Empiric antibiotic regimens in adults with non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The optimal empiric antibiotic regimen for non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of alternative empiric antibiotic regimens in HAP using a network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL from database inception to July 06, 2023. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: RCTs. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with clinical suspicion of HAP. INTERVENTIONS: Any empiric antibiotic regimen vs. another, placebo, or no treatment. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: Paired reviewers independently assessed risk of bias using a modified Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Paired reviewers independently extracted data on trial and patient characteristics, antibiotic regimens, and outcomes of interest. We conducted frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses for treatment failure and all-cause mortality and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Thirty-nine RCTs proved eligible. Thirty RCTs involving 4807 participants found low certainty evidence that piperacillin-tazobactam (RR compared to all cephalosporins: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.42, 1.01) and carbapenems (RR compared to all cephalosporins: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.53, 1.11) might be among the most effective in reducing treatment failure. The findings were robust to the secondary analysis comparing piperacillin-tazobactam vs. antipseudomonal cephalosporins or antipseudomonal carbapenems vs. antipseudomonal cephalosporins. Eleven RCTs involving 2531 participants found low certainty evidence that ceftazidime and linezolid combination may not be convincingly different from cephalosporin alone in reducing all-cause mortality. Evidence on other antibiotic regimens is very uncertain. Data on other patient-important outcomes including adverse events was sparse, and we did not perform network or pairwise meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For empiric antibiotic therapy of adults with HAP, piperacillin-tazobactam might be among the most effective in reducing treatment failure. Empiric methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus coverage may not exert additional benefit in reducing mortality. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD 42022297224).

Ketamine sedation in the intensive care unit: a survey of Canadian intensivists.

PURPOSE: We sought to understand the beliefs and practices of Canadian intensivists regarding their use of ketamine as a sedative in critically ill patients and to gauge their interest in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) examining its use in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We designed and validated an electronic self-administered survey examining the use of ketamine as a sedative infusion for ICU patients. We surveyed 400 physician members of the Canadian Critical Care Society (CCCS) via email between February and April 2022 and sent three reminders at two-week intervals. The survey was redistributed in January 2023 to improve the response rate. RESULTS: We received 87/400 (22%) completed questionnaires. Most respondents reported they rarely use ketamine as a continuous infusion for sedation or analgesia in the ICU (52/87, 58%). Physicians reported the following conditions would make them more likely to use ketamine: asthma exacerbation (73/87, 82%), tolerance to opioids (68/87, 77%), status epilepticus (44/87, 50%), and severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (33/87, 38%). Concern for side-effects that limited respondents' use of ketamine include adverse psychotropic effects (61/87, 69%) and delirium (47/87, 53%). The majority of respondents agreed there is need for an RCT to evaluate ketamine as a sedative infusion in the ICU (62/87, 71%). CONCLUSION: This survey of Canadian intensivists illustrates that use of ketamine as a continuous infusion for sedation is limited, and is at least partly driven by concerns of adverse psychotropic effects. Canadian physicians endorse the need for a trial investigating the safety and efficacy of ketamine as a sedative for critically ill patients.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Nous avons cherché à comprendre les croyances et les pratiques des intensivistes pratiquant au Canada concernant leur utilisation de la kétamine comme sédatif chez la patientèle gravement malade et à évaluer leur intérêt pour une étude randomisée contrôlée (ERC) examinant son utilisation à l'unité de soins intensifs (USI). MéTHODE: Nous avons mis au point et validé un sondage électronique auto-administré examinant l'utilisation de la kétamine comme perfusion sédative pour les patient·es aux soins intensifs. Nous avons envoyé le sondage à 400 médecins membres de la Société canadienne de soins intensifs (SCCC) par courriel entre février et avril 2022 et envoyé trois rappels à intervalles de deux semaines. Le sondage a été redistribué en janvier 2023 afin d'améliorer le taux de réponse. RéSULTATS: Nous avons reçu 87 questionnaires remplis sur 400 (22 %). La plupart des personnes répondantes ont déclaré qu'elles utilisaient rarement la kétamine en perfusion continue pour la sédation ou l'analgésie à l'USI (52/87, 58 %). Les médecins ont déclaré que les conditions suivantes les rendraient plus susceptibles d'utiliser de la kétamine : une exacerbation de l'asthme (73/87, 82 %), une tolérance aux opioïdes (68/87, 77 %), un état de mal épileptique (44/87, 50 %) et un syndrome de détresse respiratoire aigu (33/87, 38 %). Les inquiétudes quant aux effets secondaires qui ont limité l'utilisation de la kétamine par les répondant·es comprennent les effets psychotropes indésirables (61/87, 69 %) et le delirium (47/87, 53 %). La majorité des personnes répondantes étaient d'accord qu'une ERC est nécessaire pour évaluer la kétamine en tant que perfusion sédative à l'USI (62/87, 71 %). CONCLUSION: Cette enquête menée auprès d'intensivistes au Canada montre que l'utilisation de la kétamine comme perfusion continue pour la sédation est limitée, au moins en partie en raison d'inquiétudes liées aux effets psychotropes indésirables. Les médecins pratiquant au Canada reconnaissent la nécessité d'une étude sur l'innocuité et l'efficacité de la kétamine comme sédatif pour la patientèle gravement malade.

