Trivalent and quadrivalent seasonal influenza vaccine in adults aged 60 and older: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of influenza vaccines of any valency for adults 60 years and older. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). MEDLINE, EMBASE, JBI Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) Database, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Evidence -Based Medicine database were searched from inception to 20 June 20, 2022. Two reviewers screened, abstracted, and appraised articles (Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) 2.0 tool) independently. We assessed certainty of findings using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approaches. We performed random-effects meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA), and estimated odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for count outcomes along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and prediction intervals. PARTICIPANTS: Older adults (≥60 years old) receiving an influenza vaccine licensed in Canada or the USA (vs placebo, no vaccine, or any other licensed vaccine), at any dose. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Laboratory-confirmed influenza (LCI) and influenza-like illness (ILI). Secondary outcomes were the number of vascular adverse events, hospitalisation for acute respiratory infection (ARI) and ILI, inpatient hospitalisation, emergency room (ER) visit for ILI, outpatient visit, and mortality, among others. RESULTS: We included 41 RCTs and 15 companion reports comprising 8 vaccine types and 206 032 participants. Vaccines may prevent LCI compared with placebo, with high-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV3-HD) (NMA: 9 RCTs, 52 202 participants, OR 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.11 to 0.51), low certainty of evidence) and recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV) (OR 0.25, 95%CI (0.08 to 0.73), low certainty of evidence) among the most efficacious vaccines. Standard dose trivalent IIV3 (IIV3-SD) may prevent ILI compared with placebo, but the result was imprecise (meta-analysis: 2 RCTs, 854 participants, OR 0.39, 95%CI (0.15 to 1.02), low certainty of evidence). Any HD was associated with prevention of ILI compared with placebo (NMA: 9 RCTs, 65 658 participants, OR 0.38, 95%CI (0.15 to 0.93)). Adjuvanted quadrivalent IIV (IIV4-Adj) may be associated with the least vascular adverse events, but the results were very uncertain (NMA: eight 8 RCTs, 57 677 participants, IRR 0.18, 95%CI (0.07 to 0.43), very low certainty of evidence). RIV on all-cause mortality may be comparable to placebo (NMA: 20 RCTs, 140 577 participants, OR 1.01, 95%CI (0.23 to 4.49), low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review demonstrated efficacy associated with IIV3-HD and RIV vaccines in protecting older persons against LCI. RIV vaccine may reduce all-cause mortality when compared with other vaccines, but the evidence is uncertain. Differences in efficacy between influenza vaccines remain uncertain with very low to moderate certainty of evidence. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020177357.

WHO's essential medicines and AWaRe: recommendations on first- and second-choice antibiotics for empiric treatment of clinical infections.

The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) prioritizes medicines that have significant global public health value. The EML can also deliver important messages on appropriate medicine use. Since 2017, in response to the growing challenge of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotics on the EML have been reviewed and categorized into three groups: Access, Watch, and Reserve, leading to a new categorization called AWaRe. These categories were developed taking into account the impact of different antibiotics and classes on antimicrobial resistance and the implications for their appropriate use. The 2023 AWaRe classification provides empirical guidance on 41 essential antibiotics for over 30 clinical infections targeting both the primary health care and hospital facility setting. A further 257 antibiotics not included on the EML have been allocated an AWaRe group for stewardship and monitoring purposes. This article describes the development of AWaRe, focussing on the clinical evidence base that guided the selection of Access, Watch, or Reserve antibiotics as first and second choices for each infection. The overarching objective was to offer a tool for optimizing the quality of global antibiotic prescribing and reduce inappropriate use by encouraging the use of Access antibiotics (or no antibiotics) where appropriate. This clinical evidence evaluation and subsequent EML recommendations are the basis for the AWaRe antibiotic book and related smartphone applications. By providing guidance on antibiotic prioritization, AWaRe aims to facilitate the revision of national lists of essential medicines, update national prescribing guidelines, and supervise antibiotic use. Adherence to AWaRe would extend the effectiveness of current antibiotics while helping countries expand access to these life-saving medicines for the benefit of current and future patients, health professionals, and the environment.

