Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of the Procedure-specific Risks of Thrombosis and Bleeding in General Abdominal, Colorectal, Upper Gastrointestinal, and Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To provide procedure-specific estimates of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding after abdominal surgery. BACKGROUND: The use of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis represents a trade-off that depends on VTE and bleeding risks that vary between procedures; their magnitude remains uncertain. METHODS: We identified observational studies reporting procedure-specific risks of symptomatic VTE or major bleeding after abdominal surgery, adjusted the reported estimates for thromboprophylaxis and length of follow-up, and estimated cumulative incidence at 4 weeks postsurgery, stratified by VTE risk groups, and rated evidence certainty. RESULTS: After eligibility screening, 285 studies (8,048,635 patients) reporting on 40 general abdominal, 36 colorectal, 15 upper gastrointestinal, and 24 hepatopancreatobiliary surgery procedures proved eligible. Evidence certainty proved generally moderate or low for VTE and low or very low for bleeding requiring reintervention. The risk of VTE varied substantially among procedures: in general abdominal surgery from a median of <0.1% in laparoscopic cholecystectomy to a median of 3.7% in open small bowel resection, in colorectal from 0.3% in minimally invasive sigmoid colectomy to 10.0% in emergency open total proctocolectomy, and in upper gastrointestinal/hepatopancreatobiliary from 0.2% in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy to 6.8% in open distal pancreatectomy for cancer. CONCLUSIONS: VTE thromboprophylaxis provides net benefit through VTE reduction with a small increase in bleeding in some procedures (eg, open colectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy), whereas the opposite is true in others (eg, laparoscopic cholecystectomy and elective groin hernia repairs). In many procedures, thromboembolism and bleeding risks are similar, and decisions depend on individual risk prediction and values and preferences regarding VTE and bleeding.

Risk of thrombosis and bleeding in gynecologic cancer surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide procedure-specific estimates of the risk of symptomatic venous thromboembolism and major bleeding in the absence of thromboprophylaxis, following gynecologic cancer surgery. DATA SOURCES: We conducted comprehensive searches on Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for observational studies. We also reviewed reference lists of eligible studies and review articles. We performed separate searches for randomized trials addressing effects of thromboprophylaxis and conducted a web-based survey on thromboprophylaxis practice. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Observational studies enrolling ≥50 adult patients undergoing gynecologic cancer surgery procedures reporting absolute incidence for at least 1 of the following were included: symptomatic pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep vein thrombosis, symptomatic venous thromboembolism, bleeding requiring reintervention (including reexploration and angioembolization), bleeding leading to transfusion, or postoperative hemoglobin <70 g/L. METHODS: Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility, performed data extraction, and evaluated risk of bias of eligible articles. We adjusted the reported estimates for thromboprophylaxis and length of follow-up and used the median value from studies to determine cumulative incidence at 4 weeks postsurgery stratified by patient venous thromboembolism risk factors. The GRADE approach was applied to rate evidence certainty. RESULTS: We included 188 studies (398,167 patients) reporting on 37 gynecologic cancer surgery procedures. The evidence certainty was generally low to very low. Median symptomatic venous thromboembolism risk (in the absence of prophylaxis) was <1% in 13 of 37 (35%) procedures, 1% to 2% in 11 of 37 (30%), and >2.0% in 13 of 37 (35%). The risks of venous thromboembolism varied from 0.1% in low venous thromboembolism risk patients undergoing cervical conization to 33.5% in high venous thromboembolism risk patients undergoing pelvic exenteration. Estimates of bleeding requiring reintervention varied from <0.1% to 1.3%. Median risks of bleeding requiring reintervention were <1% in 22 of 29 (76%) and 1% to 2% in 7 of 29 (24%) procedures. CONCLUSION: Venous thromboembolism reduction with thromboprophylaxis likely outweighs the increase in bleeding requiring reintervention in many gynecologic cancer procedures (eg, open surgery for ovarian cancer and pelvic exenteration). In some procedures (eg, laparoscopic total hysterectomy without lymphadenectomy), thromboembolism and bleeding risks are similar, and decisions depend on individual risk prediction and values and preferences regarding venous thromboembolism and bleeding.

