Major Update 2: Antibody Response and Risk for Reinfection After SARS-CoV-2 Infection-Final Update of a Living, Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: The durability of the antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 infection and the role of antibodies in protection against reinfection are unclear. PURPOSE: To synthesize evidence on the SARS-CoV-2 antibody response and reinfection risk with a focus on gaps identified in our prior reports. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, CINAHL, World Health Organization Research Database, and reference lists from 16 December 2021 through 8 July 2022, with surveillance through 22 August 2022. STUDY SELECTION: English-language, cohort studies evaluating IgG antibody duration at least 12 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, the antibody response among immunocompromised adults, predictors of nonseroconversion, and reinfection risk. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators sequentially extracted study data and rated quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Most adults had IgG antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 infection at time points greater than 12 months (low strength of evidence [SoE]). Although most immunocompromised adults develop antibodies, the overall proportion with antibodies is lower compared with immunocompetent adults (moderate SoE for organ transplant patients and low SoE for patients with cancer or HIV). Prior infection provided substantial, sustained protection against symptomatic reinfection with the Delta variant (high SoE) and reduced the risk for severe disease due to Omicron variants (moderate SoE). Prior infection was less protective against reinfection with Omicron overall (moderate SoE), but protection from earlier variants waned rapidly (low SoE). LIMITATION: Single review for abstract screening and sequential review for study selection, data abstraction, and quality assessment. CONCLUSION: Evidence for a sustained antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection is considerable for both Delta and Omicron variants. Prior infection protected against reinfection with both variants, but, for Omicron, protection was weaker and waned rapidly. This information may have limited clinical applicability as new variants emerge. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42020207098).

Risk for Reinfection After SARS-CoV-2: A Living, Rapid Review for American College of Physicians Practice Points on the Role of the Antibody Response in Conferring Immunity Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

BACKGROUND: The strength and duration of immunity from infection with SARS-CoV-2 are important for public health planning and clinical practice. PURPOSE: To synthesize evidence on protection against reinfection after SARS-CoV-2 infection. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid), the World Health Organization global literature database, ClinicalTrials.gov, COVID19reviews.org, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Longitudinal studies that compared the risk for reinfection after SARS-CoV-2 infection versus infection risk in individuals with no prior infection. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators sequentially extracted study data and rated quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Across 18 eligible studies, reinfection risk ranged from 0% to 2.2%. In persons with recent SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with unvaccinated, previously uninfected individuals, 80% to 98% of symptomatic infections with wild-type or Alpha variants were prevented (high strength of evidence). In the meta-analysis, previous infection reduced risk for reinfection by 87% (95% CI, 84% to 90%), equaling 4.3 fewer infections per 100 persons in both the general population (risk difference, -0.043 [CI, -0.071 to -0.015]) and health care workers (risk difference, -0.043 [CI, -0.069 to -0.016]), and 26.6 fewer infections per 100 persons in care facilities (risk difference, -0.266 [CI, -0.449 to -0.083]). Protection remained above 80% for at least 7 months, but no study followed patients after the emergence of the Delta or Omicron variant. Results for the elderly were conflicting. LIMITATION: Methods to ascertain and diagnose infections varied. CONCLUSION: Before the emergence of the Delta and Omicron variants, persons with recent infection had strong protection against symptomatic reinfections for 7 months compared with unvaccinated, previously uninfected individuals. Protection in immunocompromised persons, racial and ethnic subgroups, and asymptomatic index case patients is unclear. The durability of protection in the setting of the Delta and Omicron variants is unknown. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42020207098).

Improving the utility of evidence synthesis for decision makers in the face of insufficient evidence.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and suggest strategies to make insufficient evidence ratings in systematic reviews more actionable. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A workgroup comprising members from the Evidence-Based Practice (EPC) Program of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality convened throughout 2020. We conducted iterative discussions considering information from three data sources: a literature review for relevant publications and frameworks, a review of a convenience sample of past systematic reviews conducted by the EPCs, and an audit of methods used in past EPC technical briefs. RESULTS: We identified five strategies for supplementing systematic review findings when evidence on benefits or harms is expected to be, or found to be, insufficient: 1) reconsider eligible study designs, 2) summarize indirect evidence, 3) summarize contextual and implementation evidence, 4) consider modelling, and 5) incorporate unpublished health system data in the evidence synthesis. While these strategies may not increase the strength of evidence, they may improve the utility of reports for decision makers. Adopting these strategies depends on feasibility, timeline, funding, and expertise of the systematic reviewers. CONCLUSION: Throughout the process of evidence synthesis of early scoping, protocol development, review conduct, and review presentation, authors can consider these five strategies to supplement evidence with insufficient rating to make it more actionable for end-users.

A prospective comparison of evidence synthesis search strategies developed with and without text-mining tools.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the process of developing searches with and without using text-mining tools (TMTs) for evidence synthesis products. STUDY DESIGN: This descriptive comparative analysis included seven systematic reviews, classified as simple or complex. Two librarians created MEDLINE strategies for each review, using either usual practice (UP) or TMTs. For each search we calculated sensitivity, number-needed-to-read (NNR) and time spent developing the search strategy. RESULTS: We found UP searches were more sensitive (UP 92% (95% CI, 85-99); TMT 84.9% (95% CI, 74.4-95.4)), with lower NNR (UP 83 (SD 34); TMT 90 (SD 68)). UP librarians spent an average of 12 h (SD 8) developing search strategies, compared to TMT librarians' 5 hours (SD 2). CONCLUSION: Across all reviews, TMT searches were less sensitive than UP searches, but confidence intervals overlapped. For simple SR topics, TMT searches were faster and slightly less sensitive than UP. For complex SR topics, TMT searches were faster and less sensitive than UP searches but identified unique eligible citations not found by the UP searches.

