Efficacy and safety of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy in hematologic malignancies: a living systematic review on comparative studies.

Background: Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) cell therapies have been claimed to be curative in responsive patients. Nonetheless, response rates can vary according to different characteristics, and these therapies are associated with important adverse events such as cytokine release syndrome, neurologic adverse events, and B-cell aplasia. Objectives: This living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated synthesis of the evidence available on the role of CAR-T therapy for the treatment of patients with hematologic malignancies. Design: A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI), evaluating the effect of CAR-T therapy versus other active treatments, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, standard of care (SoC) or any other intervention, was performed in patients with hematologic malignancies. The primary outcome is overall survival (OS). Certainty of the evidence was determined using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Data sources and Methods: Searches were performed in the Epistemonikos database, which collates information from multiple sources to identify systematic reviews and their included primary studies, including Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, DARE, HTA Database, Campbell database, JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, EPPI-Centre Evidence Library. A manual search was also carried out. We included the evidence published up to 1 July 2022. Results: We included the evidence published up to 1 July 2022. We considered 139 RCTs and 1725 NRSI as potentially eligible. Two RCTs (N = 681) comparing CAR-T therapy with SoC in patients with recurrent/relapsed (R/R) B-cell lymphoma were included. RCTs did not show statistical differences in OS, serious adverse events, or total adverse events with grade ⩾ 3. Higher complete response with substantial heterogeneity [risk ratio = 1.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) = (1.30-1.93); I 2 = 89%; 2 studies; 681 participants; very low certainty evidence] and higher progression-free survival [hazard ratio for progression or death = 0.49; 95% CI = (0.37-0.65); 1 study; 359 participants; moderate certainty evidence] were reported with CAR-T therapies. Nine NRSI (N = 540) in patients with T or B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia or R/R B-cell lymphoma were also included, providing secondary data. In general, the GRADE certainty of the evidence for main outcomes was mostly low or very low. Conclusion: So far, assuming important limitations in the level of certainty due to scarce and heterogenous comparative studies, CAR-T therapies have shown some benefit in terms of progression-free survival, but no overall survival, in patients with R/R B-cell lymphoma. Despite one-arm trials have already facilitated approval of CAR-T cell treatments, additional evidence from large comparative studies is still needed to better characterize the benefit-harm ratio of the use of CAR-T in a variety of patient populations with hematological malignancies. Registration: https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.14390.1. PROSPERO/OSF Preregistration: 10.17605/OSF.IO/V6HDX.

Methods for developing and reporting living evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Identify currently methodological aspects proposed for planning, conducting, and reporting living evidence (LE) synthesis. Develop a preliminary checklist of key LE synthesis elements. METHODS: A survey of methodological articles describing or analyzing methods for the design, conduction, or reporting of LE synthesis. RESULTS: Twelve methodological articles were identified and analyzed. Key elements were related to: i) definition of LE and characteristics of LE synthesis, ii) methods and tools for the living process, iii) new evidence integration (methods and considerations), iv) updates dissemination and publication, v) revisiting living parameters, and vi) protocol considerations for LE synthesis. CONCLUSION: This survey displays basic methodological concepts that can drive the development of LE synthesis and identifies specific aspects with opportunities for development. The potential impact of the LE approach calls for a change in the current evidence synthesis updating processes to more open, collaborative, transparent, and efficient systems. LE approaches also challenge journal editors to shift toward more efficient processes for synthesis update dissemination, which minimizes the risks of reliability of published information.

Evaluación de la calidad de vida en personas con discapacidad intelectual ¿Un asunto ético o metodológico? / Quality of life assessment in people with intellectual disability An ethical or methodological issue?

Resumen La calidad de vida relacionada con la salud se ha convertido en la actualidad en uno de los desenlaces que se proponen para evaluar la efectividad de intervenciones terapéuticas, sobre todo en condiciones que no tienen cura médica y en las cuales se espera que las intervenciones en salud impacten la forma en la que viven las personas. En el caso de las personas con discapacidad intelectual hay controversia no sólo por la evaluación de la calidad de vida como desenlace, sino también por las consideraciones éticas y metodológicas que implica su uso. Este ensayo aborda los temas éticos y metodológicos de la inclusión de la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud como desenlace clínico en personas con discapacidad intelectual. (Acta Med Colomb 2022; 47. DOI:https://doi.org/10.36104/amc.2022.2019).

Abstract Health-related quality of life is one of the outcomes proposed today for assessing the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions, especially in conditions with no medical cure and in which it is expected that the healthcare interventions will have an impact on the way people live. In the case of people with intellectual disability, there is controversy not only about the assessment of quality of life as an outcome, but also over the ethical and methodological considerations involved in its use. This paper addresses the ethical and methodological issues of including health-related quality of life as a clinical outcome in people with intellectual disability. (Acta Med Colomb 2022; 47. DOI:https://doi.org/10.36104/amc.2022.2019).

Efficacy and safety of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy in hematologic malignancies: a living systematic review (protocol).

Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of CAR-T therapy in the treatment of patients with hematologic malignancies, in comparison with other current therapies. Design: A living systematic review. Methods: We will include randomized trials evaluating the effect of CAR-T therapy versus other active treatments, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, best supportive care or any other intervention in patients with hematologic malignancies. Non-randomized primary studies will be searched in case we found no direct evidence from randomized controlled trials. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. Efficacy measures will include overall survival rate, overall response rate, complete response/remission (CR) rate, partial response/remission (PR) rate, relapse from CR, progression-free survival, and time from CAR-T infusion to transplantation. Safety measures will include serious adverse events, the incidence of cytokine release syndrome, graft-versus-host disease, neurotoxicity, and total adverse events. Quality of life will also be assessed. Meta-analyses will be carried out to summarize the results. We will apply the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available until there is solid evidence to respond to the review objective. We will resubmit it for publication every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates.