Risk of thrombosis and bleeding in gynecologic noncancer surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide procedure-specific estimates of the risk for symptomatic venous thromboembolism and major bleeding in noncancer gynecologic surgeries. DATA SOURCES: We conducted comprehensive searches on Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Furthermore, we performed separate searches for randomized trials that addressed the effects of thromboprophylaxis. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible studies were observational studies that enrolled ≥50 adult patients who underwent noncancer gynecologic surgery procedures and that reported the absolute incidence of at least 1 of the following: symptomatic pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep vein thrombosis, symptomatic venous thromboembolism, bleeding that required reintervention (including re-exploration and angioembolization), bleeding that led to transfusion, or postoperative hemoglobin level <70 g/L. METHODS: A teams of 2 reviewers independently assessed eligibility, performed data extraction, and evaluated the risk of bias of the eligible articles. We adjusted the reported estimates for thromboprophylaxis and length of follow-up and used the median value from studies to determine the cumulative incidence at 4 weeks postsurgery stratified by patient venous thromboembolism risk factors and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate the evidence certainty. RESULTS: We included 131 studies (1,741,519 patients) that reported venous thromboembolism risk estimates for 50 gynecologic noncancer procedures and bleeding requiring reintervention estimates for 35 procedures. The evidence certainty was generally moderate or low for venous thromboembolism and low or very low for bleeding requiring reintervention. The risk for symptomatic venous thromboembolism varied from a median of <0.1% for several procedures (eg, transvaginal oocyte retrieval) to 1.5% for others (eg, minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy, 1.2%-4.6% across patient venous thromboembolism risk groups). Venous thromboembolism risk was <0.5% for 30 (60%) of the procedures; 0.5% to 1.0% for 10 (20%) procedures; and >1.0% for 10 (20%) procedures. The risk for bleeding the require reintervention varied from <0.1% (transvaginal oocyte retrieval) to 4.0% (open myomectomy). The bleeding requiring reintervention risk was <0.5% in 17 (49%) procedures, 0.5% to 1.0% for 12 (34%) procedures, and >1.0% in 6 (17%) procedures. CONCLUSION: The risk for venous thromboembolism in gynecologic noncancer surgery varied between procedures and patients. Venous thromboembolism risks exceeded the bleeding risks only among selected patients and procedures. Although most of the evidence is of low certainty, the results nevertheless provide a compelling rationale for restricting pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis to a minority of patients who undergo gynecologic noncancer procedures.

Protocol implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic: experiences from a randomized trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many intensive care units (ICUs) halted research to focus on COVID-19-specific studies. OBJECTIVE: To describe the conduct of an international randomized trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis (Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions in the ICU [REVISE]) during the pandemic, addressing enrolment patterns, center engagement, informed consent processes, data collection, a COVID-specific substudy, patient transfers, and data monitoring. METHODS: REVISE is a randomized trial among mechanically ventilated patients, comparing pantoprazole 40 mg IV to placebo on the primary efficacy outcome of clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding and the primary safety outcome of 90-day mortality. We documented protocol implementation status from March 11th 2020-August 30th 2022. RESULTS: The Steering Committee did not change the scientific protocol. From the first enrolment on July 9th 2019 to March 10th 2020 (8 months preceding the pandemic), 267 patients were enrolled in 18 centers. From March 11th 2020-August 30th 2022 (30 months thereafter), 41 new centers joined; 59 were participating by August 30th 2022 which enrolled 2961 patients. During a total of 1235 enrolment-months in the pandemic phase, enrolment paused for 106 (8.6%) months in aggregate (median 3 months, interquartile range 2;6). Protocol implementation involved a shift from the a priori consent model pre-pandemic (188, 58.8%) to the consent to continue model (1615, 54.1%, p < 0.01). In one new center, an opt-out model was approved. The informed consent rate increased slightly (80.7% to 85.0%, p = 0.05). Telephone consent encounters increased (16.6% to 68.2%, p < 0.001). Surge capacity necessitated intra-institutional transfers; receiving centers continued protocol implementation whenever possible. We developed a nested COVID-19 substudy. The Methods Centers continued central statistical monitoring of trial metrics. Site monitoring was initially remote, then in-person when restrictions lifted. CONCLUSION: Protocol implementation adaptations during the pandemic included a shift in the consent model, a sustained high consent rate, and launch of a COVID-19 substudy. Recruitment increased as new centers joined, patient transfers were optimized, and monitoring methods were adapted.

