Assessing the validity of a rapid review against a systematic literature review. A comparison of systematic literature reviews done by Cochrane with rapid reviews and the impact on meta-analyses results.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid reviews (RRs) offer a less rigorous and methodical approach to the process of reviewing literature in comparison to systematic reviews (SRs), which are currently a gold standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three different, expedited strategies of the review process were designed in the different scopes, already reviewed in Cochrane's SRs. Then, the results of our literature searches and the study selection process were compared to the ones from SRs. The final step was assessing the impact of losing some studies on the final results of meta-analyses. RESULTS: In RR1, the initial number of references to be reviewed was reduced by half, and the inclusion list was recreated with 84% efficiency. Three out of 19 studies were missed, all having high risk of bias. Studies missed in RR1 were included in Cochrane's meta-analyses for 23 separate outcomes, and their lack impacted significantly the final results, or the possibility to run meta-analyses, in four cases. In RR2, 89% of trials included in the SR were captured (24/27); missing the three studies did not impact the final results of the meta-analyses. In RR3, the list of included studies overlapped completely with Cochrane's, despite a significantly lower workload. CONCLUSIONS: A prompt and cost-effective methodology may lead to the identification of pertinent evidence in support of healthcare policy; however, it is essential to conscientiously account for potential biases in the analysis.

Rapid literature review: definition and methodology.

Introduction: A rapid literature review (RLR) is an alternative to systematic literature review (SLR) that can speed up the analysis of newly published data. The objective was to identify and summarize available information regarding different approaches to defining RLR and the methodology applied to the conduct of such reviews. Methods: The Medline and EMBASE databases, as well as the grey literature, were searched using the set of keywords and their combination related to the targeted and rapid review, as well as design, approach, and methodology. Of the 3,898 records retrieved, 12 articles were included. Results: Specific definition of RLRs has only been developed in 2021. In terms of methodology, the RLR should be completed within shorter timeframes using simplified procedures in comparison to SLRs, while maintaining a similar level of transparency and minimizing bias. Inherent components of the RLR process should be a clear research question, search protocol, simplified process of study selection, data extraction, and quality assurance. Conclusions: There is a lack of consensus on the formal definition of the RLR and the best approaches to perform it. The evidence-based supporting methods are evolving, and more work is needed to define the most robust approaches.

Systematic literature reviews over the years.

Purpose: Nowadays, systematic literature reviews (SLRs) and meta-analyses are often placed at the top of the study hierarchy of evidence. The main objective of this paper is to evaluate the trends in SLRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) throughout the years. Methods: Medline database was searched, using a highly focused search strategy. Each paper was coded according to a specific ICD-10 code; the number of RCTs included in each evaluated SLR was also retrieved. All SLRs analyzing RCTs were included. Protocols, commentaries, or errata were excluded. No restrictions were applied. Results: A total of 7,465 titles and abstracts were analyzed, from which 6,892 were included for further analyses. There was a gradual increase in the number of annual published SLRs, with a significant increase in published articles during the last several years. Overall, the most frequently analyzed areas were diseases of the circulatory system (n = 750) and endocrine, nutritional, and metabolic diseases (n = 734). The majority of SLRs included between 11 and 50 RCTs each. Conclusions: The recognition of SLRs' usefulness is growing at an increasing speed, which is reflected by the growing number of published studies. The most frequently evaluated diseases are in alignment with leading causes of death and disability worldwide.

Real-world evidence for steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in patients with chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) were shown to delay chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression in patients with hypertension and/or heart failure (HF) and proteinuria. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic literature review on real-world evidence to identify the literature gaps related to the efficacy and safety outcomes of MRAs administered to CKD patients. RESULTS: A total of 751 records were identified of which, 23 studies (26 publications) were analyzed. Studies included heterogeneous populations, including the overall CKD, CKD and diabetes, CKD and HF, and CKD and a history of cardiovascular disease. Most of the studies were small and non-rigorous, resulting in a notable lack of evidence in these populations. In the overall CKD population, steroidal MRAs resulted in a significant or sustained eGFR reduction but no efficacy in delaying progression to end-stage kidney disease. No cardiovascular protection was found. Results for all-cause mortality and hospitalization for HF were inconsistent; however, the longest follow-up studies indicate similar or lower incidence for spironolactone non-users. Most results consistently reported a higher incidence of hyperkalemia among patients on steroidal MRAs in all CKD stages, and side effects led to high discontinuation rates in the real-world setting. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limited availability of evidence on the effectiveness and safety of steroidal MRAs in CKD patients and subgroups with diabetes, HF or history of cardiovascular disease, MRAs were shown to have a limited effect on renal and cardiovascular outcomes. Gaps in the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of MRAs are particularly relevant in diabetic CKD patients; therefore, further research is warranted.