NxGen evidence: Redesigning the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Effective Health Care website to promote engagement, interactivity, and usability of systematic reviews.

Evidence-based decision-making is predicated on the ability of users to find and comprehend results from systematic review. Evidence producers have an obligation to support evidence users in this process. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) program-a producer of rigorous and comprehensive systematic reviews for two decades-has set a gold standard for reliability in health evidence reviews in the United States. It has recently begun a program of active support for evidence dissemination and uptake beyond mere publication of lengthy reports. This Brief Methods Note critiques the current paper-based format for systematic reviews and describes the development of a next generation (NxGen) AHRQ EPC Effective Health Care website. This redesigned platform will allow end-users of all types to find and share the evidence they need through data visualizations and other interactive displays. Several design principles guided the development of NxGen to make systematic review findings more accessible, customizable, adaptable, interactive, and shareable. NxGen will include visualizations for report results that are expressed as meta-analyses as well as those with narrative syntheses, through forest or bubble plots, respectively. Visual and interactive evidence heat maps are also planned. The NxGen version of the Effective Health Care website is planned to go live in the latter half of 2020 or early 2021.

Retention Strategies for Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in Adults: A Rapid Evidence Review.

OBJECTIVES: Although medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) save lives, treatment retention remains challenging. Identification of interventions to improve MOUD retention is of interest to policymakers and researchers. On behalf of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, we conducted a rapid evidence review on interventions to improve MOUD retention. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library from February 2009 through August 2019 for systematic reviews and randomized trials of care settings, services, logistical support, contingency management, health information technology (IT), extended-release (XR) formulations, and psychosocial interventions that assessed retention at least 3 months. RESULTS: Two systematic reviews and 39 primary studies were included; most did not focus on retention as the primary outcome. Initiating MOUD in soon-to-be-released incarcerated people improved retention following release. Contingency management may improve retention using antagonist but not agonist MOUD. Retention with interventions integrating medical, psychiatric, social services, or IT did not differ from in-person treatment-as-usual approaches. Retention was comparable with XR- compared to daily buprenorphine formulations and conflicting with XR-naltrexone monthly injection compared to daily buprenorphine. Most psychosocial interventions did not improve retention. DISCUSSION: Consistent but sparse evidence supports criminal justice prerelease MOUD initiation, and contingency management interventions for antagonist MOUD. Integrating MOUD with medical, psychiatric, social services, delivering through IT, or administering via XR-MOUD formulations did not worsen retention. Fewer than half of the studies we identified focused on retention as a primary outcome. Studies used different measures of retention, making it difficult to compare effectiveness. Additional inquiry into the causes of low retention would inform future interventions.Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42019134739.

Making Narrative Statements to Describe Treatment Effects.

Accurately describing treatment effects using plain language and narrative statements is a critical step in communicating research findings to end users. However, the process of developing these narratives has not been historically guided by a specific framework. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center Program developed guidance for narrative summaries of treatment effects that identifies five constructs. We explicitly identify these constructs to facilitate developing narrative statements: (1) direction of effect, (2) size of effect, (3) clinical importance, (4) statistical significance, and (5) strength or certainty of evidence. These constructs clearly overlap. It may not always be feasible to address all five constructs. Based on context and intended audience, investigators can determine which constructs will be most important to address in narrative statements.

Isolation and characterization of iron chelators from turmeric (Curcuma longa): selective metal binding by curcuminoids.

Iron overload disorders may be treated by chelation therapy. This study describes a novel method for isolating iron chelators from complex mixtures including plant extracts. We demonstrate the one-step isolation of curcuminoids from turmeric, the medicinal food spice derived from Curcuma longa. The method uses iron-nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA)-agarose, to which curcumin binds rapidly, specifically, and reversibly. Curcumin, demethoxycurcumin, and bisdemethoxycurcumin each bound iron-NTA-agarose with comparable affinities and a stoichiometry near 1. Analyses of binding efficiencies and purity demonstrated that curcuminoids comprise the primary iron binding compounds recovered from a crude turmeric extract. Competition of curcuminoid binding to the iron resin was used to characterize the metal binding site on curcumin and to detect iron binding by added chelators. Curcumin-Iron-NTA-agarose binding was inhibited by other metals with relative potency: (>90% inhibition) Cu2+ ~ Al3+ > Zn2+ ≥ Ca2+ ~ Mg2+ ~ Mn2+ (<20% inhibition). Binding was also inhibited by pharmaceutical iron chelators (desferoxamine or EDTA) or by higher concentrations of weak iron chelators (citrate or silibinin). Investigation of the physiological effects of iron binding by curcumin revealed that curcumin uptake by cultured cells was reduced >80% by addition of iron to the media; uptake was completely restored by desferoxamine. Ranking of metals by relative potencies for blocking curcumin uptake agreed with their relative potencies in blocking curcumin binding to iron-NTA-agarose. We conclude that curcumin can selectively bind toxic metals including iron in a physiological setting, and propose inhibition of curcumin binding to iron-NTA-agarose for iron chelator screening.