Research has been carried out over the last few years to assess the efficacy and usefulness of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell (CAR-T) therapy in hematologic malignancies. The present review aims to determine the efficacy and safety of CAR-T therapy in the management of patients suffering hematologic malignancies. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) that answer our research question or non-randomized primary studies, in case we found no direct evidence of RCT, will be retrieved. The Epistemonikos database will be used for the identification of potentially eligible studies. We will identify studies meeting our inclusion criteria. We will evaluate the risk of bias and the quality of the evidence will be determined with specific tools. We will monitor the newly published evidence every two months, searching for relevant studies that could indicate changes in the available evidence. This monitoring process will last until a high certainty of evidence is reached or at least 36 months.

Implementing living evidence to inform health decisions: A strategy for building capacity in health sector (Protocol).

Every day important healthcare decisions are made with incomplete or outdated information about the effects of the healthcare interventions available, what delivers the best value for the health system and where more research is needed. It is necessary to invest in strategies that allow access to reliable and updated evidence on which to base health decisions. The objective is to develop and evaluate a strategy for building the capacity among different actors of a country's health system to implement the model known as "Living Evidence" [LE] in the evidence synthesis and dissemination of knowledge transfer [KT] products to inform health decisions. The study will involve professional members of health system organizations in charge of developing KT products to inform health decisions. The project will be developed in three complementary phases: 1) LE-implementation framework development through review of the literature, brainstorming meetings, user testing, and expert consultation; 2) training in LE tools and strategies; 3) developing LE synthesis for KT products by applying the framework to real-life diverse situations. To achieve the capacity-building strategy assessment goal, several surveys and interviews will take place during the process to assess: 1) the LE-implementation framework for the incorporation of LE synthesis in the development of KT products; 2) the training workshops; 3) the whole capacity-building strategy used for health system organizations be able of implementing the LE as part of the KT products they regularly produce. The expected results are an effective capacity-building strategy for health system organizations to implement the living evidence model in different KT products; a LE-implementation framework to be applicable to any country or region to incorporate LE in the KT products; LE synthesis for KT products directly applicable to the real-setting situations; integration of Epistemonikos-L.OVE platform for keeping the LE process in the development and updating of KT products.

Methodological approaches for developing and reporting living evidence synthesis: a study protocol.

Background: Living evidence (LE) refers to the methodological processes that permit new research findings to be continually incorporated into evidence synthesis. This approach is of great value in the resolution of relevant and rapidly changing clinical questions. To date, the methods to carry out this type of synthesis are not completely defined, and great variability is observed in the approaches used by different groups of authors. Objective: To identify, evaluate and summarise the current methods used for living evidence synthesis Methods: We will conduct a methodological study based on a systematic literature search to identify any type of evidence synthesis such as systematic reviews, network metanalyses and overviews that used "living evidence synthesis" as part of their methods. The search will be conducted in Medline (via PubMed) and Epistemonikos databases. Additionally, we will search websites of the organisations publishing any living evidence synthesis retrieved in the two databases, in order to identify unpublished subsequent reports. Two reviewers will independently assess each article against the selection criteria, extract data on methods and procedures, and assess the methodological quality of each publication. Data will be analysed descriptively.

Macrolides for the treatment of COVID-19: a living, systematic review. / Macrólidos para el tratamiento de COVID-19: Una revisión sistemática viva.

OBJECTIVE: This living, systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of macrolides for treating patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: A living, systematic review. DATABASE: We conducted searches in the centralized repository L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from the Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customized to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. Today it is maintained through regular searches in 39 databases. METHODS: We included randomized trials evaluating the effect of macrolides as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomized trials evaluating macrolides in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomized studies in COVID-19 were searched in case we found no direct evidence from randomized trials. Two reviewers independently screened each study for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Measures included all-cause mortality; the need for invasive mechanical ventilation; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, length of hospital stay, respiratory failure, serious adverse events, time to SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR negativity. We applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates. RESULTS: The search in the L·OVE platform retrieved 424 references. We considered 260 as potentially eligible and were reviewed in full texts. We included one randomized clinical trial that evaluated the use of azithromycin in combination with hydroxychloroquine compared to hydroxychloroquine alone in hospitalized patients with COVID 19. The estimates for all outcomes evaluated resulted in insufficient power to draw conclusions. The quality of the evidence for the main outcomes was low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: Macrolides in the management of patients with COVID 19 showed no beneficial effects compared to standard of care. The evidence for all outcomes is inconclusive. Larger trials are needed to determine the effects of macrolides on pulmonary and other outcomes in COVID-19 patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42020181032 Protocol preprint DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/rvp59.

OBJETIVO: Proporcionar un resumen oportuno, riguroso y continuamente actualizado de la evidencia disponible sobre el papel de los macrólidos para el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19. DISEÑO: Revisión sistemática viva. BASE DE DATOS: La búsqueda de evidencia se realizó en el repositorio centralizado L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) COVID-19; una plataforma que mapea las preguntas PICO para identificar la evidencia en la base de datos Epistemonikos. En respuesta a la emergencia de COVID-19, L·OVE se adaptó para ampliar el rango de evidencia que cubre y hoy se mantiene a través de búsquedas regulares en 39 bases de datos. MÉTODOS: Se incluyeron estudios experimentales que evaluaban el efecto de los macrólidos, como monoterapia o en combinación con otros fármacos, versus placebo o ningún tratamiento en pacientes con sospecha o confirmación de COVID-19. Se buscó identificar experimentos clínicos aleatorizados que evaluaran macrólidos en infecciones causadas por otros coronavirus, como MERS-CoV y SARS-CoV. Dos revisores examinaron de forma independiente la elegibilidad de cada estudio, extrajeron los datos y evaluaron el riesgo de sesgo. Se evaluó el efecto de los macrólidos sobre la mortalidad por todas las causas; necesidad de ventilación mecánica invasiva; oxigenación por membrana extracorpórea, duración de la estancia hospitalaria, insuficiencia respiratoria, eventos adversos graves, tiempo hasta la negatividad de la RT-PCR del SARS-CoV-2. La certeza de la evidencia para cada desenlace se evaluó siguiendo la aproximación GRADE. Esta revisión se mantendrá viva y disponible abiertamente durante la pandemia de COVID-19. Se someterán actualizaciones de su publicación cada vez que cambien las conclusiones o cuando haya actualizaciones sustanciales. RESULTADOS: Se identificó un experimento clínico aleatorio que evaluó el uso de azitromicina en combinación con hidroxicloroquina en comparación con el uso de hidroxicloroquina sola, en pacientes hospitalizados por COVID 19. Las estimaciones para todos los resultados evaluados resultaron en un poder estadístico insuficiente para llegar a conclusiones válidas. La calidad de la evidencia para los resultados principales fue baja a muy baja. CONCLUSIONES: El uso de macrólidos en el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID 19 no ha mostrado efectos beneficiosos en comparación con el tratamiento estándar. La evidencia para todos los desenlaces no es concluyente. Se necesitan estudios sobre un mayor número de pacientes con COVID 19, para determinar los efectos del uso de macrólidos sobre los desenlaces relacionados con la enfermedad. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42020181032 Protocol preprint DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/rvp59.

