Concentrations, Number of Doses, and Formulations of Aluminium Adjuvants in Vaccines: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Aluminium adjuvants are commonly used in vaccines to boost the effects of vaccination. Here, we assessed the benefits and harms of different aluminium adjuvants vs. other aluminium adjuvants or vs. the same aluminium adjuvant at other concentrations, administered a different number of doses, or at different particle sizes used in vaccines or vaccine excipients. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis to assess the certainty of evidence with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). We obtained data from major medical databases until 20 January 2023 and included 10 randomized clinical trials of healthy volunteers. The comparisons assessed higher vs. lower aluminium adjuvant concentrations; higher vs. lower number of doses of aluminium adjuvant; and aluminium phosphate adjuvant vs. aluminium hydroxide adjuvant. For all three comparisons, meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and adverse events considered non-serious. The certainty of evidence was low to very low. None of the included trials reported on quality of life or proportion of participants who developed the disease being vaccinated against. The benefits and harms of different types of aluminium adjuvants, different aluminium concentrations, different number of doses, or different particle sizes, therefore, remain uncertain.

Drug interventions for prevention of COVID-19 progression to severe disease in outpatients: a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project).

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions authorised by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) or the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for prevention of COVID-19 progression to severe disease in outpatients. SETTING: Outpatient treatment. PARTICIPANTS: Participants with a diagnosis of COVID-19 and the associated SARS-CoV-2 virus irrespective of age, sex and comorbidities. INTERVENTIONS: Drug interventions authorised by EMA or FDA. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. RESULTS: We included 17 clinical trials randomising 16 257 participants to 8 different interventions authorised by EMA or FDA. 15/17 of the included trials (88.2%) were assessed at high risk of bias. Only molnupiravir and ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir seemed to improve both our primary outcomes. Meta-analyses showed that molnupiravir reduced the risk of death (relative risk (RR) 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.64; p=0.0145, 2 trials; very low certainty of evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.84; p=0.0018, 5 trials; very low certainty of evidence). Fisher's exact test showed that ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir reduced the risk of death (p=0.0002, 1 trial; very low certainty of evidence) and serious adverse events (p<0.0001, 1 trial; very low certainty of evidence) in 1 trial including 2246 patients, while another trial including 1140 patients reported 0 deaths in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The certainty of the evidence was very low, but, from the results of this study, molnupiravir showed the most consistent benefit and ranked highest among the approved interventions for prevention of COVID-19 progression to severe disease in outpatients. The lack of certain evidence should be considered when treating patients with COVID-19 for prevention of disease progression. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020178787.

Aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention in vaccine randomised clinical trials: a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention in randomised clinical trials in relation to human vaccine development. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis assessing the certainty of evidence with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). DATA SOURCES: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, BIOSIS, Science Citation Index Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science until 29 June 2021, and Chinese databases until September 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials irrespective of type, status and language of publication, with trial participants of any sex, age, ethnicity, diagnosis, comorbidity and country of residence. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias with Cochrane's RoB tool 1. Dichotomous data were analysed as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous data as mean differences. We explored both fixed-effect and random-effects models, with 95% CI. Heterogeneity was quantified with I2 statistic. We GRADE assessed the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: We included 102 randomised clinical trials (26 457 participants). Aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention may have no effect on serious adverse events (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.43; very low certainty) and on all-cause mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.41; very low certainty). No trial reported on quality of life. Aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention may increase adverse events (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.20; very low certainty). We found no or little evidence of a difference between aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention when assessing serology with geometric mean titres or concentrations or participants' seroprotection. CONCLUSIONS: Based on evidence at very low certainty, we were unable to identify benefits of aluminium adjuvants, which may be associated with adverse events considered non-serious.

CREB5 reprograms FOXA1 nuclear interactions to promote resistance to androgen receptor-targeting therapies.

