Zinc for the prevention or treatment of acute viral respiratory tract infections in adults: a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefits and risks of zinc formulations compared with controls for prevention or treatment of acute viral respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in adults. METHOD: Seventeen English and Chinese databases were searched in April/May 2020 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and from April/May 2020 to August 2020 for SARS-CoV-2 RCTs. Cochrane rapid review methods were applied. Quality appraisals used the Risk of Bias 2.0 and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Twenty-eight RCTs with 5446 participants were identified. None were specific to SARS-CoV-2. Compared with placebo, oral or intranasal zinc prevented 5 RTIs per 100 person-months (95% CI 1 to 8, numbers needed to treat (NNT)=20, moderate-certainty/quality). Sublingual zinc did not prevent clinical colds following human rhinovirus inoculations (relative risk, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.21, moderate-certainty/quality). On average, symptoms resolved 2 days earlier with sublingual or intranasal zinc compared with placebo (95% CI 0.61 to 3.50, very low-certainty/quality) and 19 more adults per 100 were likely to remain symptomatic on day 7 without zinc (95% CI 2 to 38, NNT=5, low-certainty/quality). There were clinically significant reductions in day 3 symptom severity scores (mean difference, MD -1.20 points, 95% CI -0.66 to -1.74, low-certainty/quality), but not average daily symptom severity scores (standardised MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.13, low-certainty/quality). Non-serious adverse events (AEs) (eg, nausea, mouth/nasal irritation) were higher (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.69, NNHarm=7, moderate-certainty/quality). Compared with active controls, there were no differences in illness duration or AEs (low-certainty/quality). No serious AEs were reported in the 25 RCTs that monitored them (low-certainty/quality). CONCLUSIONS: In adult populations unlikely to be zinc deficient, there was some evidence suggesting zinc might prevent RTIs symptoms and shorten duration. Non-serious AEs may limit tolerability for some. The comparative efficacy/effectiveness of different zinc formulations and doses were unclear. The GRADE-certainty/quality of the evidence was limited by a high risk of bias, small sample sizes and/or heterogeneity. Further research, including SARS-CoV-2 clinical trials is warranted. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020182044.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio: A Systematic Scoping Review.

Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is a biomarker of the systemic inflammatory response. The objective of this systematic scoping review was to examine the literature on NLR and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Specialized Register, DOAJ, PDQT, Biosis Citation Index, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched. A total of 2621 citations yielding 62 primary studies were synthesized under four categories: distinguishing patients with IBD from controls, disease activity differentiation, clinical outcome prediction, and association of NLR with other IBD biomarkers. Thirty-eight studies employed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis to generate optimal NLR cutpoints for applications including disease activity differentiation and prediction of response to treatment. Among the most promising findings, NLR may have utility for clinical and endoscopic disease activity differentiation and prediction of loss of response to infliximab (IFX). Overall findings suggest NLR may be a promising IBD biomarker. Assessment of NLR is non-invasive, low cost, and widely accessible given NLR is easily calculated from blood count data routinely and serially monitored in patients with IBD. Further research is justified to elucidate how evaluation of NLR in research and clinical practice would directly impact the quality and cost of care for patients living with IBD.

Efficacy and safety of low and very low carbohydrate diets for type 2 diabetes remission: systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished randomized trial data.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of low carbohydrate diets (LCDs) and very low carbohydrate diets (VLCDs) for people with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Searches of CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CAB, and grey literature sources from inception to 25 August 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials evaluating LCDs (<130 g/day or <26% of a 2000 kcal/day diet) and VLCDs (<10% calories from carbohydrates) for at least 12 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes were eligible. DATA EXTRACTION: Primary outcomes were remission of diabetes (HbA1c <6.5% or fasting glucose <7.0 mmol/L, with or without the use of diabetes medication), weight loss, HbA1c, fasting glucose, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included health related quality of life and biochemical laboratory data. All articles and outcomes were independently screened, extracted, and assessed for risk of bias and GRADE certainty of evidence at six and 12 month follow-up. Risk estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects meta-analysis. Outcomes were assessed according to a priori determined minimal important differences to determine clinical importance, and heterogeneity was investigated on the basis of risk of bias and seven a priori subgroups. Any subgroup effects with a statistically significant test of interaction were subjected to a five point credibility checklist. RESULTS: Searches identified 14 759 citations yielding 23 trials (1357 participants), and 40.6% of outcomes were judged to be at low risk of bias. At six months, compared with control diets, LCDs achieved higher rates of diabetes remission (defined as HbA1c <6.5%) (76/133 (57%) v 41/131 (31%); risk difference 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.47; 8 studies, n=264, I2=58%). Conversely, smaller, non-significant effect sizes occurred when a remission definition of HbA1c <6.5% without medication was used. Subgroup assessments determined as meeting credibility criteria indicated that remission with LCDs markedly decreased in studies that included patients using insulin. At 12 months, data on remission were sparse, ranging from a small effect to a trivial increased risk of diabetes. Large clinically important improvements were seen in weight loss, triglycerides, and insulin sensitivity at six months, which diminished at 12 months. On the basis of subgroup assessments deemed credible, VLCDs were less effective than less restrictive LCDs for weight loss at six months. However, this effect was explained by diet adherence. That is, among highly adherent patients on VLCDs, a clinically important reduction in weight was seen compared with studies with less adherent patients on VLCDs. Participants experienced no significant difference in quality of life at six months but did experience clinically important, but not statistically significant, worsening of quality of life and low density lipoprotein cholesterol at 12 months. Otherwise, no significant or clinically important between group differences were found in terms of adverse events or blood lipids at six and 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of moderate to low certainty evidence, patients adhering to an LCD for six months may experience remission of diabetes without adverse consequences. Limitations include continued debate around what constitutes remission of diabetes, as well as the efficacy, safety, and dietary satisfaction of longer term LCDs. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020161795.