Compelling evidence from meta-epidemiological studies demonstrates overestimation of effects in randomized trials that fail to optimize randomization and blind patients and outcome assessors.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of potential risk of bias elements on effect estimates in randomized trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a systematic survey of meta-epidemiological studies examining the influence of potential risk of bias elements on effect estimates in randomized trials. We included only meta-epidemiological studies that either preserved the clustering of trials within meta-analyses (compared effect estimates between trials with and without the potential risk of bias element within each meta-analysis, then combined across meta-analyses; between-trial comparisons), or preserved the clustering of substudies within trials (compared effect estimates between substudies with and without the element, then combined across trials; within-trial comparisons). Separately for studies based on between- and within-trial comparisons, we extracted ratios of odds ratios (RORs) from each study and combined them using a random-effects model. We made overall inferences and assessed certainty of evidence based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, development, and Evaluation and Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses. RESULTS: Forty-one meta-epidemiological studies (34 of between-, 7 of within-trial comparisons) proved eligible. Inadequate random sequence generation (ROR 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.97) and allocation concealment (ROR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88-0.97) probably lead to effect overestimation (moderate certainty). Lack of patients blinding probably overestimates effects for patient-reported outcomes (ROR 0.36, 95% CI 0.28-0.48; moderate certainty). Lack of blinding of outcome assessors results in effect overestimation for subjective outcomes (ROR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51-0.93; high certainty). The impact of patients or outcome assessors blinding on other outcomes, and the impact of blinding of health-care providers, data collectors, or data analysts, remain uncertain. Trials stopped early for benefit probably overestimate effects (moderate certainty). Trials with imbalanced cointerventions may overestimate effects, while trials with missing outcome data may underestimate effects (low certainty). Influence of baseline imbalance, compliance, selective reporting, and intention-to-treat analysis remain uncertain. CONCLUSION: Failure to ensure random sequence generation or adequate allocation concealment probably results in modest overestimates of effects. Lack of patients blinding probably leads to substantial overestimates of effects for patient-reported outcomes. Lack of blinding of outcome assessors results in substantial effect overestimation for subjective outcomes. For other elements, though evidence for consistent systematic overestimate of effect remains limited, failure to implement these safeguards may still introduce important bias.

Management of chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the comparative effectiveness of available therapies for chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders (TMD)? CURRENT PRACTICE: TMD are the second most common musculoskeletal chronic pain disorder after low back pain, affecting 6-9% of adults globally. TMD are associated with pain affecting the jaw and associated structures and may present with headaches, earache, clicking, popping, or crackling sounds in the temporomandibular joint, and impaired mandibular function. Current clinical practice guidelines are largely consensus-based and provide inconsistent recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: For patients living with chronic pain (≥3 months) associated with TMD, and compared with placebo or sham procedures, the guideline panel issued: (1) strong recommendations in favour of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) with or without biofeedback or relaxation therapy, therapist-assisted mobilisation, manual trigger point therapy, supervised postural exercise, supervised jaw exercise and stretching with or without manual trigger point therapy, and usual care (such as home exercises, stretching, reassurance, and education); (2) conditional recommendations in favour of manipulation, supervised jaw exercise with mobilisation, CBT with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), manipulation with postural exercise, and acupuncture; (3) conditional recommendations against reversible occlusal splints (alone or in combination with other interventions), arthrocentesis (alone or in combination with other interventions), cartilage supplement with or without hyaluronic acid injection, low level laser therapy (alone or in combination with other interventions), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, gabapentin, botulinum toxin injection, hyaluronic acid injection, relaxation therapy, trigger point injection, acetaminophen (with or without muscle relaxants or NSAIDS), topical capsaicin, biofeedback, corticosteroid injection (with or without NSAIDS), benzodiazepines, and ß blockers; and (4) strong recommendations against irreversible oral splints, discectomy, and NSAIDS with opioids. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: An international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced these recommendations in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel approached the formulation of recommendations from the perspective of patients, rather than a population or health system perspective. THE EVIDENCE: Recommendations are informed by a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms of conservative, pharmacologic, and invasive interventions for chronic pain secondary to TMD. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: These recommendations apply to patients living with chronic pain (≥3 months duration) associated with TMD as a group of conditions, and do not apply to the management of acute TMD pain. When considering management options, clinicians and patients should first consider strongly recommended interventions, then those conditionally recommended in favour, then conditionally against. In doing so, shared decision making is essential to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and preference, availability of interventions, and what they may have already tried. Further research is warranted and may alter recommendations in the future.