Macrólidos para el tratamiento de COVID-19: una revisión sistemática viva / Macrolides for the treatment of COVID-19: a living, systematic review

OBJETIVO Proporcionar un resumen oportuno, riguroso y continuamente actualizado de la evidencia disponible sobre el papel de los macrólidos para el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19. DIDEÑO Revisión Sistemática Viva. BASE DE DATOS: La búsqueda de evidencia se realizó en el repositorio centralizado L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) COVID-19; una plataforma que mapea las preguntas PICO para identificar la evidencia en la base de datos Epistemonikos. En respuesta a la emergencia de COVID-19, L·OVE se adaptó para ampliar el rango de evidencia que cubre y hoy se mantiene a través de búsquedas regulares en 39 bases de datos. MÉTODOS: Se incluyeron estudios experimentales que evaluaban el efecto de los macrólidos, como monoterapia o en combinación con otros fármacos, versus placebo o ningún tratamiento en pacientes con sospecha o confirmación de COVID-19. Se buscó identificar experimentos clínicos aleatorizados que evaluaran macrólidos en infecciones causadas por otros coronavirus, como MERS-CoV y SARS-CoV. Dos revisores examinaron de forma independiente la elegibilidad de cada estudio, extrajeron los datos y evaluaron el riesgo de sesgo. Se evaluó el efecto de los macrólidos sobre la mortalidad por todas las causas; necesidad de ventilación mecánica invasiva; oxigenación por membrana extracorpórea, duración de la estancia hospitalaria, insuficiencia respiratoria, eventos adversos graves, tiempo hasta la negatividad de la RT-PCR del SARS-CoV-2. La certeza de la evidencia para cada desenlace se evaluó siguiendo la aproximación GRADE. Esta revisión se mantendrá viva y disponible abiertamente durante la pandemia de COVID-19. Se someterán actualizaciones de su publicación cada vez que cambien las conclusiones o cuando haya actualizaciones sustanciales. RESULTADOS: Se identificó un experimento clínico aleatorio que evaluó el uso de azitromicina en combinación con hidroxicloroquina en comparación con el uso de hidroxicloroquina sola, en pacientes hospitalizados por COVID 19. Las estimaciones para todos los resultados evaluados resultaron en un poder estadístico insuficiente para llegar a conclusiones válidas. La calidad de la evidencia para los resultados principales fue baja a muy baja. CONCLUSIONES: El uso de macrólidos en el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID 19 no ha mostrado efectos beneficiosos en comparación con el tratamiento estándar. La evidencia para todos los desenlaces no es concluyente. Se necesitan estudios sobre un mayor número de pacientes con COVID 19, para determinar los efectos del uso de macrólidos sobre los desenlaces relacionados con la enfermedad.

OBJECTIVE This living, systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of macrolides for treating patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: a living, systematic review. DATABASE: We conducted searches in the centralized repository L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from the Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customized to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. Today it is maintained through regular searches in 39 databases.METHODS: We included randomized trials evaluating the effect of macrolides ­ as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs ­ versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomized trials evaluating macrolides in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomized studies in COVID-19 were searched in case we found no direct evidence from randomized trials. Two reviewers independently screened each study for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Measures included all-cause mortality; the need for invasive mechanical ventilation; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, length of hospital stay, respiratory failure, serious adverse events, time to SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR negativity. We applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates. RESULTS: The search in the L·OVE platform retrieved 424 references. We considered 260 as potentially eligible and were reviewed in full texts. We included one randomized clinical trial that evaluated the use of azithromycin in combination with hydroxychloroquine compared to hydroxychloroquine alone in hospitalized patients with COVID 19. The estimates for all outcomes evaluated resulted in insufficient power to draw conclusions. The quality of the evidence for the main outcomes was low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: Macrolides in the management of patients with COVID 19 showed no beneficial effects compared to standard of care. The evidence for all outcomes is inconclusive. Larger trials are needed to determine the effects of macrolides on pulmonary and other outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

The Cochrane Collaboration establishes representation in Colombia. Why and for what purpose? / La Colaboración Cochrane establece representación en Colombia. ¿Por qué y para qué?

Colombia es, entre los países en Latinoamérica, el de mayor trayectoria en el esfuerzo por introducir la medicina basada en la evidencia en el cuidado de los pacientes y seguido a ello, soportar las decisiones políticas en salud en la evidencia proveniente de la investigación. Son varias las universidades que han contribuido a este proceso en el país; desde la creación del primer programa de maestría en epidemiología clínica en abril de 1997, en la Facultad de Medicina de la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, al que le sucedieron el programa de maestría en Epidemiología Clínica interfacultades de la Universidad Nacional aprobado en el año 2004 y el programa de epidemiología clínica, adscrito a la Facultad de Medicina de la Universidad de Antioquia que inició en noviembre del año 2005, hasta la actualidad, en la que se ofrecen más de seis programas de especialización y de maestría en epidemiología clínica en diferentes universidades del país.