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers (mCRPCs) are treated with therapies that antagonize the androgen receptor (AR). Nearly all patients develop resistance to AR-targeted therapies (ARTs). Our previous work identified CREB5 as an upregulated target gene in human mCRPC that promoted resistance to all clinically approved ART. The mechanisms by which CREB5 promotes progression of mCRPC or other cancers remains elusive. Integrating ChIP-seq and rapid immunoprecipitation and mass spectroscopy of endogenous proteins, we report that cells overexpressing CREB5 demonstrate extensive reprogramming of nuclear protein-protein interactions in response to the ART agent enzalutamide. Specifically, CREB5 physically interacts with AR, the pioneering actor FOXA1, and other known co-factors of AR and FOXA1 at transcription regulatory elements recently found to be active in mCRPC patients. We identified a subset of CREB5/FOXA1 co-interacting nuclear factors that have critical functions for AR transcription (GRHL2, HOXB13) while others (TBX3, NFIC) regulated cell viability and ART resistance and were amplified or overexpressed in mCRPC. Upon examining the nuclear protein interactions and the impact of CREB5 expression on the mCRPC patient transcriptome, we found that CREB5 was associated with Wnt signaling and epithelial to mesenchymal transitions, implicating these pathways in CREB5/FOXA1-mediated ART resistance. Overall, these observations define the molecular interactions among CREB5, FOXA1, and pathways that promote ART resistance.

Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: A living systematic review with Trial Sequential Analysis and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is rapidly spreading causing extensive burdens across the world. Effective vaccines to prevent COVID-19 are urgently needed. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Our objective was to assess the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines through analyses of all currently available randomized clinical trials. We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and other sources from inception to June 17, 2021 for randomized clinical trials assessing vaccines for COVID-19. At least two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We conducted meta-analyses, network meta-analyses, and Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA). Our primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, vaccine efficacy, and serious adverse events. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We identified 46 trials; 35 trials randomizing 219 864 participants could be included in our analyses. Our meta-analyses showed that mRNA vaccines (efficacy, 95% [95% confidence interval (CI), 92% to 97%]; 71 514 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); inactivated vaccines (efficacy, 61% [95% CI, 52% to 68%]; 48 029 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); protein subunit vaccines (efficacy, 77% [95% CI, -5% to 95%]; 17 737 participants; 2 trials; low certainty); and viral vector vaccines (efficacy 68% [95% CI, 61% to 74%]; 71 401 participants; 5 trials; low certainty) prevented COVID-19. Viral vector vaccines decreased mortality (risk ratio, 0.25 [95% CI 0.09 to 0.67]; 67 563 participants; 3 trials, low certainty), but comparable data on inactivated, mRNA, and protein subunit vaccines were imprecise. None of the vaccines showed evidence of a difference on serious adverse events, but observational evidence suggested rare serious adverse events. All the vaccines increased the risk of non-serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that all the included vaccines are effective in preventing COVID-19. The mRNA vaccines seem most effective in preventing COVID-19, but viral vector vaccines seem most effective in reducing mortality. Further trials and longer follow-up are necessary to provide better insight into the safety profile of these vaccines.

Interventions for treatment of COVID-19: Second edition of a living systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project).