Uptake of orphan drugs in the WHO essential medicines lists.

Objective: We evaluated the uptake of medicines licensed as orphan drugs by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or European Medicines Agency (EMA) into the WHO Model list of essential medicines and the WHO Model list of essential medicines for children from 1977 to 2021. Methods: We collated and analysed data on drug characteristics, reasons for adding or rejecting medicines, and time between regulatory approval and inclusion in the lists. We compared trends in listing orphan drugs before and after revisions to the inclusion criteria of the essential medicines lists in 2001, as well as differences in trends for listing orphan and non-orphan drugs, respectively. Findings: The proportion of orphan drugs in the essential medicines lists increased from 1.9% (4/208) in 1977 to 14.6% (70/478) in 2021. While orphan drugs for communicable diseases have remained stable over time, we observed a considerable shift towards more orphan drugs for noncommunicable diseases, particularly for cancer. The median period for inclusion in the essential medicines lists after either FDA or EMA first approval was 13.5 years (range: 1-28 years). Limited clinical evidence base and uncertainty about the magnitude of net benefit were the most frequent reasons to reject proposals to add new orphan drugs to the essential medicines lists. Conclusion: Despite lack of a global definition of rare diseases, the essential medicines lists have broadened their scope to include medicines for rare conditions. However, the high costs of many listed orphan drugs pose accessibility and reimbursement challenges in resource-constrained settings.

User-experience testing of an evidence-to-decision framework for selecting essential medicines.

Essential medicine lists (EMLs) are important medicine prioritization tools used by the World Health Organization (WHO) EML and over 130 countries. The criteria used by WHO's Expert Committee on the Selection and Use of Essential Medicines has parallels to the GRADE Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) frameworks. In this study, we explored the EtD frameworks and a visual abstract as adjunctive tools to strengthen the integrate evidence and improve the transparency of decisions of EML applications. We conducted user-experience testing interviews of key EML stakeholders using Morville's honeycomb model. Interviews explored multifaceted dimensions (e.g., usability) on two EML applications for the 2021 WHO EML-long-acting insulin analogues for diabetes and immune checkpoint inhibitors for lung cancer. Using a pre-determined coding framework and thematic analysis we iteratively improved both the EtD framework and the visual abstract. We coded the transcripts of 17 interviews with 13 respondents in 103 locations of the interview texts across all dimensions of the user-experience honeycomb. Respondents felt the EtD framework and visual abstract presented complementary useful and findable adjuncts to the traditional EML application. They felt this would increase transparency and efficiency in evidence assessed by EML committees. As EtD frameworks are also used in health practice guidelines, including those by the WHO, respondents articulated that the adoption of the EtD by EML applications represents a tangible mechanism to align EMLs and guidelines, decrease duplication of work and improve coordination. Improvements were made to clarify instructions for the EtD and visual abstract, and to refine the design and content included. 'Availability' was added as an additional criterion for EML applications to highlight this criterion in alignment with WHO EML criteria. EtD frameworks and visual abstracts present additional important tools to communicate evidence and support decision-criteria in EML applications, which have global health impact. Access to essential medicines is important for achieving universal health coverage, and the development of essential medicine lists should be as evidence-based and trustworthy as possible.

GRADE Concept 7: Issues and Insights Linking Guideline Recommendations to Trustworthy Essential Medicine Lists.