Corrigendum to "Choose your shortcuts wisely: COVID-19 rapid reviews of traditional, complementary and integrative medicine" [Integr Med Res 2020; 9: 100484].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.imr.2020.100484.].

Corrigendum to "Rapid review protocol: Zinc for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 and other coronavirus-related respiratory tract infections" [Integr Med Res 9 (2020): 100457].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.imr.2020.100457.].

Zinc for the prevention and treatment of SARS-CoV-2 and other acute viral respiratory infections: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: The global COVID-19 pandemic has prompted an urgent search for interventions to prevent and treat SARS-CoV-2. Higher risk of infection and adverse outcomes coincide with populations with chronic diseases and elderly who are at risk of zinc deficiency. Through several mechanisms zinc may prevent, reduce severity and duration of symptoms. METHOD: An a priori protocol was registered with PROSPERO on 27th April 2020 (CRD42020182044). Eight databases (one Chinese) and four clinical trial registries (one Chinese) were searched for randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), evaluating single or adjunct zinc against placebo or active controls, for prevention and/or treatment of SARS-CoV-2, other coronaviruses or related infections. RR constraints included not searching bibliographies or contacting authors, single reviewers with calibration and second reviewer checking, meta-analyses and quality appraisal of critical and study primary outcomes only and reporting results as they became available. RESULTS: 118 publications of 1,627 records met the inclusion criteria (35 Chinese and 83 English publications), 32 for prevention, 78 for treatment and 8 for both. Four RCTs specific to SARS-CoV-2 are ongoing; two are investigating zinc for prevention and two for treatment. As of 7 July 2020, no results were available. A wide range of zinc forms, including nasal spray/gel, lozenges, liquid, tablets and intramuscular were investigated. CONCLUSION: Currently, indirect evidence suggests zinc may potentially reduce the risk, duration and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infections, particularly for populations at risk of zinc deficiency including people with chronic disease co-morbidities and older adults. Direct evidence to determine if zinc is effective for either prevention or treatment of SARS-CoV-2 is pending. In the interim, assessing zinc status of people with chronic diseases and older adults, as part of a SARS-CoV-2 clinical work-up, is reasonable as both groups have a higher risk of zinc deficiency/insufficiency and poorer outcomes from SARS-CoV-2.

Choose your shortcuts wisely: COVID-19 rapid reviews of traditional, complementary and integrative medicine.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an explosion of rapid reviews geared towards providing time sensitive answers for clinical and policy decision-makers. Rapid reviews (RRs) strike a balance between rigour and rapidity to minimise bias and optimise transparency within specified constraints. Methods: This review article appraised the methods and reporting standards of a convenience sample of RR protocols and RRs of COVID-19 clinical management questions, published in the first six-months of 2020. Inclusion criteria were all RR protocols evaluating traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) registered on PROSPERO, and all RRs indexed on PubMed or published on the Oxford COVID-19 Evidence Service. A purpose-specific 9-item reporting checklist reflecting recommended minimum requirements for RRs was applied. Findings were synthesised and narrated in the context of methodological considerations for conducting and reporting RRs of TCIM. Results: Included studies were five RR protocols of TCIM and 16 RRs, of which five considered TCIM. Wide variations in RR methods were proposed or applied, as were the reporting standards. All five RRs that evaluated TCIM had the lowest reporting standards that limited reproducibility and transparency. Despite accepted recommendations, most RRs did not publish a protocol. Conclusions: We propose that specific research disciplines, such as TCIM, have a uniqueness that may lead to unacceptable outputs if minimum methodological standards are not applied. The recommended minimum requirements will optimise the credibility of rapid reviews of TCIM and limit the risk of prematurely disregarding a potentially effective intervention.

Rapid review protocol: Zinc for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 and other coronavirus-related respiratory tract infections.