A novel framework for incorporating patient values and preferences in making guideline recommendations: guideline panel surveys.

OBJECTIVE: Universally acknowledged standards for trustworthy guidelines include the necessity to ground recommendations in patient values and preferences. When information is limited-which is typically the case-guideline panels often find it difficult to explicitly integrate patient values and preferences into their recommendations. Our objective was to develop and evaluate a framework for systematically navigating guideline panels in incorporating patient values and preferences in making recommendations. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In the context of developing a guideline for colorectal cancer screening, we generated an initial framework for creating panel surveys to elicit guideline panelists' views of patient values and preferences and to inform panel discussions on recommendations. With further applications in guidelines of diverse topic areas, we dynamically refined the framework through iterative discussions and consensus. RESULTS: The finial framework consists of five steps for creating and implementing panel surveys. The surveys can serve three objectives following from the quantitative information regarding patient values and preferences that guideline panels usually require. An accompanying video provides detailed instructions of the survey. CONCLUSION: The framework for creating and implementing panel surveys offers explicit guidance for guideline panels considering transparently and systematically incorporating patient values and preferences into guideline recommendations.

Qualitative study of guideline panelists: innovative surveys provided valuable insights regarding patient values and preferences.

OBJECTIVES: To explore guideline panelists' understanding of panel surveys for eliciting panels' inferences regarding patient values and preferences, and the influence of the surveys on making recommendations. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed sampling and data collection from all four guideline panels that had conducted the surveys through October 2020. We collected the records of all panel meetings and interviewed some panelists in different roles. We applied inductive thematic analysis for analyzing and interpreting data. RESULTS: We enrolled four guideline panels with 99 panelists in total and interviewed 25 of them. Most panelists found the survey was easy to follow and facilitated the incorporation of patient values and preferences in the tradeoffs between benefits and harms or burdens. The variation of patient preferences and uncertainty regarding patient values and preferences reflected in the surveys helped the panels ponder the strength of recommendations. In doing so, the survey results enhanced a rationale for panels' decision on the recommendations. CONCLUSION: The panel surveys have proved to help guideline panels explicitly consider and incorporate patient values and preferences in making recommendations. Guideline panels would benefit from widespread use of the panel surveys, particularly when primary evidence regarding patient values and preferences is scarce.

Instruments assessing risk of bias of randomized trials frequently included items that are not addressing risk of bias issues.

OBJECTIVES: To establish whether items included in instruments published in the last decade assessing risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are indeed addressing risk of bias. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus from 2010 to October 2021 for instruments assessing risk of bias of RCTs. By extracting items and summarizing their essential content, we generated an item list. Items that two reviewers agreed clearly did not address risk of bias were excluded. We included the remaining items in a survey in which 13 experts judged the issue each item is addressing: risk of bias, applicability, random error, reporting quality, or none of the above. RESULTS: Seventeen eligible instruments included 127 unique items. After excluding 61 items deemed as clearly not addressing risk of bias, the item classification survey included 66 items, of which the majority of respondents deemed 20 items (30.3%) as addressing risk of bias; the majority deemed 11 (16.7%) as not addressing risk of bias; and there proved substantial disagreement for 35 (53.0%) items. CONCLUSION: Existing risk of bias instruments frequently include items that do not address risk of bias. For many items, experts disagree on whether or not they are addressing risk of bias.

Comparative benefits and harms of individual opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Most systematic reviews of opioids for chronic pain have pooled treatment effects across individual opioids under the assumption they provide similar benefits and harms. We examined the comparative effects of individual opioids for chronic non-cancer pain through a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to March 2021 for studies that enrolled patients with chronic non-cancer pain, randomised them to receive different opioids, or opioids vs placebo, and followed them for at least 4 weeks. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We identified 82 eligible trials (22 619 participants) that evaluated 14 opioids. Compared with placebo, several opioids showed superiority to others for analgesia and improvement in physical function; however, when restricted to pooled-effect estimates supported by moderate certainty evidence, no differences between opioids were evident. Among opioids with moderate certainty evidence, all increased the risk of gastrointestinal adverse events compared with placebo, although no opioids were more harmful than others. Low to very low certainty evidence suggests that extended-release vs immediate-release opioids may provide similar benefits for pain relief and physical functioning, and gastrointestinal harms. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the pooling of effect estimates across different types and formulations of opioids to inform effectiveness for chronic non-cancer pain.

PCSK9 inhibitors and ezetimibe for the reduction of cardiovascular events: a clinical practice guideline with risk-stratified recommendations.

