Our proposal may also inform future updates of the GRADE guidance for GPS.

A Systematic Review of COVID-19 Vaccine Antibody Responses in People With HIV.

HIV infection is a significant independent risk factor for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease and death. We summarize COVID-19 vaccine responses in people with HIV (PWH). A systematic literature review of studies from January 1, 2020, to March 31, 2022, of COVID-19 vaccine immunogenicity in PWH from multiple databases was performed. Twenty-eight studies from 12 countries were reviewed. While 22 (73%) studies reported high COVID-19 vaccine seroconversion rates in PWH, PWH with lower baseline CD4 counts, CD4/CD8 ratios, or higher baseline viral loads had lower seroconversion rates and immunologic titers. Data on vaccine-induced seroconversion in PWH are reassuring, but more research is needed to evaluate the durability of COVID-19 vaccine responses in PWH.

Clinical features of, and risk factors for, severe or fatal COVID-19 among people living with HIV admitted to hospital: analysis of data from the WHO Global Clinical Platform of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: WHO has established a Global Clinical Platform for the clinical characterisation of COVID-19 among hospitalised individuals. We assessed whether people living with HIV hospitalised with COVID-19 had increased odds of severe presentation and of in-hospital mortality compared with individuals who were HIV-negative and associated risk factors. METHODS: Between Jan 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, anonymised individual-level data from 338 566 patients in 38 countries were reported to WHO. Using the Platform pooled dataset, we performed descriptive statistics and regression analyses to compare outcomes in the two populations and identify risk factors. FINDINGS: Of 197 479 patients reporting HIV status, 16 955 (8·6%) were people living with HIV. 16 283 (96.0%) of the 16 955 people living with HIV were from Africa; 10 603 (62·9%) were female and 6271 (37·1%) were male; the mean age was 45·5 years (SD 13·7); 6339 (38·3%) were admitted to hospital with severe illness; and 3913 (24·3%) died in hospital. Of the 10 166 people living with HIV with known antiretroviral therapy (ART) status, 9302 (91·5%) were on ART. Compared with individuals without HIV, people living with HIV had 15% increased odds of severe presentation with COVID-19 (aOR 1·15, 95% CI 1·10-1·20) and were 38% more likely to die in hospital (aHR 1·38, 1·34-1·41). Among people living with HIV, male sex, age 45-75 years, and having chronic cardiac disease or hypertension increased the odds of severe COVID-19; male sex, age older than 18 years, having diabetes, hypertension, malignancy, tuberculosis, or chronic kidney disease increased the risk of in-hospital mortality. The use of ART or viral load suppression were associated with a reduced risk of poor outcomes; however, HIV infection remained a risk factor for severity and mortality regardless of ART and viral load suppression status. INTERPRETATION: In this sample of hospitalised people contributing data to the WHO Global Clinical Platform for COVID-19, HIV was an independent risk factor for both severe COVID-19 at admission and in-hospital mortality. These findings have informed WHO immunisation policy that prioritises vaccination for people living with HIV. As the results mostly reflect the data contribution from Africa, this analysis will be updated as more data from other regions become available. FUNDING: None. TRANSLATION: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements In Covid-19 guidelines? A systematic appraisal.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the development and quality of actionable statements that qualify as good practice statements (GPS) reported in COVID-19 guidelines. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review . We searched MEDLINE, MedSci, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), databases of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Guidelines, NICE, WHO and Guidelines International Network (GIN) from March 2020 to September 2021. We included original or adapted recommendations addressing any COVID-19 topic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We used GRADE Working Group criteria for assessing the appropriateness of issuing a GPS: (1) clear and actionable; (2) rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice; (3) practicality of systematically searching for evidence; (4) likely net positive consequences from implementing the GPS and (5) clear link to the indirect evidence. We assessed guideline quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. RESULTS: 253 guidelines from 44 professional societies issued 3726 actionable statements. We classified 2375 (64%) as GPS; of which 27 (1%) were labelled as GPS by guideline developers. 5 (19%) were labelled as GPS by their authors but did not meet GPS criteria. Of the 2375 GPS, 85% were clear and actionable; 59% provided a rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice, 24% reported the net positive consequences from implementing the GPS. Systematic collection of evidence was deemed impractical for 13% of the GPS, and 39% explained the chain of indirect evidence supporting GPS development. 173/2375 (7.3%) statements explicitly satisfied all five criteria. The guidelines' overall quality was poor regardless of the appropriateness of GPS development and labelling. CONCLUSIONS: Statements that qualify as GPS are common in COVID-19 guidelines but are characterised by unclear designation and development processes, and methodological weaknesses.