Probiotics to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very preterm or very low birth weight infants.

BACKGROUND: Intestinal dysbiosis may contribute to the pathogenesis of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) in very preterm or very low birth weight infants. Dietary supplementation with probiotics to modulate the intestinal microbiome has been proposed as a strategy to reduce the risk of NEC and associated mortality and morbidity.  OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of supplemental probiotics on the risk of NEC and mortality and morbidity in very preterm or very low birth weight infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 17 Feb 2020), Embase Ovid (1974 to 17 Feb 2020), Maternity & Infant Care Database Ovid (1971 to 17 Feb 2020), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1982 to 18 Feb 2020). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs comparing probiotic supplementation with placebo or no probiotics in very preterm or very low birth weight infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors separately evaluated trial quality, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and mean difference. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for effects on NEC, all-cause mortality, late-onset infection, and severe neurodevelopmental impairment. MAIN RESULTS: We included 56 trials in which 10,812 infants participated. Most trials were small (median sample size 149). Lack of clarity on methods to conceal allocation and mask caregivers or investigators were the main potential sources of bias in about half of the trials. Trials varied by the formulation of the probiotics. The most commonly used preparations contained Bifidobacterium spp., Lactobacillus spp., Saccharomyces spp., and Streptococcus spp. alone or in combinations. Meta-analysis showed that probiotics may reduce the risk of NEC: RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.65 (54 trials, 10,604 infants; I² = 17%); RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.02; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 33, 95% CI 25 to 50. Evidence was assessed as low certainty because of the limitations in trials design, and the presence of funnel plot asymmetry consistent with publication bias. Sensitivity meta-analysis of trials at low risk of bias showed a reduced risk of NEC: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89 (16 trials, 4597 infants; I² = 25%); RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.01; NNTB 50, 95% CI 33 to 100. Meta-analyses showed that probiotics probably reduce mortality (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.89; (51 trials, 10,170 infants; I² = 0%); RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.02 to -0.01; NNTB 50, 95% CI 50 to 100), and late-onset invasive infection (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; (47 trials, 9762 infants; I² = 19%); RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.01; NNTB 50, 95% CI 33 to 100). Evidence was assessed as moderate certainty for both these outcomes because of the limitations in trials design. Sensitivity meta-analyses of 16 trials (4597 infants) at low risk of bias did not show an effect on mortality or infection. Meta-analysis showed that probiotics may have little or no effect on severe neurodevelopmental impairment (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.26 (five trials, 1518 infants; I² = 0%). The certainty on this evidence is low because of limitations in trials design and serious imprecision of effect estimate. Few data (from seven of the trials) were available for extremely preterm or extremely low birth weight infants. Meta-analyses did not show effects on NEC, death, or infection (low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the low to moderate level of certainty about the effects of probiotic supplements on the risk of NEC and associated morbidity and mortality for very preterm or very low birth weight infants, and particularly for extremely preterm or extremely low birth weight infants, further, large, high-quality trials are needed to provide evidence of sufficient quality and applicability to inform policy and practice.

Vitamin A supplementation to prevent mortality and short- and long-term morbidity in very low birth weight infants.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin A is necessary for normal lung growth and the integrity of respiratory tract epithelial cells. Preterm infants have low vitamin A status at birth and this has been associated with an increased risk of developing chronic lung disease. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate supplementation with vitamin A on the incidence of death or neonatal chronic lung disease and long-term neurodevelopmental disability in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants compared with a control (placebo or no supplementation), and to consider the effect of the supplementation route, dose, and timing. SEARCH METHODS: For the original review and subsequent updates, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Science Citation Index, and the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials. The reference lists of relevant trials, paediatric and nutrition journals, and conference abstracts and proceedings were handsearched up to 2010.For the 2016 update, we used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE via PubMed (1 May 2016), EMBASE (1 May 2016), and CINAHL (1 May 2016). We also searched clinical trials' databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing vitamin A supplementation with a control (placebo or no supplementation) or other dosage regimens in VLBW infants (birth weight ≤ 1500 grams or less than 32 weeks' gestation). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened the search results, extracted data, and assessed the trials for risk of bias. Results were reported as risk ratios (RR), risk differences (RD), and number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB), all with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Trialists were contacted for additional data. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven trials met the inclusion criteria. Ten trials (1460 infants) compared vitamin A supplementation with a control and one (120 infants) compared different regimens of vitamin A supplementation. Compared to the control group, vitamin A appeared to have a small benefit in reducing the risk of death or oxygen requirement at one month of age (typical RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99; typical RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.01; NNTB 20, 95% CI 10 to 100; 6 studies, 1165 infants) and the risk of chronic lung disease (oxygen requirement) at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (typical RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.99; typical RD -0.07, 95% CI -0.13 to -0.01; NNTB 11, 95% CI 6 to 100; 5 studies, 986 infants) (moderate-quality evidence). There was a marginal reduction of the combined outcome of death or chronic lung disease (typical RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; typical RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.01; 4 studies, 1089 infants). Neurodevelopmental assessment of 88% of the surviving infants in the largest trial showed no difference between the groups at 18 to 22 months of age, corrected for prematurity (low-quality evidence). There is no evidence to support different vitamin A dosing regimens. No adverse effects of vitamin A supplementation were reported, but it was noted that intramuscular injections of vitamin A were painful. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Whether clinicians decide to utilise repeat intramuscular doses of vitamin A to prevent chronic lung disease may depend upon the local incidence of this outcome and the value attached to achieving a modest reduction in the outcome balanced against the lack of other proven benefits and the acceptability of the treatment. Information on long-term neurodevelopmental status suggests no evidence of either benefit or harm from the intervention.