OBJECTIVES: Guidelines and essential medicine lists (EMLs) bear similarities and differences in the process that lead to decisions. Access to essential medicines is central to achieve universal health coverage. The World Health Organization (WHO) EML has guided prioritization of essential medicines globally for nearly 50 years, and national EMLs (NEMLs) exist in over 130 countries. Guideline and EML decisions, at WHO or national levels, are not always coordinated and aligned. We sought to explore challenges, and potential solutions, for decision-making to support trustworthy medicine selection for EMLs from a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Working Group perspective. We primarily focus on the WHO EML; however, our findings may be applicable to NEML decisions as well. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We identified key challenges in connecting the EML to health guidelines by involving a broad group of stakeholders and assessing case studies including real applications to the WHO EML, South Africa NEML, and a multiple sclerosis guideline connected to a WHO EML application for multiple sclerosis treatments. To address challenges, we utilized the results of a survey and feedback from the stakeholders, and iteratively met as a project group. We drafted a conceptual framework of challenges and potential solutions. We presented a summary of the results for feedback to all attendees of the GRADE Working Group meetings in November 2022 (approximately 120 people) and in May 2023 (approximately 100 people) before finalizing the framework. RESULTS: We prioritized issues and insights/solutions that addressed the connections between the EML and health guidelines. Our suggested solutions include early planning alignment of guideline groups and EMLs, considering shared participation to strengthen linkage, further clarity on price/cost considerations, and using explicit shared criteria to make guideline and EML decisions. We also provide recommendations to strengthen the connection between WHO EML and NEMLs including through contextualization methods. CONCLUSION: This GRADE concept article, jointly developed by key stakeholders from the guidelines and EMLs field, identified key conceptual issues and potential solutions to support the continued advancement of trustworthy EMLs. Adopting structured decision criteria that can be linked to guideline recommendations bears the potential to advance health equity and gaps in availability of essential medicines within and between countries.

Key issues for stakeholder engagement in the development of health and healthcare guidelines.

Established in 2015, the Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium is an international network of over 120 individuals interested in stakeholder engagement in research and guidelines. The MuSE group is developing guidance for stakeholder engagement in the development of health and healthcare guideline development. The development of this guidance has included multiple meetings with stakeholders, including patients, payers/purchasers of health services, peer review editors, policymakers, program managers, providers, principal investigators, product makers, the public, and purchasers of health services and has identified a number of key issues. These include: (1) Definitions, roles, and settings (2) Stakeholder identification and selection (3) Levels of engagement, (4) Evaluation of engagement, (5) Documentation and transparency, and (6) Conflict of interest management. In this paper, we discuss these issues and our plan to develop guidance to facilitate stakeholder engagement in all stages of the development of health and healthcare guideline development.

A group of international researchers, patient partners, and other stakeholders are working together to create a checklist for when and how to involve stakeholders in health guideline development. Health guidelines include clinical practice guidelines, which your healthcare provider uses to determine treatments for health conditions. While working on this checklist, the team identified key issues to work on, including: (1) Definitions, roles, and settings (2) Stakeholder identification and selection (3) Levels of engagement, (4) Evaluation of engagement, (5) Documentation and transparency, and (6) Conflict of interest management. This paper describes each issue and how the team plans to produce guidance papers to address them.

Decision criteria for selecting essential medicines and their connection to guidelines: an interpretive descriptive qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines has led to at least 137 national lists. Essential medicines should be grounded in evidence-based guideline recommendations and explicit decision criteria. Essential medicines should be available, accessible, affordable, and the supporting evidence should be accompanied by a rating of the certainty one can place in it. Our objectives were to identify criteria and considerations that should be addressed in moving from a guideline recommendation regarding a medicine to the decision of whether to add, maintain, or remove a medicine from an essential medicines list. We also seek to explore opportunities to improve organizational processes to support evidence-based health decision-making more broadly. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study with semistructured interviews of key informant stakeholders in the development and use of guidelines and essential medicine lists (EMLs). We used an interpretive descriptive analysis approach and thematic analysis of interview transcripts in NVIVO v12. RESULTS: We interviewed 16 key informants working at national and global levels across all WHO regions. We identified five themes: three descriptive/explanatory themes 1) EMLs and guidelines, the same, but different; 2) EMLs can drive price reductions and improve affordability and access; 3) Time lag and disconnect between guidelines and EMLs; and two prescriptive themes 4) An "evidence pipeline" could improve coordination between guidelines and EMLs; 5) Facilitating the link between the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (WHO EML) and national EMLs could increase alignment. CONCLUSION: We found significant overlap and opportunities for alignment between guideline and essential medicine decision processes. This finding presents opportunities for guideline and EML developers to enhance strategies for collaboration. Future research should assess and evaluate these strategies in practice to support the shared goal of guidelines and EMLs: improvements in health.