Atopic dermatitis (eczema) guidelines: 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters GRADE- and Institute of Medicine-based recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Guidance addressing atopic dermatitis (AD) management, last issued in 2012 by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force, requires updating as a result of new treatments and improved guideline and evidence synthesis methodology. OBJECTIVE: To produce evidence-based guidelines that support patients, clinicians, and other decision-makers in the optimal treatment of AD. METHODS: A multidisciplinary guideline panel consisting of patients and caregivers, AD experts (dermatology and allergy/immunology), primary care practitioners (family medicine, pediatrics, internal medicine), and allied health professionals (psychology, pharmacy, nursing) convened, prioritized equity, diversity, and inclusiveness, and implemented management strategies to minimize influence of conflicts of interest. The Evidence in Allergy Group supported guideline development by performing systematic evidence reviews, facilitating guideline processes, and holding focus groups with patient and family partners. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. Evidence-to-decision frameworks, subjected to public comment, translated evidence to recommendations using trustworthy guideline principles. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 25 recommendations to gain and maintain control of AD for patients with mild, moderate, and severe AD. The eAppendix provides practical information and implementation considerations in 1-2 page patient-friendly handouts. CONCLUSION: These evidence-based recommendations address optimal use of (1) topical treatments (barrier moisturization devices, corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, PDE4 inhibitors [crisaborole], topical JAK inhibitors, occlusive [wet wrap] therapy, adjunctive antimicrobials, application frequency, maintenance therapy), (2) dilute bleach baths, (3) dietary avoidance/elimination, (4) allergen immunotherapy, and (5) systemic treatments (biologics/monoclonal antibodies, small molecule immunosuppressants [cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate, JAK inhibitors], and systemic corticosteroids) and UV phototherapy (light therapy).

Oral Fluvoxamine With Inhaled Budesonide for Treatment of Early-Onset COVID-19 : A Randomized Platform Trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials have demonstrated the effects of fluvoxamine alone and inhaled budesonide alone for prevention of disease progression among outpatients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the combination of fluvoxamine and inhaled budesonide would increase treatment effects in a highly vaccinated population. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive platform trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04727424). SETTING: 12 clinical sites in Brazil. PARTICIPANTS: Symptomatic adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and a known risk factor for progression to severe disease. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to either fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) plus inhaled budesonide (800 mcg twice daily for 10 days) or matching placebos. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was a composite of emergency setting retention for COVID-19 for more than 6 hours, hospitalization, and/or suspected complications due to clinical progression of COVID-19 within 28 days of randomization. Secondary outcomes included health care attendance (defined as hospitalization for any cause or emergency department visit lasting >6 hours), time to hospitalization, mortality, patient-reported outcomes, and adverse drug reactions. RESULTS: Randomization occurred from 15 January to 6 July 2022. A total of 738 participants were allocated to oral fluvoxamine plus inhaled budesonide, and 738 received placebo. The proportion of patients observed in an emergency setting for COVID-19 for more than 6 hours or hospitalized due to COVID-19 was lower in the treatment group than the placebo group (1.8% [95% credible interval {CrI}, 1.1% to 3.0%] vs. 3.7% [95% CrI, 2.5% to 5.3%]; relative risk, 0.50 [95% CrI, 0.25 to 0.92]), with a probability of superiority of 98.7%. No relative effects were found between groups for any of the secondary outcomes. More adverse events occurred in the intervention group than the placebo group, but no important differences between the groups were detected. LIMITATION: Low event rate overall, consistent with contemporary trials in vaccinated populations. CONCLUSION: Treatment with oral fluvoxamine plus inhaled budesonide among high-risk outpatients with early COVID-19 reduced the incidence of severe disease requiring advanced care. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Latona Foundation, FastGrants, and Rainwater Charitable Foundation.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Gefapixant for Treatment of Refractory or Unexplained Chronic Cough: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Gefapixant represents an emerging therapy for patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of gefapixant for the treatment of adults with refractory or unexplained chronic cough. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science from November 2014 to July 2023. Study Selection: Two reviewers independently screened for parallel and crossover randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared, in patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough, either gefapixant with placebo, or 2 or more doses of gefapixant with or without placebo. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted data. A frequentist random-effects dose-response meta-analysis or pairwise meta-analysis was used for each outcome. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach was used to rate the certainty in whether patients would perceive the effects as important (greater than the minimal important difference [MID]) or small (less than the MID). Main Outcomes and Measures: Cough frequency (measured using the VitaloJAK cough monitor; MID, 20%), cough severity (measured using the 100-mm visual analog scale [VAS]; higher score is worse; MID, 30 mm), cough-specific quality of life (measured using the Leicester Cough Questionnaire [LCQ]; score range, 3 [maximal impairment] to 21 [no impairment]; MID, 1.3 points), treatment-related adverse events, adverse events leading to discontinuation, and taste-related adverse events. Results: Nine RCTs including 2980 patients were included in the primary analysis. Compared with placebo, gefapixant (45 mg twice daily) had small effects on awake cough frequency (17.6% reduction [95% CI, 10.6%-24.0%], moderate certainty), cough severity on the 100-mm VAS (mean difference, -6.2 mm [95% CI, -4.1 to -8.4]; high certainty), and cough-specific quality of life on the LCQ (mean difference, 1.0 points [95% CI, 0.7-1.4]; moderate certainty). Compared with placebo, gefapixant (45 mg twice daily) probably caused an important increase in treatment-related adverse events (32 more per 100 patients [95% CI, 13-64 more], moderate certainty) and taste-related adverse events (32 more per 100 patients [95% CI, 22-46 more], high certainty). High-certainty evidence suggests that gefapixant (15 mg twice daily) had small effects on taste-related adverse events (6 more per 100 patients [95% CI, 5-8 more]). Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with placebo, gefapixant (45 mg orally twice daily) led to modest improvements in cough frequency, cough severity, and cough-specific quality of life but increased taste-related adverse events.