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a rapidly spreading disease that has caused extensive burden to individuals, families, countries, and the world. Effective treatments of COVID-19 are urgently needed. This is the second edition of a living systematic review of randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of all treatment interventions for participants in all age groups with COVID-19. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We planned to conduct aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Our systematic review was based on PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines, and our eight-step procedure for better validation of clinical significance of meta-analysis results. We performed both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. According to the number of outcome comparisons, we adjusted our threshold for significance to p = 0.033. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished trials until November 2, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial methodology. We included 82 randomized clinical trials enrolling a total of 40,249 participants. 81 out of 82 trials were at overall high risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference between corticosteroids versus control on all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 23.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), on serious adverse events (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; p = 0.04; I2 = 39.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), and on mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.33; p = 0.49; I2 = 55.3%; two trials; very low certainty). The fixed-effect meta-analyses showed indications of beneficial effects. Trial sequential analyses showed that the required information size for all three analyses was not reached. Meta-analysis (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07; p = 0.31; I2 = 0%; four trials; moderate certainty) and trial sequential analysis (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that remdesivir versus control reduced the risk of death by 20%. Meta-analysis (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 38.9%; four trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of difference between remdesivir versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of remdesivir on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.87; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of intravenous immunoglobulin versus control on all-cause mortality, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.14; p = 0.12; I2 = 77.4%; five trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of a difference between tocilizumab versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.96; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; three trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab versus control on mechanical ventilation, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm of reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.69; p < 0.00; I2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of bromhexine versus standard care on non-serious adverse events, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that hydroxychloroquine versus control reduced the risk of death and serious adverse events by 20%. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that lopinavir-ritonavir versus control reduced the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation by 20%. All remaining outcome comparisons showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Nine single trials showed statistically significant results on our outcomes, but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Due to lack of data, it was not relevant to perform network meta-analysis or possible to perform individual patient data meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists. Very low certainty evidence indicates that corticosteroids might reduce the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation; that remdesivir might reduce the risk of serious adverse events; that intravenous immunoglobin might reduce the risk of death and serious adverse events; that tocilizumab might reduce the risk of serious adverse events and mechanical ventilation; and that bromhexine might reduce the risk of non-serious adverse events. More trials with low risks of bias and random errors are urgently needed. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of COVID-19. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020178787.

Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review with network meta-analysis including individual patient data (The LIVING VACCINE Project).

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) which has rapidly spread worldwide. Several human randomized clinical trials assessing potential vaccines are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living systematic review that continuously assesses the beneficial and harmful effects of all available vaccines for COVID-19. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any vaccine aiming to prevent COVID-19 (including but not limited to messenger RNA; DNA; non-replicating viral vector; replicating viral vector; inactivated virus; protein subunit; dendritic cell; other vaccines) with any comparator (placebo; "active placebo;" no intervention; standard care; an "active" intervention; another vaccine for COVID-19) for participants in all age groups. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality; a diagnosis of COVID-19; and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be quality of life and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analyses, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Within-study bias will be assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) and Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approaches will be used to assess certainty of evidence. Observational studies describing harms identified during the search for trials will also be included and described and analyzed separately. DISCUSSION: COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review assessing the beneficial and harmful effects of different vaccines is urgently needed. This living systematic review will regularly inform best practice in vaccine prevention and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020196492.

Interventions for treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project).

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a rapidly spreading disease that has caused extensive burden to individuals, families, countries, and the world. Effective treatments of COVID-19 are urgently needed. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This is the first edition of a living systematic review of randomized clinical trials comparing the effects of all treatment interventions for participants in all age groups with COVID-19. We planned to conduct aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Our systematic review is based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) and Cochrane guidelines, and our 8-step procedure for better validation of clinical significance of meta-analysis results. We performed both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and nonserious adverse events. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished trials until August 7, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial methodology. We included 33 randomized clinical trials enrolling a total of 13,312 participants. All trials were at overall high risk of bias. We identified one trial randomizing 6,425 participants to dexamethasone versus standard care. This trial showed evidence of a beneficial effect of dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (rate ratio 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-0.93; p < 0.001; low certainty) and on mechanical ventilation (risk ratio [RR] 0.77; 95% CI 0.62-0.95; p = 0.021; low certainty). It was possible to perform meta-analysis of 10 comparisons. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between remdesivir versus placebo on all-cause mortality (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.40-1.37; p = 0.34, I2 = 58%; 2 trials; very low certainty) or nonserious adverse events (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.80-1.11; p = 0.48, I2 = 29%; 2 trials; low certainty). Meta-analysis showed evidence of a beneficial effect of remdesivir versus placebo on serious adverse events (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.63-0.94; p = 0.009, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty) mainly driven by respiratory failure in one trial. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses showed that we could exclude the possibility that hydroxychloroquine versus standard care reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.97-1.19; p = 0.17; I2 = 0%; 7 trials; low certainty) and serious adverse events (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.96-1.18; p = 0.21; I2 = 0%; 7 trials; low certainty) by 20% or more, and meta-analysis showed evidence of a harmful effect on nonserious adverse events (RR 2.40; 95% CI 2.01-2.87; p < 0.00001; I2 = 90%; 6 trials; very low certainty). Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between lopinavir-ritonavir versus standard care on serious adverse events (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.39-1.04; p = 0.07, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty) or nonserious adverse events (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.85-1.53; p = 0.38, I2 = 75%; 2 trials; very low certainty). Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between convalescent plasma versus standard care on all-cause mortality (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.33-1.10; p = 0.10, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty). Five single trials showed statistically significant results but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. None of the remaining trials showed evidence of a difference on our predefined outcomes. Because of the lack of relevant data, it was not possible to perform other meta-analyses, network meta-analysis, or individual patient data meta-analyses. The main limitation of this living review is the paucity of data currently available. Furthermore, the included trials were all at risks of systematic errors and random errors. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that dexamethasone and remdesivir might be beneficial for COVID-19 patients, but the certainty of the evidence was low to very low, so more trials are needed. We can exclude the possibility of hydroxychloroquine versus standard care reducing the risk of death and serious adverse events by 20% or more. Otherwise, no evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of COVID-19.