CLINICAL QUESTION: In adults with low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels >1.8 mmol/L (>70 mg/dL) who are already taking the maximum dose of statins or are intolerant to statins, should another lipid-lowering drug be added, either a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor or ezetimibe, to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events? If so, which drug is preferred? Having decided to use one, should we add the other lipid-lowering drug? CURRENT PRACTICE: Most guidelines emphasise LDL cholesterol targets in their recommendations for prescribing PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe in adults at high risk of experiencing a major adverse cardiovascular event. However, to achieve these goals in very high risk patients with statins alone is almost impossible, so physicians are increasingly considering other lipid-lowering drugs solely for achieving LDL cholesterol treatment goals rather than for achieving important absolute cardiovascular risk reduction. Most guidelines do not systematically assess the cardiovascular benefits of adding PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe for all risk groups across primary and secondary prevention, nor do they report, in accordance with explicit judgments of assumed patients' values and preferences, absolute benefits and harms and potential treatment burdens. RECOMMENDATIONS: The guideline panel provided mostly weak recommendations, which means we rely on shared decision making when applying these recommendations. For adults already using statins, the panel suggests adding a second lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but recommends against adding it in people at low cardiovascular risk. For adults who are intolerant to statins, the panel recommends using a lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but against adding it in those at low cardiovascular risk. When choosing to add another lipid-lowering drug, the panel suggests ezetimibe in preference to PCSK9 inhibitors. The panel suggests further adding a PCSK9 inhibitor to ezetimibe for adults already taking statins at very high risk and those at very high and high risk who are intolerant to statins. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: An international panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations following standards for trustworthy guidelines and using the GRADE approach. The panel identified four risk groups of patients (low, moderate, high, and very high cardiovascular risk) and primarily applied an individual patient perspective in moving from evidence to recommendations, though societal issues were a secondary consideration. The panel considered the balance of benefits and harms and burdens of starting a PCSK9 inhibitor and/or ezetimibe, making assumptions of adults' average values and preferences. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids accompany multi-layered recommendations, developed in an online authoring and publication platform (www.magicapp.org) that also allows re-use and adaptation. THE EVIDENCE: A linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (14 trials including 83 660 participants) of benefits found that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe probably reduce myocardial infarctions and stroke in patients with very high and high cardiovascular risk, with no impact on mortality (moderate to high certainty evidence), but not in those with moderate and low cardiovascular risk. PCSK9 inhibitors may have similar effects to ezetimibe on reducing non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke (low certainty evidence). These relative benefits were consistent, but their absolute magnitude varied based on cardiovascular risk in individual patients (for example, for 1000 people treated with PCSK9 inhibitors in addition to statins over five years, benefits ranged from 2 fewer strokes in the lowest risk to 21 fewer in the highest risk). Two systematic reviews on harms found no important adverse events for these drugs (moderate to high certainty evidence). PCSK9 inhibitors require injections that sometimes result in injection site reactions (best estimate 15 more per 1000 in a 5 year timeframe), representing a burden and harm that may matter to patients. The MATCH-IT decision support tool allows you to interact with the evidence and your patients across the alternative options: https://magicevidence.org/match-it/220504dist-lipid-lowering-drugs/. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS: The stratification into four cardiovascular risk groups means that, to use the recommendations, physicians need to identify their patient's risk first. We therefore suggest, specific to various geographical regions, using some reliable risk calculators that estimate patients' cardiovascular risk based on a mix of known risk factors. The largely weak recommendations concerning the addition of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors reflect what the panel considered to be a close balance between small reductions in stroke and myocardial infarctions weighed against the burdens and limited harms.Because of the anticipated large variability of patients' values and preferences, well informed choices warrant shared decision making. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids linked to the recommendations can facilitate such shared decisions. The strong recommendations against adding another drug in people at low cardiovascular risk reflect what the panel considered to be a burden without important benefits. The strong recommendation for adding either ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors in people at high and very high cardiovascular risk reflect a clear benefit.The panel recognised the key uncertainty in the evidence concerning patient values and preferences, namely that what most people consider important reductions in cardiovascular risks, weighed against burdens and harms, remains unclear. Finally, availability and costs will influence decisions when healthcare systems, clinicians, or people consider adding ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors.

