Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Ultra-Long-Acting, Long-Acting, Intermediate-Acting, and Biosimilar Insulins for Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Increasing availability of competing biosimilar alternatives makes it challenging to make treatment decisions. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin products and biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and grey literature were searched from inception to March 27, 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, and cohort studies of adults with T1DM receiving ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin, compared to each other, as well as biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened studies, abstracted data, and appraised risk-of-bias. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted. Summary effect measures were mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR). RESULTS: We included 65 unique studies examining 14,200 patients with T1DM. Both ultra-long-acting and long-acting insulin were superior to intermediate-acting insulin in reducing A1c, FPG, weight gain, and the incidence of major, serious, or nocturnal hypoglycemia. For fasting blood glucose, long-acting once a day (od) was superior to long-acting twice a day (bid) (MD - 0.44, 95% CI: - 0.81 to - 0.06) and ultra-long-acting od was superior to long-acting bid (MD - 0.73, 95% CI - 1.36 to - 0.11). For weight change, long-acting od was inferior to long-acting bid (MD 0.58, 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.10) and long-acting bid was superior to long-action biosimilar od (MD - 0.90, 95% CI: - 1.67 to - 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Our results can be used to tailor insulin treatment according to the desired results of patients and clinicians and inform strategies to establish a competitive clinical market, address systemic barriers, expand the pool of potential suppliers, and favor insulin price reduction. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42017077051.

What is the "normal" wound bed temperature? A scoping review and new hypothesis.

Wound bed temperature measurement holds the potential to be a safe, easy to use, and low-cost tool to aid objective wound bed assessment, clinical decision making and improved patient outcomes. However, there is no consensus on the normal range of wound bed temperature in chronic wounds. We conducted a scoping review including any study type, from 2010 to 2020 in which chronic wound bed temperature was reported. Thirteen studies including 477 patients met our criteria. Venous ulcers (VLU) accounted for 46.5% (n = 222) of wounds; diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) for 25.4% (n = 121) with pressure ulcers (PU), mixed arterial venous ulcers (MAVLU) and unknown aetiology accounting for the remainder. The weighted mean of means for wound bed temperature was 31.7°C (n = 395) for all wound types; 31.7°C for VLU; 31.6°C for DFU; 33.3°C for PU; 30.9°C for MAVLU; and 32.0°C for those with unknown aetiology. Based on our review, we hypothesise that normal wound bed temperature is within a range of 30.2-33.0°C.

Public & patient involvement to guide research in wound care in an Irish context. A round table report.

BACKGROUND: To date, research into interventions to promote wound healing has been led by scientists, clinicians, industry and academics, each with their own particular area of interest. However, the real experts in this area are the people who live with wounds and their families and heretofore their voice has not influenced or shaped the research agenda. AIM: This event aimed to seek patient and carer involvement as experts due to their lived experience in wounds through a partnership approach to identify research priorities and address a lack of patient and carer involvement in wound care research. METHODS: A roundtable discussion format guided by the Scottish Health Council Participation Toolkit Supporting Patient Focus and Public Involvement in NHS Scotland was utilised. The Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2 - Short Form (GRIPP2-SF) guided the reporting process. RESULTS: Key areas for future research were identified and included; Patients and carers prioritised the establishment of support groups and the development of educational resources. Research priorities that emerged included understanding the impact of wounds, pain management, addressing educational needs and quantifying the financial burden on patients and carers of living with a wound. CONCLUSIONS: A key conclusion from this roundtable was that patients and their carers expressed a strong interest in further wound care related public and patient involvement events and identified areas for future research.

External validity of randomized controlled trials of interventions in venous leg ulceration: A systematic review.

We set out to evaluate quality of reporting of data related to external validity from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing treatment interventions for active venous leg ulcers. Using a systematic review study design, we identified 144 full-text RCTs of treatment interventions, where the wound was assessed and published in English from 1998 to 2018. We found that the median study sample size was 75.5. Weighted mean wound size was 13.22 cm2 and weighted mean wound duration was 22.20 months. Forty-six (32%) reported numbers screened for eligibility and 27 (19%) reported the number who declined to participate; 19 (13%) reported on patient ethnicity; 60 (42%) reported comorbidities; and 5 (4%) reported current medication use. When reported, 60/102 (59%) excluded patients with an ankle-brachial pressure index <0.8; 68/135 (50%) were conducted in Europe, 6/135 (4%) in Asia, and 74/104 (71%) were conducted in outpatient facilities; 3 (2%) reported socioeconomic factors and 88 (61%) reported on adverse events. We concluded that there is inadequate reporting of data related to external validity in reports of RCTs assessing venous leg ulcers treatment interventions. Significant variability exists in the ankle-brachial pressure index cutoff point for inclusion or exclusion, making generalizability difficult to assess.