Interventions for treatment of COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review with network meta-analysis including individual patient data (The LIVING Project).

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a rapidly spreading virus infection that has quickly caused extensive burden to individual, families, countries, and the globe. No intervention has yet been proven effective for the treatment of COVID-19. Some randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of different drugs have been published, and more are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living, dynamic systematic review that continuously evaluates the beneficial and harmful effects of all available interventions for COVID-19. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any intervention for the treatment of COVID-19 (e.g., pharmacological interventions, fluid therapy, invasive or noninvasive ventilation, or similar interventions) with any comparator (e.g., an "active" comparator, standard care, placebo, no intervention, or "active placebo") for participants in all age groups with a diagnosis of COVID-19. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, Trial Sequential Analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Risk of bias will be assessed with domains, an eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). DISCUSSION: COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review evaluating the beneficial and harmful effects of pharmacological and other interventions is urgently needed. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020178787.

Direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), e.g. sofosbuvir, are relatively new and expensive interventions for chronic hepatitis C, and preliminary results suggest that DAAs may eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) from the blood (sustained virological response). Sustained virological response (SVR) is used by investigators and regulatory agencies as a surrogate outcome for morbidity and mortality, based solely on observational evidence. However, there have been no randomised trials that have validated that usage. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of DAAs in people with chronic HCV. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for all published and unpublished trials in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and BIOSIS; the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Network Knowledge Information (CNKI), the Chinese Science Journal Database (VIP), Google Scholar, The Turning Research into Practice (TRIP) Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency (EMA) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (www.fda.gov), and pharmaceutical company sources for ongoing or unpublished trials. Searches were last run in October 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing DAAs versus no intervention or placebo, alone or with co-interventions, in adults with chronic HCV. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were hepatitis C-related morbidity, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, non-serious adverse events (each reported separately), and SVR. We systematically assessed risks of bias, performed Trial Sequential Analysis, and followed an eight-step procedure to assess thresholds for statistical and clinical significance. We evaluated the overall quality of the evidence, using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 138 trials randomising a total of 25,232 participants. The trials were generally short-term trials and designed primarily to assess the effect of treatment on SVR. The trials evaluated 51 different DAAs. Of these, 128 trials employed matching placebo in the control group. All included trials were at high risk of bias. Eighty-four trials involved DAAs on the market or under development (13,466 participants). Fifty-seven trials administered DAAs that were discontinued or withdrawn from the market. Study populations were treatment-naive in 95 trials, had been exposed to treatment in 17 trials, and comprised both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced individuals in 24 trials. The HCV genotypes were genotype 1 (119 trials), genotype 2 (eight trials), genotype 3 (six trials), genotype 4 (nine trials), and genotype 6 (one trial). We identified two ongoing trials.We could not reliably determine the effect of DAAs on the market or under development on our primary outcome of hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality. There were no data on hepatitis C-related morbidity and only limited data on mortality from 11 trials (DAA 15/2377 (0.63%) versus control 1/617 (0.16%); OR 3.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 26.18, very low-quality evidence). We did not perform Trial Sequential Analysis on this outcome.There is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events (DAA 5.2% versus control 5.6%; OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15 , 15,817 participants, 43 trials). The Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was sufficient information to rule out that DAAs reduce the relative risk of a serious adverse event by 20% when compared with placebo. The only DAA that showed a lower risk of serious adverse events when meta-analysed separately was simeprevir (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). However, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was not enough information to confirm or reject a relative risk reduction of 20%, and when one trial with an extreme result was excluded, the meta-analysis result showed no evidence of a difference.DAAs on the market or under development may reduce the risk of no SVR from 54.1% in untreated people to 23.8% in people treated with DAA (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52, 6886 participants, 32 trials, low quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Only 1/84 trials on the market or under development assessed the effects of DAAs on health-related quality of life (SF-36 mental score and SF-36 physical score).There was insufficient evidence from trials on withdrawn or discontinued DAAs to determine their effect on hepatitis C-related morbidity and all-cause mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.79; 5 trials, very low-quality evidence). However, these DAAs seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73; 29 trials, very low-quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.None of the 138 trials provided useful data to assess the effects of DAAs on the remaining secondary outcomes (ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for our main outcomes of interest come from short-term trials, and we are unable to determine the effect of long-term treatment with DAAs. The rates of hepatitis C morbidity and mortality observed in the trials are relatively low and we are uncertain as to how DAAs affect this outcome. Overall, there is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events. There is insufficient evidence to judge if DAAs have beneficial or harmful effects on other clinical outcomes for chronic HCV. Simeprevir may have beneficial effects on risk of serious adverse event. In all remaining analyses, we could neither confirm nor reject that DAAs had any clinical effects. DAAs may reduce the number of people with detectable virus in their blood, but we do not have sufficient evidence from randomised trials that enables us to understand how SVR affects long-term clinical outcomes. SVR is still an outcome that needs proper validation in randomised clinical trials.

Direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are relatively new and expensive interventions for chronic hepatitis C, and preliminary results suggest that DAAs may eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) from the blood (sustained virological response). However, it is still questionable if eradication of hepatitis C virus in the blood eliminates hepatitis C in the body, and improves survival and leads to fewer complications. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of DAAs in people with chronic HCV. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for all published and unpublished trials in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and BIOSIS; the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Network Knowledge Information (CNKI), the Chinese Science Journal Database (VIP), Google Scholar, The Turning Research into Practice (TRIP) Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency (EMA) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (www.fda.gov), and pharmaceutical company sources for ongoing or unpublished trials. Searches were last run in October 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing DAAs versus no intervention or placebo, alone or with co-interventions, in adults with chronic HCV. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were hepatitis C-related morbidity, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, non-serious adverse events (each reported separately), and sustained virological response. We systematically assessed risks of bias, performed Trial Sequential Analysis, and followed an eight-step procedure to assess thresholds for statistical and clinical significance. The overall quality of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 138 trials randomising a total of 25,232 participants. The 138 trials assessed the effects of 51 different DAAs. Of these, 128 trials employed matching placebo in the control group. All included trials were at high risk of bias. Eighty-four trials involved DAAs on the market or under development (13,466 participants). Fifty-seven trials administered withdrawn or discontinued DAAs. Trial participants were treatment-naive (95 trials), treatment-experienced (17 trials), or both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced (24 trials). The HCV genotypes were genotype 1 (119 trials), genotype 2 (eight trials), genotype 3 (six trials), genotype 4 (nine trials), and genotype 6 (one trial). We identified two ongoing trials.Meta-analysis of the effects of all DAAs on the market or under development showed no evidence of a difference when assessing hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality (OR 3.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 26.18, P = 0.19, I² = 0%, 2,996 participants, 11 trials, very low-quality evidence). As there were no data on hepatitis C-related morbidity and very few data on mortality (DAA 15/2377 (0.63%) versus control 1/617 (0.16%)), it was not possible to perform Trial Sequential Analysis on hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality.Meta-analysis of all DAAs on the market or under development showed no evidence of a difference when assessing serious adverse events (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15, P = 0.52, I² = 0%, 15,817 participants, 43 trials, very low-quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis showed that the cumulative Z-score crossed the trial sequential boundary for futility, showing that there was sufficient information to rule out that DAAs compared with placebo reduced the relative risk of a serious adverse event by 20%. The only DAA that showed a significant difference on risk of serious adverse events when meta-analysed separately was simeprevir (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). However, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was not enough information to confirm or reject a relative risk reduction of 20%, and when one trial with an extreme result was excluded, then the meta-analysis result showed no evidence of a difference.DAAs on the market or under development seemed to reduce the risk of no sustained virological response (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52, P < 0.00001, I² = 77%, 6886 participants, 32 trials, very low-quality evidence) and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Only 1/84 trials on the market or under development assessed the effects of DAAs on health-related quality of life (SF-36 mental score and SF-36 physical score).Withdrawn or discontinued DAAs had no evidence of a difference when assessing hepatitis C-related morbidity and all-cause mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.79, P = 0.40, I² = 0%; 5 trials, very low-quality evidence). However, withdrawn DAAs seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73, P = 0.001, I² = 0%, 29 trials, very low-quality evidence), and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Most of all outcome results were short-term results; therefore, we could neither confirm nor reject any long-term effects of DAAs. None of the 138 trials provided useful data to assess the effects of DAAs on the remaining secondary outcomes (ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, DAAs on the market or under development do not seem to have any effects on risk of serious adverse events. Simeprevir may have beneficial effects on risk of serious adverse event. In all remaining analyses, we could neither confirm nor reject that DAAs had any clinical effects. DAAs seemed to reduce the risk of no sustained virological response. The clinical relevance of the effects of DAAs on no sustained virological response is questionable, as it is a non-validated surrogate outcome. All trials and outcome results were at high risk of bias, so our results presumably overestimate benefit and underestimate harm. The quality of the evidence was very low.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors versus placebo in patients with major depressive disorder. A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The evidence on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for major depressive disorder is unclear. METHODS: Our objective was to conduct a systematic review assessing the effects of SSRIs versus placebo, 'active' placebo, or no intervention in adult participants with major depressive disorder. We searched for eligible randomised clinical trials in The Cochrane Library's CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, PsycLIT, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index Expanded, clinical trial registers of Europe and USA, websites of pharmaceutical companies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the European Medicines Agency until January 2016. All data were extracted by at least two independent investigators. We used Cochrane systematic review methodology, Trial Sequential Analysis, and calculation of Bayes factor. An eight-step procedure was followed to assess if thresholds for statistical and clinical significance were crossed. Primary outcomes were reduction of depressive symptoms, remission, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were suicides, suicide attempts, suicide ideation, and quality of life. RESULTS: A total of 131 randomised placebo-controlled trials enrolling a total of 27,422 participants were included. None of the trials used 'active' placebo or no intervention as control intervention. All trials had high risk of bias. SSRIs significantly reduced the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) at end of treatment (mean difference -1.94 HDRS points; 95% CI -2.50 to -1.37; P < 0.00001; 49 trials; Trial Sequential Analysis-adjusted CI -2.70 to -1.18); Bayes factor below predefined threshold (2.01*10-23). The effect estimate, however, was below our predefined threshold for clinical significance of 3 HDRS points. SSRIs significantly decreased the risk of no remission (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.91; P < 0.00001; 34 trials; Trial Sequential Analysis adjusted CI 0.83 to 0.92); Bayes factor (1426.81) did not confirm the effect). SSRIs significantly increased the risks of serious adverse events (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.75; P = 0.009; 44 trials; Trial Sequential Analysis-adjusted CI 1.03 to 1.89). This corresponds to 31/1000 SSRI participants will experience a serious adverse event compared with 22/1000 control participants. SSRIs also significantly increased the number of non-serious adverse events. There were almost no data on suicidal behaviour, quality of life, and long-term effects. CONCLUSIONS: SSRIs might have statistically significant effects on depressive symptoms, but all trials were at high risk of bias and the clinical significance seems questionable. SSRIs significantly increase the risk of both serious and non-serious adverse events. The potential small beneficial effects seem to be outweighed by harmful effects. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42013004420.