BACKGROUND: The global COVID-19 pandemic has prompted an urgent search for effective interventions. SARS-CoV-2 mortality/morbidity risk increases with age and for those chronic disease co-morbidities, both of which are associated with lower zinc status, as is the risk of infection. METHODS: Rapid review methods will be applied to a systematic review of zinc for the prevention or treatment of SARS-CoV-2 and viral respiratory tract infections in humans. Included are published studies reporting randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compare zinc intervention to placebo and/or other comparator interventions. English and Chinese language databases will be searched for primary studies of viral respiratory tract infections and clinical trial registries for SARS-CoV-2 infections. Due to concerns about indirectness, studies evaluating non-SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus infections will be rated down by one level, and non-specific or confirmed non-coronavirus viral infections will be rated down by two levels. Review constraints include (1) using Google translate when screening articles published in languages other than English or Chinese and limited translation (2) following calibration, only one reviewer will screen articles, extract data, appraise quality and conduct the analysis, (3) prioritising data extraction and meta-analyses of SARS-CoV-2 studies and critical outcomes of other viral infections, followed by high risk groups and (4) reporting important preliminary findings prior to peer review if necessary. DISCUSSION: The application of these rapid review methods and broadening the inclusion criteria to include other coronavirus-related viral respiratory tract infections aims to enable a timely evidence appraisal of priority research questions and dissemination of results. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020182044.

Biofeedback for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a prevalent condition that currently lacks highly effective therapies for its management. Biofeedback has been proposed as a therapy that may help individuals learn to exert conscious control over sympatho-vagal balance as an indirect method of symptom management. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of biofeedback-based interventions for IBS in adults and children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) Group Specialized Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) from inception to 24 July 2019. We also searched reference lists from published trials, trial registries, device manufacturers, conference proceedings, theses, and dissertations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We judged randomized controlled trials to be eligible for inclusion if they met the Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback definition of biofeedback, and if they compared a biofeedback intervention to an active, sham, or no-treatment control for the management of IBS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were IBS global or clinical improvement scores and overall quality of life measures. Secondary outcome measures were adverse events, assessments of stool frequency and consistency, changes in abdominal pain, depression, and anxiety. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. We used GRADE criteria to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight randomized trials with a total of 300 adult participants for our analysis. We did not identify any trials in children. Four trials assessed thermal biofeedback. One trial assessed rectosigmoidal biofeedback. Two trials assessed heart rate variability biofeedback. Two trials assessed electrocutaneous biofeedback. Comparators were: no treatment (symptom monitoring group; three studies), attention control (pseudomeditation; two studies), relaxation control (one study), counseling (two studies), hypnotherapy (one study), standard therapy (one study), and sham biofeedback (one study). We judged all trials to have a high or unclear risk of bias. Global/Clinical improvement The clinical benefit of biofeedback plus standard therapy compared to standard therapy alone was uncertain (RR 4.20, 95% CI 1.40 to 12.58; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The same study also compared biofeedback plus standard therapy to sham biofeedback plus standard therapy. The clinical benefit in the biofeedback group was uncertain (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.80; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The clinical benefit of heart rate biofeedback compared to hypnotherapy was uncertain when measured with the IBS severity scoring system (IBS-SSS) (MD -58.80, 95% CI -109.11 to -8.49; 1 study, 61 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to counseling, the effect of heart rate biofeedback was unclear when measured with a composite symptom reduction score (MD 7.03, 95% CI -51.07 to 65.13; 1 study, 29 participants; low-certainty evidence) and when evaluated for clinical response (50% improvement) (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.45; 1 study, 29 participants; low-certainty evidence). The clinical benefit of thermal biofeedback used in a multi-component psychological intervention (MCPI) compared to no treatment was uncertain when measured with a composite clinical symptom reduction score (MD 30.34, 95% CI 8.47 to 52.21; 3 studies, 101 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and when evaluated as clinical response (50% improvement) (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.62; 3 studies, 101 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to attention control, the effects of thermal biofeedback within an MCPI were unclear when measured with a composite clinical symptom reduction score (MD 4.02, 95% CI -21.41 to 29.45; 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and when evaluated as clinical response (50% improvement) (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.69, 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life A single trial used overall quality of life as an outcome measure, and reported that both the biofeedback and cognitive therapy groups improved after treatment. The trial did not note any between-group differences, and did not report any outcome data. Adverse events Only one of the eight trials explicitly reported adverse events. This study reported no adverse events in either the biofeedback or cognitive therapy groups (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.12; 29 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently not enough evidence to assess whether biofeedback interventions are effective for controlling symptoms of IBS. Given the positive results reported in small trials to date, biofeedback deserves further study in people with IBS. Future research should include active control groups that use high provider-participant interaction, in an attempt to balance non-specific effects of interventions between groups, and report both commonly used outcome measures (e.g. IBS-SSS) and historical outcome measures (e.g. the composite primary symptom reduction (CPSR) score) to allow for meta-analysis with previous studies. Future studies should be explicit in their reporting of adverse events.