Evaluation of HIV treatment outcomes with reduced frequency of clinical encounters and antiretroviral treatment refills: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Global HIV treatment programs have sought to lengthen the interval between clinical encounters for people living with HIV (PLWH) who are established on antiretroviral treatment (ART) to reduce the burden of seeking care and to decongest health facilities. The overall effect of reduced visit frequency on HIV treatment outcomes is however unknown. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of implementation strategies that reduce the frequency of clinical appointments and ART refills for PLWH established on ART. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched databases​ between 1 January 2010 and 9 November 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that compared reduced (6- to 12-monthly) clinical consultation or ART refill appointment frequency to 3- to 6-monthly appointments for patients established on ART. We assessed methodological quality and real-world relevance, and used Mantel-Haenszel methods to generate pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals for retention, viral suppression, and mortality. We evaluated heterogeneity quantitatively and qualitatively, and overall evidence certainty using GRADE. Searches yielded 3,955 records, resulting in 10 studies (6 RCTs, 3 observational studies, and 1 study contributing observational and RCT data) representing 15 intervention arms with 33,599 adults (≥16 years) in 8 sub-Saharan African countries. Reduced frequency clinical consultations occurred at health facilities, while reduced frequency ART refills were delivered through facility or community pharmacies and adherence groups. Studies were highly pragmatic, except for some study settings and resources used in RCTs. Among studies comparing reduced clinical consultation frequency (6- or 12-monthly) to 3-monthly consultations, there appeared to be no difference in retention (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97-1.04, p = 0.682, 8 studies, low certainty), and this finding was consistent across 6- and 12-monthly consultation intervals and delivery strategies. Viral suppression effect estimates were markedly influenced by under-ascertainment of viral load outcomes in intervention arms, resulting in inconclusive evidence. There was similarly insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on mortality (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.75-1.66, p = 0.592, 6 studies, very low certainty). For ART refill frequency, there appeared to be little to no difference in retention (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98-1.06, p = 0.473, 4 RCTs, moderate certainty) or mortality (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.63-3.35, p = 0.382, 4 RCTs, low certainty) between 6-monthly and 3-monthly visits. Similar to the analysis for clinical consultations, although viral suppression appeared to be better in 3-monthly arms, effect estimates were markedly influence by under-ascertainment of viral load outcomes in intervention arms, resulting in overall inclusive evidence. This systematic review was limited by the small number of studies available to compare 12- versus 6-monthly clinical consultations, insufficient data to compare implementation strategies, and lack of evidence for children, key populations, and low- and middle-income countries outside of sub-Saharan Africa. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this synthesis, extending clinical consultation intervals to 6 or 12 months and ART dispensing intervals to 6 months appears to result in similar retention to 3-month intervals, with less robust conclusions for viral suppression and mortality. Future research should ensure complete viral load outcome ascertainment, as well as explore mechanisms of effect, outcomes in other populations, and optimum delivery and monitoring strategies to ensure widespread applicability of reduced frequency visits across settings.

A taxonomy and framework for identifying and developing actionable statements in guidelines suggests avoiding informal recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To propose a taxonomy and framework that identifies and presents actionable statements in guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We took an iterative approach reviewing case studies of guidelines produced by the World Health Organization and the American Society of Hematology to develop an initial conceptual framework. We then tested it using randomly selected recommendations from published guidelines addressing COVID-19 from different organizations, evaluated its results, and refined it before retesting. The urgency and availability of evidence for development of these recommendations varied. We consulted with experts in research methodology and guideline developers to improve the final framework. RESULTS: The resulting taxonomy and framework distinguishes five types of actional statements: formal recommendations; research recommendations; good practice statements; implementation considerations, tools and tips; and informal recommendations. These statements should respond to a priori established criteria and require a clear structure and recognizable presentation in a guideline. Most importantly, this framework identifies informal recommendations that differ from formal recommendations by how they consider evidence and in their development process. CONCLUSION: The identification, standardization and explicit labelling of actionable statements according to the framework may support guideline developers to create actionable statements with clear intent, avoid informal recommendations and improve their understanding and implementation by users.

Mask use in community settings in the context of COVID-19: A systematic review of ecological data.

BACKGROUND: The wearing of medical and non-medical masks by the general public in community settings is one intervention that is important for the reduction of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and has been the subject of considerable research, policy, advocacy and debate. Several observational studies have used ecological (population-level) data to assess the effect of masks on transmission, hospitalization, and mortality at the region or community level. METHODS: We undertook this systematic review to summarize the study designs, outcomes, and key quality indicators of using ecological data to evaluate the association between mask wearing and COVID-19 outcomes. We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 global literature database up to 5 March 2021 for studies reporting the impact of mask use in community settings on outcomes related to SARS-CoV-2 transmission using ecological data. FINDINGS: Twenty one articles were identified that analysed ecological data to assess the protective effect of policies mandating community mask wearing. All studies reported SARS-CoV-2 benefits in terms of reductions in either the incidence, hospitalization, or mortality, or a combination of these outcomes. Few studies assessed compliance to mask wearing policies or controlled for the possible influence of other preventive measures such as hand hygiene and physical distancing, and information about compliance to these policies was lacking. INTERPRETATION: Ecological studies have been cited as evidence to advocate for the adoption of universal masking policies. The studies summarized by this review suggest that community mask policies may reduce the population-level burden of SARS-CoV-2. Methodological limitations, in particular controlling for the actual practice of mask wearing and other preventive policies make it difficult to determine causality. There are several important limitations to consider for improving the validity of ecological data.