Combination inhaled steroid and long-acting beta2-agonist in addition to tiotropium versus tiotropium or combination alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: The long-acting bronchodilator tiotropium and single-inhaler combination therapy of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta2-agonists (ICS/LABA) are commonly used for maintenance treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Combining these treatments, which have different mechanisms of action, may be more effective than administering the individual components. OBJECTIVES: To assess relative effects of the following treatments on markers of exacerbations, symptoms, quality of life and lung function in patients with COPD.• Tiotropium plus LABA/ICS versus tiotropium.• Tiotropium plus LABA/ICS versus LABA/ICS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials (April 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov), the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal and reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) lasting three months or longer conducted to compare ICS and LABA combination therapy in addition to inhaled tiotropium versus tiotropium alone or combination therapy alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently assessed trials for inclusion, then extracted data on trial quality and outcome results. We contacted study authors to ask for additional information. We collected trial information on adverse effects. MAIN RESULTS: Tiotropium plus LABA/ICS versus tiotropiumWe included six studies (1902 participants) with low risk of bias that compared tiotropium in addition to inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta2-agonist combination therapy versus tiotropium alone. Investigators found no statistically significant differences in mortality between treatments (odds ratio (OR) 1.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 5.91; two studies; 961 participants), a reduction in all-cause hospitalisations with the use of combined therapy (tiotropium + LABA/ICS) (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.92; two studies; 961 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 19.7, 95% CI 10.75 to 123.41). The effect on exacerbations was heterogeneous among trials and was not meta-analysed. Health-related quality of life measured by St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) showed a statistically significant improvement in total scores with use of tiotropium + LABA/ICS compared with tiotropium alone (mean difference (MD) -3.46, 95% CI -5.05 to -1.87; four studies; 1446 participants). Lung function was significantly different in the combined therapy (tiotropium + LABA/ICS) group, although average benefit with this therapy was small. None of the included studies included exercise tolerance as an outcome.A pooled estimate of these studies did not show a statistically significant difference in adverse events (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.47; four studies; 1363 participants), serious adverse events (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.30; four studies; 1758 participants) and pneumonia (Peto OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.54 to 4.82; four studies; 1758 participants). Tiotropium plus LABA/ICS versus LABA/ICSOne of the six studies (60 participants) also compared combined therapy (tiotropium + LABA/ICS) versus LABA/ICS therapy alone. This study was affected by lack of power; therefore results did not allow us to draw conclusions for this comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this update, we found new moderate-quality evidence that combined tiotropium + LABA/ICS therapy compared with tiotropium plus placebo decreases hospital admission. Low-quality evidence suggests an improvement in disease-specific quality of life with combined therapy. However, evidence is insufficient to support the benefit of tiotropium + LABA/ICS for mortality and exacerbations (moderate- and low-quality evidence, respectively). Of note, not all participants enrolled in the included studies would be candidates for triple therapy according to current international guidance.Compared with the use of tiotropium plus placebo, tiotropium + LABA/ICS-based therapy does not increase undesirable effects such as adverse events or serious non-fatal adverse events.

Comparison of animal-derived surfactants for the prevention and treatment of respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Animal-derived surfactants have been shown to have several advantages over the first generation synthetic surfactants and are the most commonly used surfactant preparations. The animal-derived surfactants in clinical use are minced or lavaged and modified or purified from bovine or porcine lungs. It is unclear whether significant differences in clinical outcome exist among the available bovine (modified minced or lavage) and porcine (minced or lavage) surfactant extracts. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of administration of different animal-derived surfactant extracts on the risk of mortality, chronic lung disease, and other morbidities associated with prematurity in preterm infants at risk for or having respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 7), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to July 31, 2015), EMBASE (1980 to July 31, 2015), and CINAHL (1982 to July 31, 2015). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared the effect of animal-derived surfactant extract treatment administered to preterm infants at risk for or having RDS to prevent complications of prematurity and mortality. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data regarding clinical outcomes were excerpted from the reports of the clinical trials by the review authors. Subgroup analyses were performed based on gestational age, surfactant dosing and schedule, treatment severity and treatment strategy. Data analysis was performed in accordance with the standards of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis. Bovine lung lavage surfactant extract to modified bovine minced lung surfactant extract: Seven treatment studies and two prevention studies compared bovine lung lavage surfactant extract to modified bovine minced lung surfactant extract. The meta-analysis did not demonstrate any significant differences in death or chronic lung disease in the prevention trials (typical RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.17; typical RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.06; 2 studies and 1123 infants; high quality evidence) or treatment trials (typical RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.06; typical RD -0.02 , 95% CI -0.06 to 0.02; 3 studies and 2009 infants; high quality evidence) Modified bovine minced lung surfactant extract compared with porcine minced lung surfactant extract: Nine treatment studies compared modified bovine minced lung surfactant extract to porcine minced lung surfactant extract. Meta-analysis of these trials demonstrate a significant increase in the risk of mortality prior to hospital discharge (typical RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.00; typical RD 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.10; NNTH 20, 95% CI 10 to 100; 9 studies and 901 infants; moderate quality evidence), death or oxygen requirement at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (typical RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.64; typical RD 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.20; NNTH 9, 95% CI 5 to 50; 3 studies and 448 infants; moderate quality evidence), receiving more than one dose of surfactant (typical RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.92; typical RD 0.14, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.20; NNTH 7, 95% CI 5 to 13; 6 studies and 786 infants), and patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) requiring treatment (typical RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.70; typical RD 0.28, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.43; NNTH 4, 95% CI 2 to 8; 3 studies and 137 infants) in infants treated with modified bovine minced lung surfactant extract compared with porcine minced lung surfactant extract. In the subgroup analysis based on initial dose of surfactant, improvement in mortality prior to discharge (typical RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.38; typical RD 0.06, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.11; NNTH 16, 95% CI 9 to 100) and risk of death or oxygen requirement at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (typical RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.79; typical RD 0.13, 95% 0.03 to 0.23; NNTH 7, 95% CI 4 to 33) was limited to higher initial dose of porcine minced lung surfactant (> 100 mg/kg). Other comparisons: No difference in outcome was noted between bovine lung lavage surfactant extract versus porcine minced lung surfactant extract. There were no studies comparing bovine lung lavage surfactant extract versus porcine lung lavage surfactant; or porcine minced lung surfactant extract versus porcine lung lavage surfactant. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences in clinical outcome were noted in the comparison trials of modified minced lung surfactant extract (beractant) compared with porcine minced lung surfactant extract (poractant alfa) including a significant increase in the risk of mortality prior to discharge, death or oxygen requirement at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age, PDA requiring treatment and "receiving > 1 dose of surfactant" in infants treated with modified bovine minced lung surfactant extract compared with porcine minced lung surfactant extract. The difference in these outcomes was limited to studies using a higher initial dose of porcine minced lung surfactant extract. It is uncertain whether the observed differences are from differences in dose or from source of extraction (porcine vs. bovine) because of the lack of dose-equivalent comparison groups with appropriate sample size. No differences in clinical outcomes were observed in comparative trials between bovine lung lavage surfactant and modified bovine minced lung surfactants.