Guidelines for the prevention and management of children and adolescents with COVID-19.

Children are the future of the world, but their health and future are facing great uncertainty because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In order to improve the management of children with COVID-19, an international, multidisciplinary panel of experts developed a rapid advice guideline at the beginning of the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020. After publishing the first version of the rapid advice guideline, the panel has updated the guideline by including additional stakeholders in the panel and a comprehensive search of the latest evidence. All recommendations were supported by systematic reviews and graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Expert judgment was used to develop good practice statements supplementary to the graded evidence-based recommendations. The updated guideline comprises nine recommendations and one good practice statement. It focuses on the key recommendations pertinent to the following issues: identification of prognostic factors for death or pediatric intensive care unit admission; the use of remdesivir, systemic glucocorticoids and antipyretics, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and high-flow oxygen by nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure; breastfeeding; vaccination; and the management of pediatric mental health. CONCLUSION: This updated evidence-based guideline intends to provide clinicians, pediatricians, patients and other stakeholders with evidence-based recommendations for the prevention and management of COVID-19 in children and adolescents. Larger studies with longer follow-up to determine the effectiveness and safety of systemic glucocorticoids, IVIG, noninvasive ventilation, and the vaccines for COVID-19 in children and adolescents are encouraged. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Several clinical practice guidelines for children with COVID-19 have been developed, but only few of them have been recently updated. • We developed an evidence-based guideline at the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak and have now updated it based on the results of a comprehensive search of the latest evidence. WHAT IS NEW: • The updated guideline provides key recommendations pertinent to the following issues: identification of prognostic factors for death or pediatric intensive care unit admission; the use of remdesivir, systemic glucocorticoids and antipyretics, intravenous immunoglobulin for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and high-flow oxygen by nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure; breastfeeding; vaccination; and the management of pediatric mental health.

Comparative Effectiveness of Protective Ventilation Strategies for Moderate and Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. A Network Meta-Analysis.

Rationale: Choosing the best ventilation strategy for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is complex, yet it is highly relevant to clinicians during a respiratory pandemic. Objectives: To compare the effects of low Vt, high Vt, high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), prone ventilation, high-frequency oscillation, and venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) on mortality in ARDS. Methods: We performed a network meta-analysis of randomized trials. We applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to discern the relative effect of interventions on mortality. Measurements and Main Results: We analyzed 34 trials including 9,085 adults with primarily moderate-to-severe ARDS (median baseline PaO2/FiO2, 118; interquartile range, 110-143). Prone positioning combined with low Vt was the best strategy (risk ratio [RR], 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.60-0.92] vs. low Vt; high certainty). VV ECMO was also rated among the best (RR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.58-1.05] vs. low Vt; RR, 0.66; [95% CI, 0.49-0.88] vs. high Vt) but was rated with lower certainty because VV ECMO was restricted to very severe ARDS (mean baseline PaO2/FiO2<75). High PEEP combined with low Vt was rated intermediately (RR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.81-1.03] vs. low Vt; low certainty; RR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.65-0.91] vs. high Vt; moderate certainty). High Vt was rated worst (RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.02-1.37] vs. low Vt; moderate certainty), and we found no support for high-frequency oscillation or high Vt with prone ventilation. Conclusions: These findings suggest that combining low Vt with prone ventilation is associated with the greatest reduction in mortality for critically ill adults with moderate-to-severe ARDS.