Psychosocial interventions for improving engagement in care and health and behavioural outcomes for adolescents and young people living with HIV: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Adolescents and young people comprise a growing proportion of new HIV infections globally, yet current approaches do not effectively engage this group, and adolescent HIV-related outcomes are the poorest among all age groups. Providing psychosocial interventions incorporating psychological, social, and/or behavioural approaches offer a potential pathway to improve engagement in care and health and behavioural outcomes among adolescents and young people living with HIV (AYPLHIV). METHODS: A systematic search of all peer-reviewed papers published between January 2000 and July 2020 was conducted through four electronic databases (Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, PubMed and Scopus). We included randomized controlled trials evaluating psychosocial interventions aimed at improving engagement in care and health and behavioural outcomes of AYPLHIV aged 10 to 24 years. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Thirty relevant studies were identified. Studies took place in the United States (n = 18, 60%), sub-Saharan Africa (Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe) and Southeast Asia (Thailand). Outcomes of interest included adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART), ART knowledge, viral load data, sexual risk behaviours, sexual risk knowledge, retention in care and linkage to care. Overall, psychosocial interventions for AYPLHIV showed important, small-to-moderate effects on adherence to ART (SMD = 0.3907, 95% CI: 0.1059 to 0.6754, 21 studies, n = 2647) and viral load (SMD = -0.2607, 95% CI -04518 to -0.0696, 12 studies, n = 1566). The psychosocial interventions reviewed did not demonstrate significant impacts on retention in care (n = 8), sexual risk behaviours and knowledge (n = 13), viral suppression (n = 4), undetectable viral load (n = 5) or linkage to care (n = 1) among AYPLHIV. No studies measured transition to adult services. Effective interventions employed various approaches, including digital and lay health worker delivery, which hold promise for scaling interventions in the context of COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the potential of psychosocial interventions in improving health outcomes in AYPLHIV. However, more research needs to be conducted on interventions that can effectively reduce sexual risk behaviours of AYPLHIV, as well as those that can strengthen engagement in care. Further investment is needed to ensure that these interventions are cost-effective, sustainable and resilient in the face of resource constraints and global challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

The time to act is now: pseudo-systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify any medical or public health rationale for claims that the time to act is now. DESIGN: Pseudo-systematic review. DATA SOURCES: PubMed. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that included the claim "time is now" in the title, with or without exclamation marks. No language or date restriction was applied. RESULTS: 512 articles were included for review. No relationship was identified between time to act and disease burden, severity, or specialty. Claims that the time to act was Christmas were almost entirely without basis. A clustering of claims that it is time to act in the first quarter of the year suggested a possible association with New Year's resolutions. CONCLUSIONS: Now is as good a time as any.

Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of antiretroviral drugs against SARS, MERS or COVID-19: initial assessment.

INTRODUCTION: Several antiretroviral drugs are being considered for the treatment of COVID-19, the disease caused by a newly identified coronavirus, (SARS-CoV-2). We systematically reviewed the clinical outcomes of using antiretroviral drugs for the prevention and treatment of coronaviruses and planned clinical trials. METHODS: Three databases were screened from inception to 30 March 2020 for studies reporting clinical outcomes of patients with SARS, MERS or COVID-19 treated with antiretrovirals. RESULTS: From an initial screen of 433 titles, two randomized trials and 24 observational studies provided clinical outcome data on the use of antiretroviral drugs; most studies reported outcomes using LPV/r as treatment. Of the 21 observational studies reporting treatment outcomes, there were three studies among patients with SARS, six studies among patients with MERS and 12 studies among patients with COVID-19. In one randomized trial 99 patients with severe COVID-19 illness were randomized to receive LPV/r (400/100 mg twice a day) and 100 patients to standard of care for 14 days: LPV/r was not associated with a statistically significant difference in time to clinical improvement, although LPV/r given within 12 days of symptoms was associated with shorter time to clinical improvement; 28 day mortality was numerically lower in the LPV/r group (14/99) compared to the control group (25/100), but this difference was not statistically significant. The second trial found no benefit. The certainty of the evidence for the randomized trials was low. In the observational studies 3 out of 361 patients who received LPV/r died; the certainty of evidence was very low. Three studies reported a possible protective effect of LPV/r as post-exposure prophylaxis. Again, the certainty of the evidence was very low due to uncertainty due to limited sample size. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the available evidence it is uncertain whether LPV/r and other antiretrovirals improve clinical outcomes or prevent infection among patients at high risk of acquiring COVID-19.