Probiotics for the prevention of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in adults and children.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics can disturb gastrointestinal microbiota which may lead to reduced resistance to pathogens such as Clostridium difficile (C. difficile). Probiotics are live microbial preparations that, when administered in adequate amounts, may confer a health benefit to the host, and are a potential C. difficile prevention strategy. Recent clinical practice guidelines do not recommend probiotic prophylaxis, even though probiotics have the highest quality evidence among cited prophylactic therapies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics for preventing C.difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD) in adults and children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register from inception to 21 March 2017. Additionally, we conducted an extensive grey literature search. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled (placebo, alternative prophylaxis, or no treatment control) trials investigating probiotics (any strain, any dose) for prevention of CDAD, or C. difficile infection were considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors (independently and in duplicate) extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcome was the incidence of CDAD. Secondary outcomes included detection of C. difficile infection in stool, adverse events, antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) and length of hospital stay. Dichotomous outcomes (e.g. incidence of CDAD) were pooled using a random-effects model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) where appropriate. Continuous outcomes (e.g. length of hospital stay) were pooled using a random-effects model to calculate the mean difference and corresponding 95% CI. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of missing data on efficacy and safety outcomes. For the sensitivity analyses, we assumed that the event rate for those participants in the control group who had missing data was the same as the event rate for those participants in the control group who were successfully followed. For the probiotic group, we calculated effects using the following assumed ratios of event rates in those with missing data in comparison to those successfully followed: 1.5:1, 2:1, 3:1, and 5:1. To explore possible explanations for heterogeneity, a priori subgroup analyses were conducted on probiotic species, dose, adult versus pediatric population, and risk of bias as well as a post hoc subgroup analysis on baseline risk of CDAD (low 0% to 2%; moderate 3% to 5%; high > 5%). The overall quality of the evidence supporting each outcome was independently assessed using the GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies (9955 participants) met the eligibility requirements for our review. Overall, 27 studies were rated as either high or unclear risk of bias. A complete case analysis (i.e. participants who completed the study) among trials investigating CDAD (31 trials, 8672 participants) suggests that probiotics reduce the risk of CDAD by 60%. The incidence of CDAD was 1.5% (70/4525) in the probiotic group compared to 4.0% (164/4147) in the placebo or no treatment control group (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.52; GRADE = moderate). Twenty-two of 31 trials had missing CDAD data ranging from 2% to 45%. Our complete case CDAD results proved robust to sensitivity analyses of plausible and worst-plausible assumptions regarding missing outcome data and results were similar whether considering subgroups of trials in adults versus children, inpatients versus outpatients, different probiotic species, lower versus higher doses of probiotics, or studies at high versus low risk of bias. However, in a post hoc analysis, we did observe a subgroup effect with respect to baseline risk of developing CDAD. Trials with a baseline CDAD risk of 0% to 2% and 3% to 5% did not show any difference in risk but trials enrolling participants with a baseline risk of > 5% for developing CDAD demonstrated a large 70% risk reduction (interaction P value = 0.01). Among studies with a baseline risk > 5%, the incidence of CDAD in the probiotic group was 3.1% (43/1370) compared to 11.6% (126/1084) in the control group (13 trials, 2454 participants; RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.42; GRADE = moderate). With respect to detection of C. difficile in the stool pooled complete case results from 15 trials (1214 participants) did not show a reduction in infection rates. C. difficile infection was 15.5% (98/633) in the probiotics group compared to 17.0% (99/581) in the placebo or no treatment control group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.10; GRADE = moderate). Adverse events were assessed in 32 studies (8305 participants) and our pooled complete case analysis indicates probiotics reduce the risk of adverse events by 17% (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; GRADE = very low). In both treatment and control groups the most common adverse events included abdominal cramping, nausea, fever, soft stools, flatulence, and taste disturbance. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on this systematic review and meta-analysis of 31 randomized controlled trials including 8672 patients, moderate certainty evidence suggests that probiotics are effective for preventing CDAD (NNTB = 42 patients, 95% CI 32 to 58). Our post hoc subgroup analyses to explore heterogeneity indicated that probiotics are effective among trials with a CDAD baseline risk >5% (NNTB = 12; moderate certainty evidence), but not among trials with a baseline risk ≤5% (low to moderate certainty evidence). Although adverse effects were reported among 32 included trials, there were more adverse events among patients in the control groups. The short-term use of probiotics appears to be safe and effective when used along with antibiotics in patients who are not immunocompromised or severely debilitated. Despite the need for further research, hospitalized patients, particularly those at high risk of CDAD, should be informed of the potential benefits and harms of probiotics.