Rescue high-frequency jet ventilation versus conventional ventilation for severe pulmonary dysfunction in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lung disease (CLD) is a major cause of mortality and morbidity in very low birth weight infants despite increased use of antenatal steroids and surfactant therapy. Ventilator injury and oxygen toxicity are thought to be important factors in the pathogenesis of chronic pulmonary disease. Evidence from animal studies and from adult human studies indicates that high-frequency jet ventilation may reduce the severity of lung injury associated with mechanical ventilation. OBJECTIVES: To compare use of high-frequency jet ventilation (HFJV) versus conventional ventilation (CV) in preterm infants with severe pulmonary dysfunction.Subgroup analyses include the following.• Trials with and without surfactant replacement therapy.• Trials with and without strategies to maintain lung volume.• Trials with infants of different gestational ages and birth weights (specific subgroups to include < 28 weeks' gestation and < 1000 grams).• Trials with and without adequate humidification of inspired gases. SEARCH METHODS: The original search included MEDLINE (1966 to August 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2005, Issue 3) and EMBASE (1988 to August 2005). We also obtained information from experts in the field and checked cross-references. We updated the electronic search in June 2013 and again in June 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included in this systematic review randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of rescue high-frequency jet ventilation versus conventional ventilation in preterm infants born at less than 35 weeks' gestation or with birth weight less than 2000 grams in respiratory distress. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, including independent trial assessment and data extraction. We analysed data using risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs). MAIN RESULTS: We included only one trial in the review. Keszler 1991 randomly assigned 166 preterm infants; reported data on 144 infants; and permitted cross-over to the alternate treatment if initial treatment failed. Investigators found no statistically significant differences in overall mortality (including survival after cross-over) between the two groups (RR 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.72). In a secondary analysis of infants up to the time of cross-over, rescue treatment with HFJV was associated with lower mortality (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97). Researchers reported no significant differences in the incidence of CLD among survivors at 28 days of age, nor in the incidence of intraventricular haemorrhage, new air leaks, airway obstruction and necrotising tracheobronchitis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Study authors reported no significant differences in overall mortality between rescue high-frequency jet ventilation and conventional ventilation and presented highly imprecise results for important adverse effects such as intraventricular haemorrhage, new air leaks, airway obstruction and necrotising tracheobronchitis.The overall quality of evidence is affected by limitations in trial design and by imprecision due to the small number of infants in the included study. Existing evidence does not support the use of high-frequency jet ventilation as rescue therapy in preterm infants.Studies that target populations at greatest risk and that have sufficient power to assess important outcomes are needed. These trials should incorporate long-term pulmonary and neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Oxygen therapy for lower respiratory tract infections in children between 3 months and 15 years of age.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) includes administering complementary oxygen. The effectiveness of oxygen therapy and of different delivery methods remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of oxygen therapy and oxygen delivery methods in the treatment of LRTIs and to define the indications for oxygen therapy in children with LRTIs. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS from March 2008 to October 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or non-RCTs comparing oxygen versus no oxygen therapy or different methods of oxygen delivery in children with LRTI aged from three months to 15 years. To determine the indications for oxygen therapy, we included observational studies or diagnostic test accuracy studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently scanned the search results to identify studies for inclusion. Two authors independently performed the methodological assessment and the third author resolved any disagreements. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and adverse events (AEs). We performed fixed-effect meta-analyses for the estimation of pooled effects whenever there was no heterogeneity between included RCTs. We summarised the results reported in the included observational studies for the clinical indicators of hypoxaemia. MAIN RESULTS: In this review update, we included four studies (479 participants) assessing the efficacy of non-invasive delivery methods for the treatment of LRTI in children and 14 observational studies assessing the clinical sign indicators of hypoxaemia in children with LRTIs.Three RCTs (399 participants) compared the effectiveness of nasal prongs or nasal cannula with nasopharyngeal catheter; one non-RCT (80 participants) compared head box, face mask, nasopharyngeal catheter and nasal cannula. The nasopharyngeal catheter was the control group. Treatment failure was defined as number of children failing to achieve adequate arterial oxygen saturation. All included studies had a high risk of bias because of allocation methods and lack of blinded outcome assessment.For nasal prongs versus nasopharyngeal catheter, the pooled effect estimate for RCTs showed a worrying trend towards no difference between the groups (two RCTs; 239 participants; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.38). Similar results were shown in the one non-RCT (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.27). The overall quality of this evidence is very low. Nasal obstruction due to severe mucus production was different between treatment groups (three RCTs, 338 participants; RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.44; I(2) statistic = 0%). The quality of this evidence is low.The use of a face mask showed a statistically significant lower risk of failure to achieve arterial oxygen > 60 mmHg than the nasopharyngeal catheter (one non-RCT; 80 participants; odds ratio (OR) 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.88).The use of a head box showed a non-statistically significant trend towards a reduced risk of treatment failure compared to the nasopharyngeal catheter (one non-RCT; OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.12). The quality of this evidence is very low.To determine the presence of hypoxaemia in children presenting with LRTI, we assessed the sensitivity and specificity of nine clinical signs reported by the included observational studies and used this information to calculate likelihood ratios. The results showed that there is no single clinical sign or symptom that accurately identifies hypoxaemia. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It appears that oxygen therapy given early in the course of pneumonia via nasal prongs at a flow rate of 1 to 2 L/min does not prevent children with severe pneumonia from developing hypoxaemia. However, the applicability of this evidence is limited as it comes from a small pilot trial.Nasal prongs and nasopharyngeal catheter are similar in effectiveness when used for children with LRTI. Nasal prongs are associated with fewer nasal obstruction problems. The use of a face mask and head box has been poorly studied and it is not superior to a nasopharyngeal catheter in terms of effectiveness or safety in children with LRTI.Studies assessing the effectiveness of oxygen therapy and oxygen delivery methods in children with different baseline risks are needed.There is no single clinical sign or symptom that accurately identifies hypoxaemia in children with LRTI. The summary of results presented here can help clinicians to identify children with more severe conditions.This review is limited by the small number of trials assessing oxygen therapy and oxygen delivery methods as part of LRTI treatment. There is insufficient evidence to determine which non-invasive delivery methods should be used in children with LRTI and low levels of oxygen in their blood.