The effect of antiplatelet therapy on survival and cardiac allograft vasculopathy following heart transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is mediated by endothelial inflammation, platelet activation and thrombosis. Antiplatelet therapy may prevent the development of CAV. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes and appraises the evidence on the effect of antiplatelet therapy after heart transplantation (HT). CENTRAL(Ovid), MEDLINE(Ovid), Embase(Ovid) were searched from inception until April 30, 2020. Outcomes included CAV, all-cause mortality, and CAV-related mortality. Data were pooled using random-effects models. Seven observational studies including 2023 patients, mean age 52 years, 22% female, 47% with ischemic cardiomyopathy followed over a mean 7.1 years proved eligible. All studies compared acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) to no treatment and were at serious risk of bias. Data from 1911 patients in 6 studies were pooled in the meta-analyses. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ASA on all-cause or CAV-related mortality. ASA may reduce the development of CAV (RR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.44-1.29) based on very low certainty evidence. Two studies that conducted propensity-weighted analyses showed further reduction in CAV with ASA (HR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.13-0.74). In conclusion, there is limited evidence that ASA may reduce the development of CAV. Definitive resolution of the impact of antiplatelet therapy on CAV and mortality will require randomized clinical trials.

How to Interpret and Use a Clinical Practice Guideline or Recommendation: Users' Guides to the Medical Literature.

IMPORTANCE: Clinicians may rely on recommendations from clinical practice guidelines for management of patients. OBSERVATIONS: A clinical practice guideline is a published statement that includes recommendations that are intended to optimize patient care. In the guideline development process, a panel of experts formulates recommendation questions that guide the retrieval of evidence that is used to inform the recommendations. Typically, methods of guideline development, a summary of the supporting evidence, and a justification of the panel's decisions accompany the recommendations. To use such guidelines optimally, clinicians must understand the implications of the recommendations, assess the trustworthiness of the development process, and evaluate the extent to which the recommendations are applicable to patients in their practice settings. Helpful recommendations are clear and actionable, and explicitly specify whether they are strong or weak, are appropriate for all patients, or depend on individual patients' circumstances and values. Rigorous guidelines and recommendations are informed by appropriately conducted, up-to-date systematic reviews that consider outcomes important to patients. Because judgments are involved in the interpretation of the evidence and the process of moving from evidence to recommendations, useful guidelines consider all relevant factors that have a bearing in a clinical decision and are not influenced by conflicts of interest. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In considering a guideline's recommendations, clinicians must decide whether there are important differences between the factors the guideline panel has considered in making recommendations and their own practice setting.

Response to "understanding the behavioural determinants of opioid prescribing among family physicians: a qualitative study".

The 2017 Canadian opioid Guideline made both strong recommendations, indicating that all or almost all fully informed patients would choose the recommended course of action, and weak recommendations, in which different choices are appropriate for individual patients based on their values and preferences. The Guideline's recommendation to taper legacy patients prescribed high-dose opioid therapy is weak, and mandatory tapering is expressly discouraged.