Knowledge user survey and Delphi process to inform development of a new risk of bias tool to assess systematic reviews with network meta-analysis (RoB NMA tool).

BACKGROUND: Network meta-analysis (NMA) is increasingly used in guideline development and other aspects of evidence-based decision-making. We aimed to develop a risk of bias (RoB) tool to assess NMAs (RoB NMA tool). An international steering committee recommended that the RoB NMA tool to be used in combination with the Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool (i.e. because it was designed to assess biases only) or other similar quality appraisal tools (eg, A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 [AMSTAR 2]) to assess quality of systematic reviews. The RoB NMA tool will assess NMA biases and limitations regarding how the analysis was planned, data were analysed and results were presented, including the way in which the evidence was assembled and interpreted. OBJECTIVES: Conduct (a) a Delphi process to determine expert opinion on an item's inclusion and (b) a knowledge user survey to widen its impact. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey and Delphi process. METHODS: Delphi panellists were asked to rate whether items should be included. All agreed-upon item were included in a second round of the survey (defined as 70% agreement). We surveyed knowledge users' views and preferences about the importance, utility and willingness to use the RoB NMA tool to evaluate evidence in practice and in policymaking. We included 12 closed and 10 open-ended questions, and we followed a knowledge translation plan to disseminate the survey through social media and professional networks. RESULTS: 22 items were entered into a Delphi survey of which 28 respondents completed round 1, and 22 completed round 2. Seven items did not reach consensus in round 2. A total of 298 knowledge users participated in the survey (14% respondent rate). 75% indicated that their organisation produced NMAs, and 78% showed high interest in the tool, especially if they had received adequate training (84%). Most knowledge users and Delphi panellists preferred a tool to assess both bias in individual NMA results and authors' conclusions. Response bias in our sample is a major limitation as knowledge users working in high-income countries were more represented. One of the limitations of the Delphi process is that it depends on the purposive selection of experts and their availability, thus limiting the variability in perspectives and scientific disciplines. CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi process and knowledge user survey informs the development of the RoB NMA tool.

Good or best practice statements: proposal for the operationalisation and implementation of GRADE guidance.

An evidence-based approach is considered the gold standard for health decision-making. Sometimes, a guideline panel might judge the certainty that the desirable effects of an intervention clearly outweigh its undesirable effects as high, but the body of supportive evidence is indirect. In such cases, the application of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach for grading the strength of recommendations is inappropriate. Instead, the GRADE Working Group has recommended developing ungraded best or good practice statement (GPS) and developed guidance under which circumsances they would be appropriate.Through an evaluation of COVID-1- related recommendations on the eCOVID Recommendation Map (COVID-19.recmap.org), we found that recommendations qualifying a GPS were widespread. However, guideline developers failed to label them as GPS or transparently report justifications for their development. We identified ways to improve and facilitate the operationalisation and implementation of the GRADE guidance for GPS.Herein, we propose a structured process for the development of GPSs that includes applying a sequential order for the GRADE guidance for developing GPS. This operationalisation considers relevant evidence-to-decision criteria when assessing the net consequences of implementing the statement, and reporting information supporting judgments for each criterion. We also propose a standardised table to facilitate the identification of GPS and reporting of their development. This operationalised guidance, if endorsed by guideline developers, may palliate some of the shortcomings identified. Our proposal may also inform future updates of the GRADE guidance for GPS.