Validez diagnóstica de los volúmenes pulmonares por pletismografía para el diagnóstico clínico y el seguimiento de la fibrosis pulmonar idiopática / Diagnostic validity of lung volumes by plethysmography for clinical diagnosis and follow-up of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

INTRODUCCIÓN: La fibrosis pulmonar idiopática es definida como una forma de neumonía intersticial crónica, progresiva, de causa desconocida, limitada a los pulmones, la cual se presenta principalmente en adultos mayores de 65 años. El diagnóstico de la enfermedad incluye la presencia de un patrón radiológico compatible con neumonía intersticial o hallazgos histopatológicos compatibles con neumonía intersticial usual y la exclusión de: enfermedades ocupacionales, toxicidad por drogas o enfermedades del colágeno que puedan producir enfermedad intersticial. La determinación de los volúmenes pulmonares por pletismografía permite identificar la presencia de trastornos restrictivos y la gravedad de estos en los estados patológicos del pulmón. OBJETIVO: Determinar la validez de la medición de los volúmenes pulmonares por pletismografía como apoyo del proceso diagnóstico de la fibrosis pulmonar idiopática y como medida del seguimiento de la progresión de la enfermedad. MÉTODOS: Dos estudios fueron incluidos, estos evaluaban pacientes con fibrosis pulmonar idiopática en los que se realizaron volúmenes pulmonares por pletismografía y se correlacionaron los datos de CPT con la tasa de sobrevida, la progresión de la enfermedad y las exacerbaciones. Se encontró que la media de sobrevida de estos pacientes es de 36 meses proximadamente y se asocia a bajos niveles de capacidad vital forzada y capacidad pulmonar total entre otros. Adicionalmente que pacientes con una reducción combinada de CPT y CV por debajo de los valores predichos presentan un deterioro restrictivo de la función pulmonar y un reducción de la sobrevida. CONCLUSIONES: La medición de los volúmenes pulmonares es un método complementario a la espirometría para determinar las capacidades y volúmenes pulmonares que ayudan a definir la gravedad de las alteraciones obstructivas, restrictivas o ambas, que está comprometiendo al paciente. La evidencia existente no soporta su efectividad en la confirmación diagnóstica de la fibrosis pulmonar idiopática, para la cual existen otras pruebas de mayor utilidad diagnóstica y tampoco soporta su como método de seguimiento de la progresión de la enfermedad.(AU)

Monoclonal antibody for reducing the risk of respiratory syncytial virus infection in children.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is one of the most important viral pathogens causing acute respiratory infections in children. It results in about 3.4 million hospitalisations annually in children under five. Palivizumab is an anti-RSV monoclonal antibody, administered intramuscularly at a dose of 15 mg/kg once every 30 days. The efficacy and safety of palivizumab has been evaluated in multicentre, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and a large number of economic evaluations (EEs) have tested its cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of palivizumab prophylaxis compared with placebo, or another type of prophylaxis, in reducing the risk of complications (hospitalisation due to RSV infection) in high-risk infants and children. To assess the cost-effectiveness (or cost-utility) of palivizumab prophylaxis compared with no prophylaxis in infants and children in different risk groups. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL 2012, Issue 7, MEDLINE (1996 to July week 4, 2012), EMBASE (1996 to August 2012), CINAHL (1996 to August 2012) and LILACS (1996 to August 2012) for studies of effectiveness and safety. We searched the NHS Economic Evaluations Database (NHS EED 2012, Issue 4), Health Economics Evaluations Database (HEED, 9 August 2012) and Paediatric Economic Database Evaluations (PEDE, 1980 to 2009), MEDLINE (1996 to July week 4, 2012) and EMBASE (1996 to August 2012) for economic evaluations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing palivizumab prophylaxis with a placebo, no prophylaxis or another type of prophylaxis in preventing serious lower respiratory tract disease caused by RSV in paediatric patients at high risk. We included cost-effectiveness analyses and cost-utility analyses comparing palivizumab prophylaxis with no prophylaxis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias for the included studies and extracted data for both the RCTs and EEs. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and for adverse events (AEs). We provided a narrative summary of results for continuous outcomes, due to missing data on standard deviations. We performed fixed-effect meta-analyses for the estimation of pooled effects whenever there was no indication of heterogeneity between included RCTs. We summarised the results reported in included EEs, such as incremental costs, incremental effectiveness, and incremental cost-effectiveness and/or cost-utility ratios (ICERs), and we calculated ICER present values in 2011 Euros for all studies. MAIN RESULTS: Of the seven available RCTs, three compared palivizumab with a placebo in a total of 2831 patients, and four compared palivizumab with motavizumab in a total of 8265 patients. All RCTs were sponsored by the drug manufacturing company. The overall quality of RCTs was good, but for most of the outcomes assessed only data from two studies contributed to the analysis. Palivizumab prophylaxis was associated with a statistically significant reduction in RSV hospitalisations (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.64) when compared to placebo. When compared to motavizumab, palivizumab recipients showed a non-significant increase in the risk of RSV hospitalisations (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.90). In both cases, the proportion of children with any AE or any AE related to the study drug was similar between the two groups.In terms of economic evidence, we included 34 studies that reported cost-effectiveness and/or cost-utility data for palivizumab prophylaxis compared with no prophylaxis, in high-risk children with different underlying medical conditions. The overall quality of EEs was good, but the variations in modelling approaches were considerable across the studies, leading to big differences in cost-effectiveness results. The cost-effectiveness of palivizumab prophylaxis depends on the consumption of resources taken into account by the study authors; and on the cost-effectiveness threshold set by the healthcare sector in each country. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that palivizumab prophylaxis is effective in reducing the frequency of hospitalisations due to RSV infection, i.e. in reducing the incidence of serious lower respiratory tract RSV disease in children with chronic lung disease, congenital heart disease or those born preterm.Results from economic evaluations of palivizumab prophylaxis are inconsistent, implying that economic findings must be interpreted with caution. ICER values varied considerably across studies, from highly cost-effective to not cost-effective. The availability of low-cost palivizumab would reduce its inequitable distribution, so that RSV prophylaxis would be available to the poorest countries where children are at greatest risk.