Dabigatran in patients with myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MANAGE): an international, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS) increases the risk of cardiovascular events and deaths, which anticoagulation therapy could prevent. Dabigatran prevents perioperative venous thromboembolism, but whether this drug can prevent a broader range of vascular complications in patients with MINS is unknown. The MANAGE trial assessed the potential of dabigatran to prevent major vascular complications among such patients. METHODS: In this international, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, we recruited patients from 84 hospitals in 19 countries. Eligible patients were aged at least 45 years, had undergone non-cardiac surgery, and were within 35 days of MINS. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive dabigatran 110 mg orally twice daily or matched placebo for a maximum of 2 years or until termination of the trial and, using a partial 2-by-2 factorial design, patients not taking a proton-pump inhibitor were also randomly assigned (1:1) to omeprazole 20 mg once daily, for which results will be reported elsewhere, or matched placebo to measure its effect on major upper gastrointestinal complications. Research personnel randomised patients through a central 24 h computerised randomisation system using block randomisation, stratified by centre. Patients, health-care providers, data collectors, and outcome adjudicators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary efficacy outcome was the occurrence of a major vascular complication, a composite of vascular mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-haemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, amputation, and symptomatic venous thromboembolism. The primary safety outcome was a composite of life-threatening, major, and critical organ bleeding. Analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01661101. FINDINGS: Between Jan 10, 2013, and July 17, 2017, we randomly assigned 1754 patients to receive dabigatran (n=877) or placebo (n=877); 556 patients were also randomised in the omeprazole partial factorial component. Study drug was permanently discontinued in 401 (46%) of 877 patients allocated to dabigatran and 380 (43%) of 877 patients allocated to placebo. The composite primary efficacy outcome occurred in fewer patients randomised to dabigatran than placebo (97 [11%] of 877 patients assigned to dabigatran vs 133 [15%] of 877 patients assigned to placebo; hazard ratio [HR] 0·72, 95% CI 0·55-0·93; p=0·0115). The primary safety composite outcome occurred in 29 patients (3%) randomised to dabigatran and 31 patients (4%) randomised to placebo (HR 0·92, 95% CI 0·55-1·53; p=0·76). INTERPRETATION: Among patients who had MINS, dabigatran 110 mg twice daily lowered the risk of major vascular complications, with no significant increase in major bleeding. Patients with MINS have a poor prognosis; dabigatran 110 mg twice daily has the potential to help many of the 8 million adults globally who have MINS to reduce their risk of a major vascular complication [corrected]. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim and Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Aspirin in Patients With Previous Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery.

Background: Uncertainty remains about the effects of aspirin in patients with prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) having noncardiac surgery. Objective: To evaluate benefits and harms of perioperative aspirin in patients with prior PCI. Design: Nonprespecified subgroup analysis of a multicenter factorial trial. Computerized Internet randomization was done between 2010 and 2013. Patients, clinicians, data collectors, and outcome adjudicators were blinded to treatment assignment. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01082874). Setting: 135 centers in 23 countries. Patients: Adults aged 45 years or older who had or were at risk for atherosclerotic disease and were having noncardiac surgery. Exclusions were placement of a bare-metal stent within 6 weeks, placement of a drug-eluting stent within 1 year, or receipt of nonstudy aspirin within 72 hours before surgery. Intervention: Aspirin therapy (overall trial, n = 4998; subgroup, n = 234) or placebo (overall trial, n = 5012; subgroup, n = 236) initiated within 4 hours before surgery and continued throughout the perioperative period. Of the 470 subgroup patients, 99.9% completed follow-up. Measurements: The 30-day primary outcome was death or nonfatal myocardial infarction; bleeding was a secondary outcome. Results: In patients with prior PCI, aspirin reduced the risk for the primary outcome (absolute risk reduction, 5.5% [95% CI, 0.4% to 10.5%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.50 [CI, 0.26 to 0.95]; P for interaction = 0.036) and for myocardial infarction (absolute risk reduction, 5.9% [CI, 1.0% to 10.8%]; HR, 0.44 [CI, 0.22 to 0.87]; P for interaction = 0.021). The effect on the composite of major and life-threatening bleeding in patients with prior PCI was uncertain (absolute risk increase, 1.3% [CI, -2.6% to 5.2%]). In the overall population, aspirin increased the risk for major bleeding (absolute risk increase, 0.8% [CI, 0.1% to 1.6%]; HR, 1.22 [CI, 1.01 to 1.48]; P for interaction = 0.50). Limitation: Nonprespecified subgroup analysis with small sample. Conclusion: Perioperative aspirin may be more likely to benefit rather than harm patients with prior PCI. Primary Funding Source: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Optimising first- and second-line treatment strategies for untreated major depressive disorder - the SUN☺D study: a pragmatic, multi-centre, assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: For patients starting treatment for depression, current guidelines recommend titrating the antidepressant dosage to the maximum of the licenced range if tolerated. When patients do not achieve remission within several weeks, recommendations include adding or switching to another antidepressant. However, the relative merits of these guideline strategies remain unestablished. METHODS: This multi-centre, open-label, assessor-blinded, pragmatic trial involved two steps. Step 1 used open-cluster randomisation, allocating clinics into those titrating sertraline up to 50 mg/day or 100 mg/day by week 3. Step 2 used central randomisation to allocate patients who did not remit after 3 weeks of treatment to continue sertraline, to add mirtazapine or to switch to mirtazapine. The primary outcome was depression severity measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) (scores between 0 and 27; higher scores, greater depression) at week 9. We applied mixed-model repeated-measures analysis adjusted for key baseline covariates. RESULTS: Between December 2010 and March 2015, we recruited 2011 participants with hitherto untreated major depression at 48 clinics in Japan. In step 1, 970 participants were allocated to the 50 mg/day and 1041 to the 100 mg/day arms; 1927 (95.8%) provided primary outcomes. There was no statistically significant difference in the adjusted PHQ-9 score at week 9 between the 50 mg/day arm and the 100 mg/day arm (0.25 point, 95% confidence interval (CI), - 0.58 to 1.07, P = 0.55). Other outcomes proved similar in the two groups. In step 2, 1646 participants not remitted by week 3 were randomised to continue sertraline (n = 551), to add mirtazapine (n = 537) or to switch to mirtazapine (n = 558): 1613 (98.0%) provided primary outcomes. At week 9, adding mirtazapine achieved a reduction in PHQ-9 scores of 0.99 point (0.43 to 1.55, P = 0.0012); switching achieved a reduction of 1.01 points (0.46 to 1.56, P = 0.0012), both relative to continuing sertraline. Combination increased the percentage of remission by 12.4% (6.1 to 19.0%) and switching by 8.4% (2.5 to 14.8%). There were no differences in adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with new onset depression, we found no advantage of titrating sertraline to 100 mg vs 50 mg. Patients unremitted by week 3 gained a small benefit in reduction of depressive symptoms at week 9 by switching sertraline to mirtazapine or by adding mirtazapine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01109693 . Registered on 23 April 2010.