Comparative efficacy and complications of long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin regimens for adults with type 1 diabetes: an individual patient data network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the comparative efficacy and complications of long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin for different patient characteristics for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). DESIGN: Systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through June 2015. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with T1DM assessing glycosylated haemoglobin (A1c) and severe hypoglycaemia in long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin regimens. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We requested IPD from authors and funders. When IPD were not available, we used aggregate data. We conducted a random-effects model, and specifically a one-stage IPD-NMA for those studies providing IPD and a two-stage IPD-NMA to incorporate those studies not providing IPD. RESULTS: We included 28 RCTs plus one companion report, after screening 6680 titles/abstracts and 205 full-text articles. Of the 28 RCTs, 27 studies provided data for the NMA with 7394 participants, of which 12 RCTs had IPD on 4943 participants. The IPD-NMA for A1c suggested that glargine once daily (mean difference [MD]=-0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.48 to -0.14) and detemir once daily (MD=-0.25, 95% CI: -0.41 to -0.09) were superior to neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) once daily. NPH once/two times per day improved A1c compared with NPH once daily (MD=-0.30, 95% CI: -0.50 to -0.11). Results regarding complications in severe hypoglycaemia should be considered with great caution due to inconsistency in the evidence network. Accounting for missing data, there was no evidence of inconsistency and long-acting insulin regimens ranked higher regarding reducing severe hypoglycaemia compared with intermediate-acting insulin regimens (two-stage NMA: glargine two times per day SUCRA (Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking curve)=89%, detemir once daily SUCRA=77%; one-stage NMA: detemir once daily/two times per day SUCRA=85%). Using multiple imputations and IPD only, complications in severe hypoglycaemia increased with diabetes-related comorbidities (regression coefficient: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.03). CONCLUSIONS: Long-acting insulin regimens reduced A1c compared with intermediate-acting insulin regimens and were associated with lower severe hypoglycaemia. Of the observed differences, only glargine once daily achieved a clinically significant reduction of 0.30%. Results should be interpreted with caution due to very low quality of evidence. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015023511.

Cancer medicines on the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines: processes, challenges, and a way forward.

The selection of cancer medicines for national procurement requires deliberate evaluation of population benefit, budget impact, sustainability, and health system capacity. However, this process is complicated by numerous challenges, including the large volume and rapid pace of newly developed therapies offering marginal gains at prohibitively high prices. The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) and Model List of Essential Medicines for Children (EMLc) have undergone a series of evidence-based updates to ensure recommended cancer medicines offer meaningful clinical benefit. This Health Policy paper describes how cancer medicines are listed on the EML and EMLc, including two updated WHO processes: (1) the formation of the Cancer Medicines Working Group, and (2) additional selection principles for recommending cancer medicines, including a minimum overall survival benefit of 4-6 months with improvement to quality of life compared with standard treatment. These updates, along with proposals to include formal price considerations, additional selection criteria, and multisectoral collaboration (eg, voluntary licensing) promote procurement of high-value essential cancer medicines on national formularies in the context of supporting sustainable health systems to achieve universal health coverage.

Adherence of systematic reviews to Cochrane RoB2 guidance was frequently poor: a meta epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether the use of the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2) in systematic reviews (SRs) adheres to RoB2 guidance. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library from 2019 to May 2021 to identify SRs using RoB2. We analyzed methods and results sections to see whether risk of bias was assessed at outcome measure level and applied to primary outcomes of the SR as per RoB2 guidance. The relation between SR characteristics and adequacy of RoB2 use was examined by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Two hundred-eight SRs were included. We could assess adherence in 137 SRs as 12 declared using RoB2 but actually used RoB1 and 59 did not report the number of primary outcomes. The tool usage was adherent in 69.3% SRs. Considering SRs with multiple primary outcomes, adherence dropped to 28.8%. We found a positive association between RoB2 guidance adherence and the methodological quality of the reviews assessed by AMSTAR2 (p-for-trend 0.007). Multivariable regression analysis suggested journal impact factor [first quartile vs. other quartiles] was associated with RoB2 adherence (OR 0.34; 95% CI: 0.16-0.72). CONCLUSIONS: Many SRs did not adhere to RoB2 guidance as they applied the tool at the study level rather than at the outcome measure level. Lack of adherence was more likely among low and very low quality reviews.

