Japanese rapid/living recommendations on drug management for COVID-19: updated guidelines (July 2022).

Background: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), an infectious disease caused by the novel coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has spread worldwide since early 2020, and there are still no signs of resolution. The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock (J-SSCG) 2020 Special Committee created the Japanese Rapid/Living recommendations on drug management for COVID-19 using the experience of creating the J-SSCG. Methods: The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to determine the certainty of the evidence and strength of recommendations. The first edition of this guideline was released on September 9, 2020, and this is the revised edition (version 5.0; released on July 15, 2022). Clinical questions (CQs) were set for the following 10 drugs: favipiravir (CQ1), remdesivir (CQ2), corticosteroids (CQ4), tocilizumab (CQ5), anticoagulants (CQ7), baricitinib (CQ8), casirivimab/imdevimab (CQ9-1), sotrovimab (CQ9-2), molnupiravir (CQ10), and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (CQ11). Recommendations: Favipiravir is not suggested for all patients with COVID-19 (GRADE 2C). Remdesivir is suggested for patients with mild COVID-19 who do not require oxygen, and patients with moderate COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization (both GRADE 2B). Corticosteroids are recommended for moderate and severe COVID-19 (GRADE 1B, 1A). However, their administration is not recommended for mild COVID-19 (GRADE 1B). Tocilizumab is suggested for moderate and severe COVID-19 (GRADE 2B, 2C). Anticoagulant administration is recommended for moderate and severe COVID-19 (Good Practice Statement). Baricitinib is suggested for moderate and severe COVID-19 (both GRADE 2C). Casirivimab/imdevimab and sotrovimab are recommended for mild COVID-19 (both GRADE 2C). Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir are recommended for mild COVID-19 (both GRADE 2C). SARS-CoV-2 mutant strains emerge occasionally, and each time, the treatment policy at clinics is forced to change drastically. We ask health-care professionals in the field to refer to the recommendations in these guidelines and use these to keep up to date with COVID-19 epidemiological information.

Therapy outcome measures in temporomandibular disorder: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Therapy outcome measures (TOMs) in temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) have not been systematically evaluated. We systematically explored the main TOM assessment methods for TMD TOMs used in previous studies. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: According to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Review reporting guidelines, we systematically searched five key databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Epistemonikos and ClinicalTrials) and thoroughly scanned relevant grey literature using Medical Subject Headings, Emtree and index terms. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We considered primary research papers published from January 2010 to December 2020 that included patients with TMD aged ≥18 years, diagnosed according to the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Four reviewers extracted general information and information on study design and setting, target, interventions, and outcome type. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-two of the 3726 screened articles (3704 by search engines and 22 manually) were included. The TOMs analysed included pain (n=161 articles), maximal mouth opening (MMO) (91), jaw function (32), jaw movement (26), joint sound (16), quality of life (QOL) (15), depression/anxiety (14), oral QOL (10) or others (30). Evaluation periods were <4 weeks (111), <8 weeks (62), <12 weeks (59), >12 weeks (75) or 'not mentioned' (12). Pain outcomes (229) included general pain (115), tenderness (45), pain during functioning (44), resting pain (16) and others (8). Pain outcome evaluation methods included Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; 121), Numerical Rating Scale (21) and other methods (21). Pain outcome indicators were binary (10) or continuous (158); only five studies reported the least significant difference in treatment efficacy. MMO evaluation using painless methods (19) and jaw function evaluation using methods assessing mandibular movement range (23) were the most frequent. CONCLUSIONS: TMD TOMs are diverse; the major outcomes were pain, MMO, jaw function and jaw movement. Most pain outcomes are evaluated by VAS Score changes.

Japanese rapid/living recommendations on drug management for COVID-19: updated guidelines (September 2021).