Prophylactic versus selective use of surfactant in preventing morbidity and mortality in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Surfactant therapy is effective in improving the outcome of very preterm infants. Trials have studied a wide variety of surfactant preparations used either to prevent or treat respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). In animal models, prophylactic surfactant leads to more homogeneous distribution and less evidence of lung damage. However, administration requires intubation and treatment of infants who will not go on to develop RDS. This is of particular concern with the advent of improved approaches to providing continuous distending pressure, particularly in the form of nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of prophylactic surfactant administration to surfactant treatment of established RDS in very preterm infants at risk of RDS. SEARCH METHODS: We updated the search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and clinical trials.gov register in December 13, 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared the effects of prophylactic surfactant administration to surfactant treatment of established RDS in preterm infants at risk of RDS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data regarding clinical outcomes were extracted from the reports of the clinical trials by the reviewers. Data analysis was done in accordance with the standards of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven studies were identified that met inclusion criteria [nine without routine application of continuous positive air way pressure (CPAP) in the selective treatment group; two with routine application of CPAP in the selective treatment group]The meta-analysis of studies conducted prior to the routine application of CPAP demonstrated a decrease in the risk of air leak and neonatal mortality associated with prophylactic administration of surfactant. However, the analyses of studies that allowed for routine stabilization on CPAP demonstrated a decrease in the risk of chronic lung disease or death in infants stabilized on CPAP. When all studies were evaluated together, the benefits of prophylactic surfactant could no longer be demonstrated. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although the early trials of prophylactic surfactant administration to infants judged to be at risk of developing RDS compared to selective use of surfactant in infants with established RDS demonstrated a decreased risk of air leak and mortality, recent large trials that reflect current practice (including greater utilization of maternal steroids and routine post delivery stabilization on CPAP) do not support these differences and demonstrate less risk of chronic lung disease or death when using early stabilization on CPAP with selective surfactant administration to infants requiring intubation.

Effectiveness of organisational infrastructures to promote evidence-based nursing practice.

BACKGROUND: Nurses and midwives form the bulk of the clinical health workforce and play a central role in all health service delivery. There is potential to improve health care quality if nurses routinely use the best available evidence in their clinical practice. Since many of the factors perceived by nurses as barriers to the implementation of evidence-based practice (EBP) lie at the organisational level, it is of interest to devise and assess the effectiveness of organisational infrastructures designed to promote EBP among nurses. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of organisational infrastructures in promoting evidence-based nursing. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, BIREME, IBECS, NHS Economic Evaluations Database, Social Science Citation Index, Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Indexes up to 9 March 2011.We developed a new search strategy for this update as the strategy published in 2003 omitted key terms. Additional search methods included: screening reference lists of relevant studies, contacting authors of relevant papers regarding any further published or unpublished work, and searching websites of selected research groups and organisations.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, interrupted times series (ITSs) and controlled before and after studies of an entire or identified component of an organisational infrastructure intervention aimed at promoting EBP in nursing. The participants were all healthcare organisations comprising nurses, midwives and health visitors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. For the ITS analysis, we reported the change in the slopes of the regression lines, and the change in the level effect of the outcome at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: We included one study from the USA (re-analysed as an ITS) involving one hospital and an unknown number of nurses and patients. The study evaluated the effects of a standardised evidence-based nursing procedure on nursing care for patients at risk of developing healthcare-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs). If a patient's admission Braden score was below or equal to 18 (i.e. indicating a high risk of developing pressure ulcers), nurses were authorised to initiate a pressure ulcer prevention bundle (i.e. a set of evidence-based clinical interventions) without waiting for a physician order. Re-analysis of data as a time series showed that against a background trend of decreasing HAPU rates, if that trend was assumed to be real, there was no evidence of an intervention effect at three months (mean rate per quarter 0.7%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7 to 3.3; P = 0.457). Given the small percentages post intervention it was not statistically possible to extrapolate effects beyond three months. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite extensive searching of published and unpublished research we identified only one low-quality study; we excluded many studies due to non-eligible study design. If policy-makers and healthcare organisations wish to promote evidence-based nursing successfully at an organisational level, they must ensure the funding and conduct of well-designed studies to generate evidence to guide policy.