Tranexamic acid for upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Background Tranexamic acid reduces haemorrhage through its antifibrinolytic effects. In a previous version of the present review, we found that tranexamic acid may reduce mortality. This review includes updated searches and new trials.Objectives To assess the effects of tranexamic acid versus no intervention, placebo or other antiulcer drugs for upper gastrointestinal bleeding.Search methods We updated the review by performing electronic database searches (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL),MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index) and manual searches in July 2014.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials, irrespective of language or publication status.Data collection and analysis We used the standard methodological procedures of the The Cochrane Collaboration. All-cause mortality, bleeding and adverse events were the primary outcome measures. We performed fixed-effect and random-effects model meta-analyses and presented results as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and used I² as a measure of between-trial heterogeneity. We analysed tranexamic acid versus placebo or no intervention and tranexamic acid versus antiulcer drugs separately. To analyse sources of heterogeneity and robustness of the overall results, we performed subgroup, sensitivity and sequential analyses.Main results We included eight randomised controlled trials on tranexamic acid for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Additionally, we identified one large ongoing pragmatic randomised controlled trial from which data are not yet available. Control groups were randomly assigned to placebo (seven trials) or no intervention (one trial). Two trials also included a control group randomly assigned to antiulcer drugs(lansoprazole or cimetidine). The included studies were published from 1973 to 2011. The number of participants randomly assigned ranged from 47 to 216 (median 204). All trials reported mortality. In total, 42 of 851 participants randomly assigned to tranexamic acid and 71 of 850 in the control group died (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.87; P value 0.007; I² = 0%). The analysis was not confirmed when all participants in the intervention group with missing outcome data were included as treatment failures, or when the analysis was limited to trials with low risk of attrition bias. Rebleeding was diagnosed for 117 of 826 participants in the tranexamic acid group and for 146 of 825 participants in the control group (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.00; P value 0.07; I² = 49%).We were able to evaluate the risk of serious adverse events on the basis of only four trials. Our analyses showed 'no evidence of a difference between tranexamic acid and control interventions regarding the risk of thromboembolic events.' Tranexamic acid appeared to reduce the risk of surgery ina fixed-effect meta-analysis (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95), but this result was no longer statistically significant in a random-effects meta-analysis (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.04; P value 0.07). No difference was apparent between tranexamic acid and placebo in the assessment of transfusion (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11; I² = 0%), and meta-analyses that compared tranexamic acid versus antiulcer drugs did not identify beneficial or detrimental effects of tranexamic acid for any of the outcomes assessed.Authors' conclusions This review found that tranexamic acid appears to have a beneficial effect on mortality, but a high dropout rate in some trials means that we cannot be sure of this until the findings of additional research are published. At the time of this update in 2014, one large study(8000 participants) is in progress, so this review will be much more informative in a few years. Further examination of tranexamic acid would require inclusion of high-quality randomised controlled trials. Timing of randomisation is essential to avoid attrition bias and to limit the number of withdrawals. Future trials may use a pragmatic design and should include all participants with suspected bleeding or with endoscopically verified bleeding, as well as a tranexamic placebo arm and co-administration of pump inhibitors and endoscopic therapy. Assessment of outcome measures in such studies should be clearly defined. Endoscopic examination with appropriate control of severe bleeding should be performed, as should endoscopic verification of clinically significant rebleeding. In addition, clinical measures of rebleeding should be included. Other important outcome measures include mortality (30-day or in-hospital), need for emergency surgery or blood transfusion and adverse events (major or minor).