Capturing the value of vaccination within health technology assessment and health economics: Literature review and novel conceptual framework.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination provides significant health gains to individuals and society and can potentially improve health equity, healthcare systems and national economies. Policy decisions, however, are rarely informed by comprehensive economic evaluations (EE) including vaccination's wide-ranging value. The objective of this analysis was to focus on health technology assessment systems to identify relevant value concepts in order to improve current EE of non-pandemic vaccines. METHODS: Following a literature review, a novel Value of Vaccination (VoV) framework was developed with experts in vaccine EE from developed countries with established health technology assessment systems. RESULTS: Forty-four studies presenting value frameworks or concepts applicable to vaccination were included. Eighteen unique value concepts relevant to EE were identified and defined. These were categorised within the VoV framework using three dimensions, moving from a narrow payer perspective to a more expansive and societal perspective. The dimensions were: (I) conventional payer perspective concepts (e.g., health gains in vaccinees, direct medical costs); (II) conventional societal perspective concepts (e.g., indirect health/economic gains to caregivers/households, productivity in vaccinees); and (III) novel societal concepts (e.g., financial risk protection, peace of mind, societal health gains, healthcare systems security, political stability, social equity and macroeconomic gains). While good quality evidence and methods are available to support concepts in Dimensions I and II, further work is needed to generate the required evidence for vaccination impact on Dimension III concepts. CONCLUSIONS: The devastating effect on nations of the COVID-19 pandemic has helped to highlight the potential far-reaching benefits that many vaccination programmes can offer. This VoV framework is particularly relevant to policy decisions considering EE, and the potential future expansion of non-pandemic vaccination value considerations. The framework helps to understand and compare current value considerations across countries and payer versus societal perspectives. It provides decision-makers with a transparent and logical path to broaden consideration of VoV in EE.

Relationship between FEV1 decline and mortality in patients with bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome-a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS) is one of the most severe complications and the leading cause of late mortality and morbidity after lung transplantation (LT) and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). No approved treatment for BOS is available. This review aimed to systematically identify and summarise the findings regarding the relationship between FEV1 decline and mortality in patients who developed BOS following LT or allo-HSCT. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in the Medline, Embase and Cochrane reviews databases. Of the 501 potential studies identified 25 met inclusion criteria and were analysed. RESULTS: Overall, 13 studies reported a relationship between FEV1 and mortality, and 12 studies reported both mortality and FEV1 results but did not investigate the relationship between them. There was heterogeneity in the analyses, which investigated the relationship between FEV1 decline and mortality across the studies in terms of levels of lung functioning, comparison to a control group, treatment, and statistical methodology; nevertheless, a clear and consistent increase in the risk of death associated with FEV1 decrease was seen in the analysed studies. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic literature review identified studies and findings that support a relationship between FEV1 and mortality, with a decrease in FEV1 being statistically associated with increased risk of death. Knowing that lower FEV1 levels are associated with higher mortality rates may help assess the condition of a patient with BOS and monitor future treatment effectiveness. However, more evidence is needed to further investigate this relationship and to verify its clinical usefulness.

Efficacy and Safety of Avatrombopag in Patients with Chronic Immune Thrombocytopenia: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of avatrombopag, relative to eltrombopag, romiplostim, and fostamatinib, for patients with chronic immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) not responding adequately to corticosteroids. METHODS: A systematic search of publication and clinical trial databases was conducted to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Data from eligible studies were extracted and analyzed in a Bayesian framework using relative effect sizes vs placebo. Outcomes included durable platelet response; need for rescue therapy; reduction in use of concomitant ITP medication; incidence of any or World Health Organization (WHO) grade 2-4 bleeding events, and any adverse events. Results were reported as odds ratios or incidence rate ratios (IRR) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). RESULTS: The NMA included seven phase 3 RCTs. Compared with placebo, avatrombopag was associated with statistically significant improvements in durable platelet response, reduction in use of concomitant ITP medication, and incidence of any bleeding events. Statistically significant differences vs placebo were also observed for durable platelet response and need for rescue therapy (eltrombopag, romiplostim, and fostamatinib); reduction in use of concomitant ITP medication (eltrombopag and romiplostim); incidence of any bleeding events (fostamatinib); and incidence of WHO grade 2-4 bleeding events (romiplostim and fostamatinib). No statistically significant differences were observed for any adverse events. Avatrombopag was associated with a statistically significant lower incidence of any bleeding events vs eltrombopag (IRR 0.38 [95% CrI 0.19, 0.75]) and romiplostim (IRR 0.38 [95% Crl 0.17, 0.86]); no other between-treatment differences were observed. CONCLUSION: In this NMA, avatrombopag significantly increased the chance of achieving durable platelet response and reducing the use of concomitant ITP medication vs placebo, and significantly reduced the incidence of any bleeding events compared with placebo, eltrombopag, and romiplostim. The study aims to help guide clinicians managing patients with chronic ITP and insufficient response to previous treatment.