Severity of Hypoxemia and Effect of High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

RATIONALE: High-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) is theoretically beneficial for lung protection, but the results of clinical trials are inconsistent, with study-level meta-analyses suggesting no significant effect on mortality. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this individual patient data meta-analysis was to identify acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patient subgroups with differential outcomes from HFOV. METHODS: After a comprehensive search for trials, two reviewers independently identified randomized trials comparing HFOV with conventional ventilation for adults with ARDS. Prespecified effect modifiers were tested using multivariable hierarchical logistic regression models, adjusting for important prognostic factors and clustering effects. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data from 1,552 patients in four trials were analyzed, applying uniform definitions for study variables and outcomes. Patients had a mean baseline PaO2/FiO2 of 114 ± 39 mm Hg; 40% had severe ARDS (PaO2/FiO2 <100 mm Hg). Mortality at 30 days was 321 of 785 (40.9%) for HFOV patients versus 288 of 767 (37.6%) for control subjects (adjusted odds ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.46; P = 0.16). This treatment effect varied, however, depending on baseline severity of hypoxemia (P = 0.0003), with harm increasing with PaO2/FiO2 among patients with mild-moderate ARDS, and the possibility of decreased mortality in patients with very severe ARDS. Compliance and body mass index did not modify the treatment effect. HFOV increased barotrauma risk compared with conventional ventilation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.96; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: HFOV increases mortality for most patients with ARDS but may improve survival among patients with severe hypoxemia on conventional mechanical ventilation.

The GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for health system and public health decisions.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a framework for people making and using evidence-informed health system and public health recommendations and decisions. BACKGROUND: We developed the GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework for health system and public health decisions as part of the DECIDE project, in which we simultaneously developed frameworks for these and other types of healthcare decisions, including clinical recommendations, coverage decisions and decisions about diagnostic tests. DEVELOPING THE FRAMEWORK: Building on GRADE EtD tables, we used an iterative approach, including brainstorming, consultation of the literature and with stakeholders, and an international survey of policy-makers. We applied the framework to diverse examples, conducted workshops and user testing with health system and public health guideline developers and policy-makers, and observed and tested its use in real-life guideline panels. FINDINGS: All the GRADE EtD frameworks share the same basic structure, including sections for formulating the question, making an assessment and drawing conclusions. Criteria listed in the assessment section of the health system and public health framework cover the important factors for making these types of decisions; in addition to the effects and economic impact of an option, the priority of the problem, the impact of the option on equity, and its acceptability and feasibility are important considerations that can inform both whether and how to implement an option. Because health system and public health interventions are often complex, detailed implementation considerations should be made when making a decision. The certainty of the evidence is often low or very low, but decision-makers must still act. Monitoring and evaluation are therefore often important considerations for these types of decisions. We illustrate the different components of the EtD framework for health system and public health decisions by presenting their application in a framework adapted from a real-life guideline. DISCUSSION: This framework provides a structured and transparent approach to support policy-making informed by the best available research evidence, while making the basis for decisions accessible to those whom they will affect. The health system and public health EtD framework can also be used to facilitate dissemination of recommendations and enable decision-makers to adopt, and adapt, recommendations or decisions.