Tranexamic acid for upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Tranexamic acid reduces haemorrhage through its antifibrinolytic effects. In a previous version of the present review, we found that tranexamic acid may reduce mortality. The present review includes updated searches of randomised trials on tranexamic acid versus placebo, cimetidine or lansoprazole. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of tranexamic acid for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. SEARCH METHODS: Electronic searches (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index) and manual searches were combined. The last search update was in October 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials in which patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding were randomised to receive either tranexamic acid or placebo, or any anti-ulcer drug, were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome measure. Random-effects model meta-analyses were performed and results presented as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Subgroup, sensitivity, regression and sequential analyses were performed to analyse sources of intertrial heterogeneity and the robustness of the overall result. MAIN RESULTS: Seven double blind randomised trials on tranexamic acid versus placebo, cimetidine, or lanzoprazole were included. One trial offered endoscopic treatment to all patients that were randomised. Random-effects model meta-analysis found that tranexmic acid reduced mortality compared with placebo (41 of 829 versus 68 of 825 patients; RR: 0.61, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.89). The beneficial effect was not confirmed in subgroup analysis stratified for the quality of bias control, in worst case scenario analyses (in which 21% of the randomised patients were excluded), or in sequential analyses. No significant differences were found between tranexamic acid and placebo on bleeding, surgery, or transfusion requirements. No clear effects of tranexamic acid were identified in trials using endoscopic therapy or in the trials comparing tranexamic acid with cimetidine or lansoprazole. In the tranexamic acid group, five cases of serious thromboembolic events occurred (myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, and cerebral infarction). Overall, the number of patients with any thrombotic event was not significantly increased in the tranexamic acid group (RR 1.87, 95% CI 0.60 to 5.85). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Considering the internal and external validity of the evidence, tranexamic acid cannot be recommended for routine use. Additional trials in which tranexamic acid is used in combination with the currently recommended interventions are required.