The WHO essential medicines list AWaRe book: from a list to a quality improvement system.

Antibiotics are often prescribed inappropriately, either when they are not necessary or with an unnecessarily broad spectrum of activity. AWaRe (AccessWatchReserve) is a system developed by WHO to classify antibiotics based on their spectrum of activity and potential for favouring the development of antibiotic resistance (Access: narrow spectrum/low potential for resistance; Watch: broader spectrum/higher potential for resistance; Reserve: last resort antibiotics to use very selectively). The WHO target is that by 2023, at least 60% of prescribed antibiotics globally should be from the Access category. The WHO AWaRe Book aims to improve empiric antibiotic prescribing by providing simple guidance for common infections based on the principles of AWaRe in alignment with the Model Lists of Essential Medicines for adults and children.

Cancer Medicines: What Is Essential and Affordable in India?

PURPOSE: The WHO essential medicines list (EML) guides selection of drugs for national formularies. Here, we evaluate which medicines are considered highest priority by Indian oncologists and the extent to which they are available in routine practice. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of an electronic survey developed by the WHO EML Cancer Medicine Working Group. The survey was distributed globally using a hierarchical snowball method to physicians who prescribe systemic anticancer therapy. The survey captured the 10 medicines oncologists considered highest priority for population health and their availability in routine practice. RESULTS: The global study cohort included 948 respondents from 82 countries; 98 were from India and 67 were from other low- and middle-income countries. Compared with other low- and middle-income countries, the Indian cohort was more likely to be medical oncologist (70% v 31%, P < .001) and work exclusively in the private health system (52% v 17%, P < .001). 14/20 most commonly selected medicines were conventional cytotoxic drugs. Universal access to these medicines was reported by a minority of oncologists; risks of significant out-of-pocket expenditures for each medicine were reported by 19%-58% of oncologists. Risk of catastrophic expenditure was reported by 58%-67% of oncologists for rituximab and trastuzumab. Risks of financial toxicity were substantially higher within the private health system compared with the public system. CONCLUSION: Most high-priority cancer medicines identified by Indian oncologists are generic chemotherapy agents that provide substantial improvements in survival and are already included in WHO EML. Access to these treatments remains limited by major financial burdens experienced by patients. This is particularly acute within the private health system. Strategies are urgently needed to ensure that high-quality cancer care is affordable and accessible to all patients in India.

Defining Essential Childhood Cancer Medicines to Inform Prioritization and Access: Results From an International, Cross-Sectional Survey.

PURPOSE: Access to essential cancer medicines is a major determinant of childhood cancer outcomes globally. The degree to which pediatric oncologists deem medicines listed on WHO's Model List of Essential Medicines for Children (EMLc) essential is unknown, as is the extent to which such medicines are accessible on the front lines of clinical care. METHODS: An electronic survey developed was distributed through the International Society of Pediatric Oncology mailing list to members from 87 countries. Respondents were asked to select 10 cancer medicines that would provide the greatest benefit to patients in their context; subsequent questions explored medicine availability and cost. Descriptive and bivariate statistics compared access to medicines between low- and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs), upper-middle-income countries (UMICs), and high-income countries (HICs). RESULTS: Among 159 respondents from 44 countries, 43 (27%) were from LMICs, 79 (50%) from UMICs, and 37 (23%) from HICs. The top five medicines were methotrexate (75%), vincristine (74%), doxorubicin (74%), cyclophosphamide (69%), and cytarabine (65%). Of the priority medicines identified, 87% (27 of 31) are represented on the 2021 EMLc and 77% (24 of 31) were common to the lists generated by LMIC, UMIC, and HIC respondents. The proportion of respondents indicating universal availability for each of the top medicines ranged from 9% to 46% for LMIC, 25% to 89% for UMIC, and 67% to 100% for HIC. Risk of catastrophic expenditure was more common in LMIC (8%-20%), compared with UMIC (0%-28%) and HIC (0%). CONCLUSION: Most medicines that oncologists deem essential for childhood cancer treatment are currently included on the EMLc. Barriers remain in access to these medicines, characterized by gaps in availability and risks of catastrophic expenditure for families that are most pronounced in low-income settings but evident across all income contexts.