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide since early 2020, and there are still no signs of resolution. The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock (J-SSCG) 2020 Special Committee created the Japanese rapid/living recommendations on drug management for COVID-19 using the experience of creating the J-SSCG. METHODS: The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to determine the certainty of the evidence and strength of the recommendations. The first edition of this guideline was released on September 9, 2020, and this document is the revised edition (version 4.0; released on September 9, 2021). Clinical questions (CQs) were set for the following seven drugs: favipiravir (CQ1), remdesivir (CQ2), corticosteroids (CQ4), tocilizumab (CQ5), anticoagulants (CQ7), baricitinib (CQ8), and casirivimab/imdevimab (CQ9). Two CQs (hydroxychloroquine [CQ3] and ciclesonide [CQ6]) were retrieved in this updated version. RECOMMENDATIONS: Favipiravir is not suggested for all patients with COVID-19 (GRADE 2C). Remdesivir is suggested for patients with moderate COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization (GRADE 2B). Corticosteroids are recommended for patients with moderate COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization (GRADE 1B) and for patients with severe COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation/intensive care (GRADE 1A); however, their administration is not recommended for patients with mild COVID-19 not requiring supplemental oxygen (GRADE 1B). Tocilizumab is suggested for patients with moderate COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization (GRADE 2B). Anticoagulant administration is recommended for patients with moderate COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization and patients with severe COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation/intensive care (good practice statement). Baricitinib is suggested for patients with moderate COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization (GRADE 2C). Casirivimab/imdevimab is recommended for patients with mild COVID-19 not requiring supplemental oxygen (GRADE 1B). We hope that these updated clinical practice guidelines will help medical professionals involved in the care of patients with COVID-19.

Japanese rapid/living recommendations on drug management for COVID-19.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has spread worldwide since early 2020, and there are still no signs of resolution. The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock (J-SSCG) 2020 Special Committee created the Japanese rapid/living recommendations on drug management for COVID-19 using the experience of creating the J-SSCGs. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to determine the certainty of the evidence and strength of the recommendations. The first edition of this guideline was released on 9 September, 2020, and this document is the revised edition (version 3.1) (released 30 March, 2021). Clinical questions (CQs) were set for the following seven drugs: favipiravir (CQ1), remdesivir (CQ2), hydroxychloroquine (CQ3), corticosteroids (CQ4), tocilizumab (CQ5), ciclesonide (CQ6), and anticoagulants (CQ7). Favipiravir is recommended for patients with mild COVID-19 not requiring supplemental oxygen (GRADE 2C); remdesivir for moderate COVID-19 patients requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization (GRADE 2B). Hydroxychloroquine is not recommended for all COVID-19 patients (GRADE 1B). Corticosteroids are recommended for moderate COVID-19 patients requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization (GRADE 1B) and severe COVID-19 patients requiring ventilator management/intensive care (GRADE 1A); however, their use is not recommended for mild COVID-19 patients not requiring supplemental oxygen (GRADE 1B). Tocilizumab is recommended for moderate COVID-19 patients requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization (GRADE 2B). Anticoagulant therapy is recommended for moderate COVID-19 patients requiring supplemental oxygen/hospitalization and severe COVID-19 patients requiring ventilator management/intensive care (GRADE 2C). We hope that these clinical practice guidelines will aid medical professionals involved in the care of COVID-19 patients.

Diagnostic value of procalcitonin and presepsin for sepsis in critically ill adult patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Early and accurate diagnosis of sepsis is challenging. Although procalcitonin and presepsin have been identified as potential biomarkers to differentiate between sepsis and other non-infectious causes of systemic inflammation, the diagnostic accuracy of these biomarkers remains controversial. Herein, we performed a comprehensive meta-analysis to assess the overall diagnostic value of procalcitonin and presepsin for the diagnosis of sepsis. METHODS: We searched three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) for relevant studies. Two authors independently screened articles on the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and summary receiver operating characteristic curves were estimated. The quality of evidence for diagnostic accuracy in absolute effects, i.e., the number of true or false positives and true or false negatives, gave a particular pre-test probability. RESULTS: We included 19 studies (19 observational studies and no randomized controlled trials) that had enrolled 3012 patients. Analyses of summary receiver operating characteristic curves revealed areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of 0.84 for procalcitonin and 0.87 for presepsin. The pooled sensitivities and specificities were 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.75 to 0.84) and 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.81) for procalcitonin. For presepsin, these values were 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.88) and 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.82), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in both pooled sensitivities (p = 0.48) and specificities (p = 0.57) between procalcitonin and presepsin. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis provided evidence that the diagnostic accuracy of procalcitonin and presepsin in detecting infection was similar and that both are useful for early diagnosis of sepsis and subsequent reduction of mortality in critically ill adult patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The study was registered in PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42016035784.