Plasma exchange and glucocorticoid dosing for patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTIONS: What is the role of plasma exchange and what is the optimal dose of glucocorticoids in the first 6 months of therapy of patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV)? This guideline was triggered by the publication of a new randomised controlled trial. CURRENT PRACTICE: Existing guideline recommendations vary regarding the use of plasma exchange in AAV and lack explicit recommendations regarding the tapering regimen of glucocorticoids during induction therapy. RECOMMENDATIONS: The guideline panel makes a weak recommendation against plasma exchange in patients with low or low-moderate risk of developing end stage kidney disease (ESKD), and a weak recommendation in favour of plasma exchange in patients with moderate-high or high risk of developing ESKD. For patients with pulmonary haemorrhage without renal involvement, the panel suggests not using plasma exchange (weak recommendation). The panel made a strong recommendation in favour of a reduced dose rather than standard dose regimen of glucocorticoids, which involves a more rapid taper rate and lower cumulative dose during the first six months of therapy. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: A guideline panel including patients, a care giver, clinicians, content experts, and methodologists produced these recommendations using GRADE and in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines. The recommendations are based on two linked systematic reviews. The panel took an individual patient perspective in the development of recommendations. THE EVIDENCE: The systematic review of plasma exchange identified nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled 1060 patients with AAV. Plasma exchange probably has little or no effect on mortality or disease relapse (moderate and low certainty). Plasma exchange probably reduces the one year risk of ESKD (approximately 0.1% reduction in those with low risk, 2.1% reduction in those with low-moderate risk, 4.6% reduction in those with moderate-high risk, and 16.0% reduction in those with high risk or requiring dialysis) but increases the risk of serious infections (approximately 2.7% increase in those with low risk, 4.9% increase in those with low-moderate risk, 8.5% increase in those with moderate-high risk, to 13.5% in high risk group) at 1 year (moderate to high certainty). The guideline panel agreed that most patients with low or low-moderate risk of developing ESKD would consider the harms to outweigh the benefits, while most of those with moderate-high or high risk would consider the benefits to outweigh the harms. For patients with pulmonary haemorrhage without kidney involvement, based on indirect evidence, plasma exchange may have little or no effect on death (very low certainty) but may have an important increase in serious infections at 1 year (approximately 6.8% increase, low certainty). The systematic review of different dose regimens of glucocorticoids identified two RCTs at low risk of bias with 704 and 140 patients respectively. A reduced dose regimen of glucocorticoid probably reduces the risk of serious infections by approximately 5.9% to 12.8% and probably does not increase the risk of ESKD at the follow-up of 6 months to longer than 1 year (moderate certainty for both outcomes). UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: The recommendations were made with the understanding that patients would place a high value on reduction in ESKD and less value on avoiding serious infections. The panel concluded that most (50-90%) of fully informed patients with AAV and with low or low-moderate risk of developing ESKD with or without pulmonary haemorrhage would decline plasma exchange, whereas most patients with moderate-high or high risk or requiring dialysis with or without pulmonary haemorrhage would choose to receive plasma exchange. The panel also inferred that the majority of fully informed patients with pulmonary haemorrhage without kidney involvement would decline plasma exchange and that all or almost all (≥90%) fully informed patients with AAV would choose a reduced dose regimen of glucocorticoids during the first 6 months of therapy.

Patient-important outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic treatments for COVID-19: a protocol of a META-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 19 (covid-19) pandemic has underscored the need to expedite clinical research, which may lead investigators to shift away from measuring patient-important outcomes (PIO), limiting research applicability. We aim to investigate if randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of covid-19 pharmacological therapies include PIOs. METHODS: We will perform a meta-epidemiological study of RCTs that included people at risk for, or with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19, examining any pharmacological treatment or blood product aimed at prophylaxis or treatment. We will obtain data from all RCTs identified in a living network metanalysis (NMA). The main data sources are the living WHO covid-19 database up to 1 March 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Two reviewers independently will review each citation, full-text article, and abstract data. To categorize the outcomes according to their importance to patients, we will adapt a previously defined hierarchy: a) mortality, b) quality of life/ functional status/symptoms, c) morbidity, and d) surrogate outcomes. Outcomes within the category a) and b) will be considered critically important to patients, and outcomes within the category c) will be regarded as important. We will use descriptive statistics to assess the proportion of studies that report each category of outcomes. We will perform univariable and multivariable analysis to explore associations between trial characteristics and the likelihood of reporting PIOs. DISCUSSION: The findings from this meta-epidemiological study will help health care professionals and researchers understand if the current covid-19 trials are effectively assessing and reporting the outcomes that are important to patients. If a deficiency in capturing PIOs is identified, this information may help inform the development of future RCTs in covid-19. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATIONS: Open Science Framework registration: osf.io/6xgjz .

Medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the role of medical cannabis or cannabinoids for people living with chronic pain due to cancer or non-cancer causes? CURRENT PRACTICE: Chronic pain is common and distressing and associated with considerable socioeconomic burden globally. Medical cannabis is increasingly used to manage chronic pain, particularly in jurisdictions that have enacted policies to reduce use of opioids; however, existing guideline recommendations are inconsistent, and cannabis remains illegal for therapeutic use in many countries. RECOMMENDATION: The guideline expert panel issued a weak recommendation to offer a trial of non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids, in addition to standard care and management (if not sufficient), for people living with chronic cancer or non-cancer pain. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: An international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel applied an individual patient perspective. THE EVIDENCE: This recommendation is informed by a linked series of four systematic reviews summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms, as well as patient values and preferences, regarding medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: The recommendation is weak because of the close balance between benefits and harms of medical cannabis for chronic pain. It reflects a high value placed on small to very small improvements in self reported pain intensity, physical functioning, and sleep quality, and willingness to accept a small to modest risk of mostly self limited and transient harms. Shared decision making is required to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and personal context. Further research is warranted and may alter this recommendation.

SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists for adults with type 2 diabetes: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What are the benefits and harms of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists when added to usual care (lifestyle interventions and/or other diabetes drugs) in adults with type 2 diabetes at different risk for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes? CURRENT PRACTICE: Clinical decisions about treatment of type 2 diabetes have been led by glycaemic control for decades. SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists are traditionally used in people with elevated glucose level after metformin treatment. This has changed through trials demonstrating atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) benefits independent of medications' glucose-lowering potential. RECOMMENDATIONS: The guideline panel issued risk-stratified recommendations concerning the use of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists in adults with type 2 diabetes• Three or fewer cardiovascular risk factors without established CVD or CKD: Weak recommendation against starting SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists.• More than three cardiovascular risk factors without established CVD or CKD: Weak recommendation for starting SGLT-2 inhibitors and weak against starting GLP-1 receptor agonists.• Established CVD or CKD: Weak recommendation for starting SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists.• Established CVD and CKD: Strong recommendation for starting SGLT-2 inhibitors and weak recommendation for starting GLP-1 receptor agonists.• For those committed to further reducing their risk for CVD and CKD outcomes: Weak recommendation for starting SGLT-2 inhibitors rather than GLP-1 receptor agonists. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: An international panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists created these recommendations following standards for trustworthy guidelines and using the GRADE approach. The panel applied an individual patient perspective. THE EVIDENCE: A linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (764 randomised trials included 421 346 participants) of benefits and harms found that SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists generally reduce overall death, and incidence of myocardial infarctions, and end-stage kidney disease or kidney failure (moderate to high certainty evidence). These medications exert different effects on stroke, hospitalisations for heart failure, and key adverse events in different subgroups. Absolute effects of benefit varied widely based on patients' individual risk (for example, from five fewer deaths in the lowest risk to 48 fewer deaths in the highest risk, for 1000 patients treated over five years). A prognosis review identified 14 eligible risk prediction models, one of which (RECODe) informed most baseline risk estimates in evidence summaries to underpin the risk-stratified recommendations. Concerning patients' values and preferences, the recommendations were supported by evidence from a systematic review of published literature, a patient focus group study, a practical issues summary, and a guideline panel survey. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: We stratified the recommendations by the levels of risk for CVD and CKD and systematically considered the balance of benefits, harms, other considerations, and practical issues for each risk group. The strong recommendation for SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with CVD and CKD reflects what the panel considered to be a clear benefit. For all other adults with type 2 diabetes, the weak recommendations reflect what the panel considered to be a finer balance between benefits, harms, and burdens of treatment options. Clinicians using the guideline can identify their patient's individual risk for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes using credible risk calculators such as RECODe. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids may support well informed treatment choices, including shared decision making.

Prophylaxis against covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

UPDATES: This is the second version (first update) of the living systematic review, replacing the previous version (available as a data supplement). When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity. OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). DATA SOURCES: World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 4 March 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised trials in which people at risk of covid-19 were allocated to prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, we conducted random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included studies using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: The second iteration of this living NMA includes 32 randomised trials which enrolled 25 147 participants and addressed 21 different prophylactic drugs; adding 21 trials (66%), 18 162 participants (75%) and 16 (76%) prophylactic drugs. Of the 16 prophylactic drugs analysed, none provided convincing evidence of a reduction in the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. For admission to hospital and mortality outcomes, no prophylactic drug proved different than standard care or placebo. Hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C combined with zinc probably increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation­risk difference for hydroxychloroquine (RD) 6 more per 1000 (95% credible interval (CrI) 2 more to 10 more); for vitamin C combined with zinc, RD 69 more per 1000 (47 more to 90 more), moderate certainty evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Much of the evidence remains very low certainty and we therefore anticipate future studies evaluating drugs for prophylaxis may change the results for SARS-CoV-2 infection, admission to hospital and mortality outcomes. Both hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C combined with zinc probably increase adverse effects. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement. FUNDING: This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR-IRSC:0579001321).

GRADE guidelines 32: GRADE offers guidance on choosing targets of GRADE certainty of evidence ratings.

OBJECTIVE: To provide practical principles and examples to help GRADE users make optimal choices regarding their ratings of certainty of evidence using a minimally or partially contextualized approach. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Based on the GRADE clarification of certainty of evidence in 2017, a project group within the GRADE Working Group conducted iterative discussions and presentations at GRADE Working Group meetings to refine this construct and produce practical guidance. RESULTS: Systematic review and health technology assessment authors need to clarify what it is in which they are rating their certainty of evidence (i.e., the target of their certainty rating). The decision depends on the degree of contextualization (partially or minimally contextualized), thresholds (null, small, moderate or large effect threshold), and where the point estimate lies in relation to the chosen threshold(s). When the 95% confidence interval crosses multiple possible thresholds (i.e., including both large benefit and large harm), it is not worthwhile for authors to determine the target of certainty rating. CONCLUSION: GRADE provides practical principles to help systematic review and health technology assessment authors specify the target of their certainty of evidence rating.

Efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

PURPOSE: Motivated by a new randomized trial (the PEPTIC trial) that raised the issue of an increase in mortality with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) relative to histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), we updated our prior systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) addressing the impact of pharmacological gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. We performed Bayesian random-effects NMA and conducted analyses using all PEPTIC data as well as a restricted analysis using only PEPTIC data from high compliance centers. We used the GRADE approach to quantify absolute effects and assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Seventy-four trials enrolling 39 569 patients proved eligible. Both PPIs (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% credible interval 0.93 to 1.14, moderate certainty) and H2RAs (RR 0.98, 0.89 to 1.08, moderate certainty) probably have little or no impact on mortality compared with no prophylaxis. There may be no important difference between PPIs and H2RAs on mortality (RR 1.05, 0.97 to 1.14, low certainty), the 95% credible interval of the complete analysis has not excluded an important increase in mortality with PPIs. Both PPIs (RR 0.46, 0.29 to 0.66) and H2RAs (RR 0.67, 0.48 to 0.94) probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding; the magnitude of reduction is probably greater in PPIs than H2RAs (RR 0.69, 0.45 to 0.93), and the difference may be important in higher, but not lower bleeding risk patients. PPIs (RR 1.08, 0.88 to 1.45, low certainty) and H2RAs (RR 1.07, 0.85 to 1.37, low certainty) may have no important impact on pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: This updated NMA confirmed that PPIs and H2RAs are most likely to have a similar effect on mortality compared to each other and compared to no prophylaxis; however, the possibility that PPIs may slightly increase mortality cannot be excluded (low certainty evidence). PPIs and H2RAs probably achieve important reductions in clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding; for higher bleeding risk patients, the greater benefit of PPIs over H2RAs may be important. PPIs or H2RAs may not result in important increases in pneumonia but the certainty of evidence is low.

Efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine, in critically ill patients, the relative impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), sucralfate, or no gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis (or stress ulcer prophylaxis) on outcomes important to patients. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registers, and grey literature up to March 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES AND METHODS: We included randomised controlled trials that compared gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided critical oversight of the systematic review, including identifying outcomes important to patients. We performed random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. When results differed between low risk and high risk of bias studies, we used the former as best estimates. RESULTS: Seventy two trials including 12 660 patients proved eligible. For patients at highest risk (>8%) or high risk (4-8%) of bleeding, both PPIs and H2RAs probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding compared with placebo or no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 0.61 (95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.89), 3.3% fewer for highest risk and 2.3% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 0.46 (0.27 to 0.79), 4.6% fewer for highest risk and 3.1% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty). Both may increase the risk of pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 1.39 (0.98 to 2.10), 5.0% more, low certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 1.26 (0.89 to 1.85), 3.4% more, low certainty). It is likely that neither affect mortality (PPIs 1.06 (0.90 to 1.28), 1.3% more, moderate certainty; H2RAs 0.96 (0.79 to 1.19), 0.9% fewer, moderate certainty). Otherwise, results provided no support for any affect on mortality, Clostridium difficile infection, length of intensive care stay, length of hospital stay, or duration of mechanical ventilation (varying certainty of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: For higher risk critically ill patients, PPIs and H2RAs likely result in important reductions in gastrointestinal bleeding compared with no prophylaxis; for patients at low risk, the reduction in bleeding may be unimportant. Both PPIs and H2RAs may result in important increases in pneumonia. Variable quality evidence suggested no important effects of interventions on mortality or other in-hospital morbidity outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019126656.

Gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis for critically ill patients: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the role of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis (stress ulcer prophylaxis) in critically ill patients? This guideline was prompted by the publication of a new large randomised controlled trial. CURRENT PRACTICE: Gastric acid suppression with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) is commonly done to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. Existing guidelines vary in their recommendations of which population to treat and which agent to use. RECOMMENDATIONS: This guideline panel makes a weak recommendation for using gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients at high risk (>4%) of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, and a weak recommendation for not using prophylaxis in patients at lower risk of clinically important bleeding (≤4%). The panel identified risk categories based on evidence, with variable certainty regarding risk factors. The panel suggests using a PPI rather than a H2RA (weak recommendation) and recommends against using sucralfate (strong recommendation). HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations using standards for trustworthy guidelines and the GRADE approach. The recommendations are based on a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis. A weak recommendation means that both options are reasonable. THE EVIDENCE: The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis estimated the benefit and harm of these medications in 12 660 critically ill patients in 72 trials. Both PPIs and H2RAs reduce the risk of clinically important bleeding. The effect is larger in patients at higher bleeding risk (those with a coagulopathy, chronic liver disease, or receiving mechanical ventilation but not enteral nutrition or two or more of mechanical ventilation with enteral nutrition, acute kidney injury, sepsis, and shock) (moderate certainty). PPIs and H2RAs might increase the risk of pneumonia (low certainty). They probably do not have an effect on mortality (moderate certainty), length of hospital stay, or any other important outcomes. PPIs probably reduce the risk of bleeding more than H2RAs (moderate certainty). UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: In most critically ill patients, the reduction in clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding from gastric acid suppressants is closely balanced with the possibility of pneumonia. Clinicians should consider individual patient values, risk of bleeding, and other factors such as medication availability when deciding whether to use gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis. Visual overviews provide the relative and absolute benefits and harms of the options in multilayered evidence summaries and decision aids available on MAGICapp.

Individual opioids, and long- versus short-acting opioids, for chronic noncancer pain: Protocol for a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are frequently prescribed for the management of patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Previous meta-analyses of efficacy and harms have combined treatment effects across all opioids; however, specific opioids, pharmacokinetic properties (ie, long acting vs short acting), or the type of formulation (ie, immediate vs extended release) may be a source of heterogeneity for pooled effects. METHODS: We will conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials evaluating opioids for CNCP. We will acquire eligible studies through systematic searches of EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Eligible studies will have randomly allocated adult CNCP patients to an oral or transdermal opioid versus another type of opioid (or formulation) or placebo, and follow patients for ≥ 4 weeks. We will collect outcome data for pain intensity, physical function, nausea, vomiting, and constipation. Pairs of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, abstract data from eligible trials and assess risk of bias using a modified Cochrane tool. We will assess coherence of our networks through both a global test, and by comparing direct and indirect evidence for each comparison with node-splitting. RESULTS: Using a frequentist approach, we will conduct random effects multiple treatment meta-analysis to establish treatment effects of individual opioids for each outcome. The certainty of evidence for pooled treatment effects will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We will categorize interventions from most to least effective based on the effect estimates obtained from NMAs and their associated certainty of evidence, as follows: superior to both placebo and alternatives; superior to placebo, but inferior to alternatives; and no better than placebo. CONCLUSION: This NMA will determine the relative effectiveness and adverse effects of individual opioids among patients with CNCP. Our results will help inform the appropriateness of assuming similar beneficial and adverse effects of varying opioid formulations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This systematic review is registered with Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, an international prospective register of systematic reviews (registration no.: CRD42018110331), available at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=110331.

Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: Recent 15-year updates of sigmoidoscopy screening trials provide new evidence on the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Prompted by the new evidence, we asked: "Does colorectal cancer screening make an important difference to health outcomes in individuals initiating screening at age 50 to 79? And which screening option is best?" CURRENT PRACTICE: Numerous guidelines recommend screening, but vary on recommended test, age and screening frequency. This guideline looks at the evidence and makes recommendations on screening for four screening options: faecal immunochemical test (FIT) every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy. RECOMMENDATIONS: These recommendations apply to adults aged 50-79 years with no prior screening, no symptoms of colorectal cancer, and a life expectancy of at least 15 years. For individuals with an estimated 15-year colorectal cancer risk below 3%, we suggest no screening (weak recommendation). For individuals with an estimated 15-year risk above 3%, we suggest screening with one of the four screening options: FIT every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy (weak recommendation). With our guidance we publish the linked research, a graphic of the absolute harms and benefits, a clear description of how we reached our value judgments, and linked decision aids. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, content experts and methodologists produced these recommendations using GRADE and in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines. A linked systematic review of colorectal cancer screening trials and microsimulation modelling were performed to inform the panel of 15-year screening benefits and harms. The panel also reviewed each screening option's practical issues and burdens. Based on their own experience, the panel estimated the magnitude of benefit typical members of the population would value to opt for screening and used the benefit thresholds to inform their recommendations. THE EVIDENCE: Overall there was substantial uncertainty (low certainty evidence) regarding the 15-year benefits, burdens and harms of screening. Best estimates suggested that all four screening options resulted in similar colorectal cancer mortality reductions. FIT every two years may have little or no effect on cancer incidence over 15 years, while FIT every year, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy may reduce cancer incidence, although for FIT the incidence reduction is small compared with sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Screening related serious gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse events are rare. The magnitude of the benefits is dependent on the individual risk, while harms and burdens are less strongly associated with cancer risk. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: Based on benefits, harms, and burdens of screening, the panel inferred that most informed individuals with a 15-year risk of colorectal cancer of 3% or higher are likely to choose screening, and most individuals with a risk of below 3% are likely to decline screening. Given varying values and preferences, optimal care will require shared decision making.