Mitigating Disputes Originated by Multiple Discordant Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: A Survey of Methodologists and Clinicians.

Background: Overlapping systematic reviews (SRs) are increasingly frequent in the medical literature. They can easily generate discordant evidence, as estimates of effect sizes and their interpretation might differ from one source to another. Objective: To analyze how methodologists and clinicians make a decision when faced with discordant evidence formalized in structured tables. Methods: We conducted a 16-item survey exploring how methodologists and clinicians would react when presented with multiple Summary of Findings (SoF) tables (generated using the GRADE tool) derived from 4 overlapping and discordant SRs and meta-analyses on thrombolytic therapy for intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. SoF tables reported 4 different magnitudes of effects and overall certainty. Participants were asked to provide their recommendations regarding the intervention and the reasons behind their conclusion. Results: Of the 80 invitees, 41 (51%) participated. The majority described themselves as "somewhat familiar" or experts with SoF tables. The majority recommended the therapy (pharmacological systemic thrombolysis), grading the recommendation as weak positive. Certainty of evidence and benefit-risk balance were the two criteria that prevailed in generating the recommendation. When faced with overlapping meta-analyses, the preferred approach was to use only high-quality SRs and exclude redundant SRs. Several participants suggested integrating the SoF tables with additional information, such as a more comprehensive evaluation of the risk of bias of systematic reviews (71%), heterogeneity/inconsistency (68%) and studies included within each SR (62%). Conclusion: When faced with multiple controversial SR results, the type and completeness of reported information in SoF tables affect experts' ability to make recommendations. Developers of the SoF table should consider collating key information from overlapping and potentially discordant reviews.

Comparative efficacy and safety of vaccines to prevent seasonal influenza: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background: Influenza is one of the most common respiratory viral infections worldwide. Numerous vaccines are used to prevent influenza. Their selection should be informed by the best available evidence. We aimed to estimate the comparative efficacy and safety of seasonal influenza vaccines in children, adults and the elderly. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). We searched the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, and websites of regulatory agencies, through December 15th, 2020. We included placebo- or no vaccination-controlled, and head-to-head randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Pairs of reviewers independently screened the studies, abstracted the data, and appraised the risk of bias in accordance to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed influenza. We also synthesized data for hospitalization, mortality, influenza-like illness (ILI), pneumonia or lower respiratory-tract disease, systemic and local adverse events (AEs). We estimated summary risk ratios (RR) using pairwise and NMA with random effects. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018091895. Findings: We identified 13,439 citations. A total of 231 RCTs were included after screening: 11 studies did not provide useful data for the analysis; 220 RCTs [100,677 children (< 18 years) and 329,127 adults (18-60 years) and elderly (≥ 61 years)] were included in the NMA. In adults and the elderly, all vaccines, except the trivalent inactivated intradermal vaccine (3-IIV ID), were more effective than placebo in reducing the risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza, with a RR between 0.33 (95% credible interval [CrI] 0.21-0.55) for trivalent inactivated high-dose (3-IIV HD) and 0.56 (95% CrI 0.41-0.74) for trivalent live-attenuated vaccine (3-LAIV). In adults and the elderly, compared with trivalent inactivated vaccine (3-IIV), no significant differences were found for any, except 3-LAIV, which was less efficacious [RR 1.41 (95% CrI 1.04-1.88)]. In children, compared with placebo, RR ranged between 0.13 (95% CrI 0.03-0.51) for trivalent inactivated vaccine adjuvanted with MF59/AS03 and 0.55 (95% CrI 0.36-0.83) for trivalent inactivated vaccine. Compared with 3-IIV, 3-LAIV and trivalent inactivated adjuvanted with MF59/AS03 were more efficacious [RR 0.52 (95% CrI 0.32-0.82) and RR 0.23 (95% CrI 0.06-0.87)] in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza. With regard to safety, higher systemic AEs rates after vaccination with 3-IIV, 3-IIV HD, 3-IIV ID, 3-IIV MF59/AS03-adj, quadrivalent inactivated (4-IIV), quadrivalent adjuvanted (4-IIV MF59/AS03-adj), quadrivalent recombinant (4-RIV), 3-LAIV or quadrivalent live attenuated (4-LAIV) vaccines were noted in adults and the elderly [RR 1.5 (95% CrI 1.18-1.89) to 1.15 (95% CrI 1.06-1.23)] compared with placebo. In children, the systemic AEs rate after vaccination was not significantly higher than placebo. Interpretation: All vaccines cumulatively achieved major reductions in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza in children, adults, and the elderly. While the live-attenuated was more efficacious than the inactivated vaccine in children, many vaccine types can be used in adults and the elderly. Funding: The directorate general of welfare, Lombardy region.