Recombinant Human Soluble Thrombomodulin in Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical effectiveness of recombinant human soluble thrombomodulin (rhTM) in sepsis or sepsis-induced coagulopathy remains a matter of dispute. Recently, the Sepsis Coagulopathy Asahi Recombinant LE Thrombomodulin (SCARLET) trial, the latest multinational multi-centre phase III randomized controlled trial, was completed. OBJECTIVE: This article assesses the benefits and harms of rhTM therapy in sepsis-induced coagulopathy by updating our previous systematic review. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of rhTM therapy for sepsis-induced coagulopathy in randomized controlled trials. All-cause 28-day mortality as efficacy and serious bleeding complications as the adverse effect were measured as primary outcomes. We assessed the certainty of a body of evidence at the outcome level using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: We analysed five trials enrolling 1,762 patients. Approximately 13% reduction in the risk of mortality was observed in the rhTM group, but the difference was not significant (relative risk, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.03; p = 0.10; I 2 = 0%). Risk of serious bleeding complications did not increase with rhTM administration. We judged the certainty of evidence as moderate for mortality and low for serious bleeding. Trial sequential analysis indicated that only 42.0% of the required information size is actually available at this stage to reject or accept low risk-of-bias trials examining the anticipated effect for all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION: Even in this updated review including the latest SCARLET trial, we currently cannot make any declarative judgments about the beneficial effects of rhTM in sepsis-induced coagulopathy, although some favourable effects were suggested.

Head-to-head comparison of procalcitonin and presepsin for the diagnosis of sepsis in critically ill adult patients: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Early diagnosis and immediate therapeutic intervention, including appropriate antibiotic therapy and goal-directed resuscitation, are necessary to reduce mortality in patients with sepsis. However, a single clinical or biological marker indicative of sepsis has not been adopted unanimously. Although procalcitonin and presepsin are promising biomarkers that can effectively differentiate between sepsis/infection and systemic inflammatory response syndrome of non-infectious origin, little is known about which marker is superior. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of procalcitonin and presepsin for the diagnosis of sepsis/infection in critically ill adult patients. The primary objective is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of these 2 biomarkers to a reference standard of sepsis/infection and to compare the diagnostic accuracy with each other. We will search electronic bibliographic databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for retrospective and prospective diagnostic test studies. We will assign 2 reviewers to review all collected titles and associated abstracts, review full articles, and extract study data. We will use the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-II tool to report study characteristics and to evaluate methodological quality. If pooling is possible, we will use bivariate random effects and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) models to calculate parameter estimates to output summary ROCs, pooled sensitivity and specificity data, and 95% CIs around the summary operating point. We will also assess heterogeneity via clinical and methodological subgroup and sensitivity analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review will provide guidance on the triage of these tests, help to determine whether existing tests should be revised or replaced, and may also identify knowledge gaps in sepsis diagnosis that could direct further research in the field. Research ethics is not required for this review. The findings will be reported at conferences and in peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016035784.

Polymyxin B Hemoperfusion for Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of direct hemoperfusion with polymyxin B-immobilized fiber (PMX-DHP) therapy in patients with sepsis. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis of four major databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Science Citation Index Expanded. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials comparing PMX-DHP with conventional therapy on the outcome of mortality in patients with severe sepsis/septic shock. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently applied eligibility criteria, assessed quality, and extracted data. Primary outcomes were mortality and adverse events. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate quality of evidence and grade the strength of recommendation. RESULTS: In seven trials enrolling 841 patients, assessment for risk of bias indicated variations in study quality from high (n = 4) to unclear (n = 3) resulting from a lack of adequate randomization, blinding, and incomplete outcomes. Polymyxin B-immobilized fiber therapy was associated with lower mortality (risk ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.89; p = 0.007; I2 = 72%). Significant heterogeneity among trials was explained partly by study venue and baseline mortality rate. Meta-regression analysis revealed a significant negative slope between effect size of PMX-DHP therapy and baseline mortality rate in individual studies (p = 0.003), suggesting the probability of a beneficial effect with PMX-DHP increased with increasing baseline risk. Polymyxin B-immobilized fiber therapy did not increase the risk of hemoperfusion-related adverse events. The quality of the body of evidence was considered low for both mortality and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Polymyxin B-immobilized fiber therapy was associated with reduced mortality in sepsis/septic shock. Based on the low quality of evidence, therapeutic use of PMX-DHP for survival benefit may be recommended conditionally for patients with high risk of death. Additional large randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm or refute this evidence.