Guideline of guidelines: thromboprophylaxis for urological surgery.

Decisions regarding thromboprophylaxis in urologic surgery involve a trade-off between decreased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and increased risk of bleeding. Both patient- and procedure-specific factors are critical in making an informed decision on the use of thromboprophylaxis. Our systematic review of the literature revealed that existing guidelines in urology are limited. Recommendations from national and international guidelines often conflict and are largely based on indirect as opposed to procedure-specific evidence. These issues have likely contributed to large variation in the use of VTE prophylaxis within and between countries. The majority of existing guidelines typically suggest prolonged thromboprophylaxis for high-risk abdominal or pelvic surgery, without clear clarification of what these procedures are, for up to 4 weeks post-discharge. Existing guidance may result in the under-treatment of procedures with low risk of bleeding and the over-treatment of oncological procedures with low risk of VTE. Guidance for patients who are already anticoagulated are not specific to urological procedures but generally involve evaluating patient and surgical risks when deciding on bridging therapy. The European Association of Urology Guidelines Office has commissioned an ad hoc guideline panel that will present a formal thromboprophylaxis guideline for specific urological procedures and patient risk factors.

Essential psychiatric medicines: wrong selection, high consumption and social problems.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization Essential Medicines List (WHO-LIST) and national essential medicines lists differ because many countries face significant challenges, such as product availability, cost, product quality and epidemiological disease profiles. In Brazil, governments pay for drugs that are included on the federal, state and municipal government (REMUME) lists. The extent to which municipal lists differ from state and national lists and from the WHO-LIST is unclear. We investigate the use of the WHO-LISTas a tool with which to evaluate the selection process for the essential psychiatric medicines in the public system coverage list of Brazilian communities (cities) and the use of the target drugs. METHODS: Municipal health secretaries were interviewed regarding the selection process for REMUMEs and the antidepressants and benzodiazepines included in REMUMEs and reference lists. We calculated the use of REMUME drugs that appeared or did not appear on reference lists according to the defined daily dose (DDD) per 10,000 inhabitants. RESULTS: Local physicians and pharmacists without specific training or explicit criteria developed the REMUMEs. Of the 13 drugs and 24 products (i.e., the different dosages of these 13 drugs) in the REMUMEs, 8 drugs and 10 products were included in at least one reference list and in one municipal list; 4 drugs and 6 products were included in at least one reference list but in none of the municipal lists; and 7 drugs and 8 products were included in at least one municipal list but in none of the reference lists. The antidepressants that appeared in at least one municipal list but in none of the reference lists represented 25.1 % (mean 60.9 DDD/10,000 inhabitants-day) of the usage. The benzodiazepines that appeared in at least one of the municipal lists but in none of the reference lists represented 14.7 % mean 18.5 DDD/10,000 inhabitants-day) of the usage. CONCLUSIONS: Brazilian cities have no rigorous processes for selecting the drugs that appear on their lists, and drugs that do not appear on the reference lists represent a significant proportion of antidepressant and benzodiazepine use, resulting in public health and social problems.

Trustworthy guidelines - excellent; customized care tools - even better.

BACKGROUND: The ability to do online searches for health information has led to concerns that patients find the results confusing and that they often lead to expectations for treatments that have little supportive evidence. At the same time, the science of summarizing research evidence has advanced to the point where it is increasingly possible to quantify treatment tradeoffs and to describe the balance between harms and benefits for individual patients. DISCUSSION: Trustworthy clinical practice guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations to health care practitioners based on assessments of study-level averages. In an effort to customize the use of evidence and ensure that choices are consistent with their personal preferences, tools for patients have been developed. Gradually, there is recognition that the audience for high quality evidence is much wider than merely health care professionals - and that there is a case to be made for creating tools that translate existing evidence into tools to help patients and clinicians work together to decide next steps. We observe two processes occurring: first, is the recognition that decision making in healthcare requires collaboration and deliberation, and second, to achieve this, we need tools designed to customize care at the level of individuals.