The ecosystem of health decision making: from fragmentation to synergy.

Clinicians, patients, policy makers, funders, programme managers, regulators, and science communities invest considerable amounts of time and energy in influencing or making decisions at various levels, using systematic reviews, health technology assessments, guideline recommendations, coverage decisions, selection of essential medicines and diagnostics, quality assurance and improvement schemes, and policy and evidence briefs. The criteria and methods that these actors use in their work differ (eg, the role economic analysis has in decision making), but these methods frequently overlap and exist together. Under the aegis of WHO, we have brought together representatives of different areas to reconcile how the evidence that influences decisions is used across multiple health system decision levels. We describe the overlap and differences in decision-making criteria between different actors in the health sector to provide bridging opportunities through a unifying broad framework that we call theory of everything. Although decision-making activities respond to system needs, processes are often poorly coordinated, both globally and on a country level. A decision made in isolation from other decisions on the same topic could cause misleading, unnecessary, or conflicted inputs to the health system and, therefore, confusion and resource waste.

Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements In Covid-19 guidelines? A systematic appraisal.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the development and quality of actionable statements that qualify as good practice statements (GPS) reported in COVID-19 guidelines. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review . We searched MEDLINE, MedSci, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), databases of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Guidelines, NICE, WHO and Guidelines International Network (GIN) from March 2020 to September 2021. We included original or adapted recommendations addressing any COVID-19 topic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We used GRADE Working Group criteria for assessing the appropriateness of issuing a GPS: (1) clear and actionable; (2) rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice; (3) practicality of systematically searching for evidence; (4) likely net positive consequences from implementing the GPS and (5) clear link to the indirect evidence. We assessed guideline quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. RESULTS: 253 guidelines from 44 professional societies issued 3726 actionable statements. We classified 2375 (64%) as GPS; of which 27 (1%) were labelled as GPS by guideline developers. 5 (19%) were labelled as GPS by their authors but did not meet GPS criteria. Of the 2375 GPS, 85% were clear and actionable; 59% provided a rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice, 24% reported the net positive consequences from implementing the GPS. Systematic collection of evidence was deemed impractical for 13% of the GPS, and 39% explained the chain of indirect evidence supporting GPS development. 173/2375 (7.3%) statements explicitly satisfied all five criteria. The guidelines' overall quality was poor regardless of the appropriateness of GPS development and labelling. CONCLUSIONS: Statements that qualify as GPS are common in COVID-19 guidelines but are characterised by unclear designation and development processes, and methodological weaknesses.