Comparative-effectiveness research of COVID-19 treatment: a rapid scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has stimulated growing research on treatment options. We aim to provide an overview of the characteristics of studies evaluating COVID-19 treatment. DESIGN: Rapid scoping review DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase and biorxiv/medrxiv from inception to 15 May 2021. SETTING: Hospital and community care. PARTICIPANTS: COVID-19 patients of all ages. INTERVENTIONS: COVID-19 treatment. RESULTS: The literature search identified 616 relevant primary studies of which 188 were randomised controlled trials and 299 relevant evidence syntheses. The studies and evidence syntheses were conducted in 51 and 39 countries, respectively.Most studies enrolled patients admitted to acute care hospitals (84%), included on average 169 participants, with an average age of 60 years, study duration of 28 days, number of effect outcomes of four and number of harm outcomes of one. The most common primary outcome was death (32%).The included studies evaluated 214 treatment options. The most common treatments were tocilizumab (11%), hydroxychloroquine (9%) and convalescent plasma (7%). The most common therapeutic categories were non-steroidal immunosuppressants (18%), steroids (15%) and antivirals (14%). The most common therapeutic categories involving multiple drugs were antimalarials/antibiotics (16%), steroids/non-steroidal immunosuppressants (9%) and antimalarials/antivirals/antivirals (7%). The most common treatments evaluated in systematic reviews were hydroxychloroquine (11%), remdesivir (8%), tocilizumab (7%) and steroids (7%).The evaluated treatment was in favour 50% and 36% of the evaluations, according to the conclusion of the authors of primary studies and evidence syntheses, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This rapid scoping review characterised a growing body of comparative-effectiveness primary studies and evidence syntheses. The results suggest future studies should focus on children, elderly ≥65 years of age, patients with mild symptoms, outpatient treatment, multimechanism therapies, harms and active comparators. The results also suggest that future living evidence synthesis and network meta-analysis would provide additional information for decision-makers on managing COVID-19.

Comparative-effectiveness research of COVID-19 treatment: a rapid scoping review

Objectives The COVID-19 pandemic has stimulated growing research on treatment options. We aim to provide an overview of the characteristics of studies evaluating COVID-19 treatment. Design Rapid scoping review Data sources Medline, Embase and biorxiv/medrxiv from inception to 15 May 2021. Setting Hospital and community care. Participants COVID-19 patients of all ages. Interventions COVID-19 treatment. Results The literature search identified 616 relevant primary studies of which 188 were randomised controlled trials and 299 relevant evidence syntheses. The studies and evidence syntheses were conducted in 51 and 39 countries, respectively. Most studies enrolled patients admitted to acute care hospitals (84%), included on average 169 participants, with an average age of 60 years, study duration of 28 days, number of effect outcomes of four and number of harm outcomes of one. The most common primary outcome was death (32%). The included studies evaluated 214 treatment options. The most common treatments were tocilizumab (11%), hydroxychloroquine (9%) and convalescent plasma (7%). The most common therapeutic categories were non-steroidal immunosuppressants (18%), steroids (15%) and antivirals (14%). The most common therapeutic categories involving multiple drugs were antimalarials/antibiotics (16%), steroids/non-steroidal immunosuppressants (9%) and antimalarials/antivirals/antivirals (7%). The most common treatments evaluated in systematic reviews were hydroxychloroquine (11%), remdesivir (8%), tocilizumab (7%) and steroids (7%). The evaluated treatment was in favour 50% and 36% of the evaluations, according to the conclusion of the authors of primary studies and evidence syntheses, respectively. Conclusions This rapid scoping review characterised a growing body of comparative-effectiveness primary studies and evidence syntheses. The results suggest future studies should focus on children, elderly ≥65 years of age, patients with mild symptoms, outpatient treatment, multimechanism therapies, harms and active comparators. The results also suggest that future living evidence synthesis and network meta-analysis would provide additional information for decision-makers on managing COVID-19.