Hepato-biliary clinical trials and their inclusion in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group register and reviews.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group (CHBG) is one of the 52 collaborative review groups within The Cochrane Collaboration. The activities of the CHBG focus on collecting hepato-biliary randomized clinical trials (RCT) and controlled clinical trials (CCT), and including them in systematic reviews with meta-analyses of the trials. In this overview, we present the growth of The CHBG Controlled Trials Register, as well as the systematic reviews that have been produced since March 1996. RESULTS: The CHBG register includes almost 11,000 RCT and 700 CCT publications. The earliest RCT in the register were published in 1955, and the earliest CCT in 1945. From 1945 to 1980, there were less than 100 publications each year. From 1981 to 1997, their number increased from over 100 to 600 a year. After 1997, the number of publications seems to have been decreasing. The CHBG has published 199 protocols for systematic reviews and 107 systematic reviews through to August 2009 in which 21% of the RCT and CCT were included. The CHBG reviews have been cited approximately 1200 times. CONCLUSIONS: A large amount of work has been carried out since 1996. However, there is still much to do, as the CHBG register contains a great number of RCT and CCT on topics that have not yet been systematically reviewed.

Banding ligation versus beta-blockers as primary prophylaxis in esophageal varices: systematic review of randomized trials.

OBJECTIVE: To compare banding ligation versus beta-blockers as primary prophylaxis in patients with esophageal varices and no previous bleeding. METHODS: Randomized trials were identified through electronic databases, reference lists in relevant articles, and correspondence with experts. Three authors extracted data. Random effects meta-analysis and metaregression were performed. The reported allocation sequence generation and concealment were extracted as measures of bias control. RESULTS: The initial searches identified 1,174 references. Sixteen trials were included. In 15 trials, patients had high-risk varices. Three trials reported adequate bias control. All trials reported mortality for banding ligation (116/573 patients) and beta-blockers (115/594 patients). Mortality in the two treatment groups was not significantly different in the trials with adequate bias control (relative risk 1.22, 95% CI 0.84-1.78) or unclear bias control (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.75-1.39). Trials with adequate bias control found no significant difference in bleeding rates (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.55-1.35). Trials with unclear bias control found that banding ligation significantly reduced bleeding (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41-0.77). Both treatments were associated with adverse events. In metaregression analyses, the estimated effect of ligation was significantly more positive if trials were published as abstracts. Likewise, the shorter the follow-up, the more positive the estimated effect of ligation. CONCLUSIONS: Banding ligation and beta-blockers may be used as primary prophylaxis in high-risk esophageal varices. The estimated effect of banding ligation in some trials may be biased and was associated with the duration of follow-up. Further high-quality trials are still needed.