Safety and effectiveness of dose-sparing strategies for intramuscular seasonal influenza vaccine: a rapid scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this rapid scoping review was to identify studies of dose-sparing strategies for administration of intramuscular seasonal influenza vaccines in healthy individuals of all ages. METHODS: Comprehensive literature searches were executed in MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane library. The grey literature was searched via international clinical trial registries for relevant studies published in English in the last 20 years. We included studies in healthy humans of any age that used any dose-sparing strategy to administer intramuscular seasonal influenza vaccines. Title/abstract and full-text screening were carried out by pairs of reviewers independently. Data extraction was conducted by a single reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Our outcomes were influenza infections, intensive care unit admission, pneumonia, hospitalisations, adverse events and mortality. Results were summarised descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies with 10 351 participants were included in the review and all studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted between 2006 and 2019. The most common interventions were the trivalent influenza vaccine (n=10), followed by the quadrivalent influenza vaccine (n=4). Nine studies included infants/toddlers 6-36 months old and one of these studies also included children and adolescents. In these nine studies, no clinical effectiveness outcomes were reported. Of the four adult studies (≥18 years), two studies reported on effectiveness outcomes, however, only one RCT reported on laboratory-confirmed influenza. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the low number of studies in healthy adults and the lack of studies assessing confirmed influenza and influenza-like illness, there remains a need for further evaluation.

Diagnostic accuracy of virtual cognitive assessment and testing: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Virtual (i.e., telephone or videoconference) care was broadly implemented because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our objectives were to compare the diagnostic accuracy of virtual to in-person cognitive assessments and tests and barriers to virtual cognitive assessment implementation. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CDSR, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and gray literature (inception to April 1, 2020). PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Studies describing the accuracy or reliability of virtual compared with in-person cognitive assessments (i.e., reference standard) for diagnosing dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI), identifying virtual cognitive test cutoffs suggestive of dementia or MCI, or describing correlations between virtual and in-person cognitive test scores in adults. MEASUREMENTS: Reviewer pairs independently conducted study screening, data abstraction, and risk of bias appraisal. RESULTS: Our systematic review included 121 studies (15,832 patients). Two studies demonstrated that virtual cognitive assessments could diagnose dementia with good reliability compared with in-person cognitive assessments: weighted kappa 0.51 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.62) and 0.63 (95% CI 0.4-0.9), respectively. Videoconference-based cognitive assessments were 100% sensitive and specific for diagnosing dementia compared with in-person cognitive assessments in a third study. No studies compared telephone with in-person cognitive assessment accuracy. The Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS; maximum score 41) and modified TICS (maximum score 50) were the only virtual cognitive tests compared with in-person cognitive assessments in >2 studies with extractable data for meta-analysis. The optimal TICS cutoff suggestive of dementia ranged from 22 to 33, but it was 28 or 30 when testing was conducted in English (10 studies; 1673 patients). Optimal modified TICS cutoffs suggestive of MCI ranged from 28 to 31 (3 studies; 525 patients). Sensory impairment was the most often voiced condition affecting assessment. CONCLUSION: Although there is substantial evidence supporting virtual cognitive assessment and testing, we identified critical gaps in diagnostic certainty.

Preventing the transmission of COVID-19 and other coronaviruses in older adults aged 60 years and above living in long-term care: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this review was to examine the current guidelines for infection prevention and control (IPAC) of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) or other coronaviruses in adults 60 years or older living in long-term care facilities (LTCF). METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane library, pre-print servers, clinical trial registries, and relevant grey literature sources were searched until July 31, 2020, using database searching and an automated method called Continuous Active Learning® (CAL®). All search results were processed using CAL® to identify the most likely relevant citations that were then screened by a single human reviewer. Full-text screening, data abstraction, and quality appraisal were completed by a single reviewer and verified by a second. RESULTS: Nine clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) were included. The most common recommendation in the CPGs was establishing surveillance and monitoring systems followed by mandating the use of PPE; physically distancing or cohorting residents; environmental cleaning and disinfection; promoting hand and respiratory hygiene among residents, staff, and visitors; and providing sick leave compensation for staff. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests robust surveillance and monitoring along with support for IPAC initiatives are key to preventing the spread of COVID-19 in LTCF. However, there are significant gaps in the current recommendations especially with regard to the movement of staff between LTCF and their role as possible transmission vectors. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020181993.