ABPI reporting and compression recommendations in global clinical practice guidelines on venous leg ulcer management: A scoping review.

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for venous leg ulcer (VLU) management recommend below-knee compression to improve healing outcomes after calculating the ankle-brachial pressure index (ABPI) to rule out significant arterial disease. This systematic scoping review aimed to complete a qualitative and quantitative content analysis of international CPGs for VLU management to determine if consensus existed in relation to recommendations for compression application based on an ABPI reading and clinical assessment. Our review shows that there is a lack of consensus across 13 VLU CPGs and a lack of clear guidance in relation to the specific ABPI range of compression therapy that can be safely applied. An area of uncertainty and disagreement exists in relation to an ABPI between 0.6 and 0.8, with some guidelines advocating that compression is contraindicated and others that there should be reduced compression. This has implications in clinical practice, including when it is safe to apply compression. In addition, the inconsistency in the levels of evidence and the grades of recommendation makes it difficult to compare across various guidelines.

Topical interventions for the management of pain in chronic wounds: A protocol for a systematic review.

Background: Venous, arterial, diabetic and pressure ulcers, collectively known as chronic wounds, negatively impact individuals across psychological, social and financial domains. Chronic wounds can be painful and the nature, frequency and impact of pain can differ depending on wound aetiology, wound state and on numerous patient factors. While systemic pharmaceutical agents have some effect in managing pain, there is a need to examine topical agents applied to the wound bed for pain relief. The objective of this study is to examine and synthesise existing literature on the effectiveness of topical agents in managing pain in venous, diabetic, pressure, arterial and mixed venous/arterial ulcers. Methods: We will use Cochrane Systematic Review methodology to identify and synthesise eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of topical agents in reducing pain in chronic wounds. Embase, Medline, PubMed, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science will be searched from inception to end of June 2022 without language limits. We will independently extract data on the pharmaceutical agent, participant demographics, aetiology, condition of the wound, and type, nature and frequency of pain using a pre-designed data extraction form. Subgroup and sensitivity analysis will be performed to address heterogeneity across studies if appropriate. Further stratification and analyses will be based on included study variables and outcomes. Discussion: Wound pain is primarily managed via systemic pharmaceutical agents. However, patients express reluctance regarding systemic analgesic drugs, fearing addiction. Additionally, persons with chronic wounds have co-morbidities including hypertension, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease and are already taking multiple medications. Topical analgesia can potentially mitigate some of the perceived disadvantages of systemic agents but the available range of these agents and their effectiveness in managing pain in chronic wounds is not so well understood. This review will focus on such agents across a range of the most common chronic wounds.

A scoping review protocol to identify clinical signs, symptoms and biomarkers indicative of biofilm presence in chronic wounds.

Introduction: Wound healing is characterised by haemostatic, inflammatory, proliferative and remodelling phases. In the presence of comorbidities such as diabetes, healing can stall and chronic wounds may result. Infection is detrimental to these wounds and associated with poor outcomes. Wounds are contaminated with microbes and debris, and factors such as host resistance, bacterial virulence, species synergy and bioburden determine whether a wound will deteriorate to critically colonised/infected states. Biofilms are sessile microbial communities, exhibiting high-level antibiotic tolerance and resistance to host defences. Biofilm in critically colonised wounds can contribute to delayed healing. Little is known about clinical presentation and diagnosis of wound biofilms. Objective: To identify from the literature clinical signs, symptoms and biomarkers that may indicate biofilm in chronic wounds. Methods: This review will be guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), and the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Studies of any design in any language recruiting adult patients with  venous, diabetic, pressure or mixed arterial-venous ulcers and reporting data on clinical signs/symptoms of biofilm are eligible. Searches of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central, Scopus, Web of Science, Google scholar and BASE will be conducted from inception to present. Reference scanning and contact with content experts will be employed. Title/abstract screening and full text selection will be executed by two reviewers independently. Discrepancies will be resolved by discussion between reviewers or through third party intervention. Data will be extracted by a single reviewer and verified by a second. Clinical signs and symptoms data will be presented in terms of study design, setting and participant demographic data. Discussion: Understanding biofilm impact on chronic wounds is inconsistent and based largely on in vitro research. This work will consolidate clinical signs, symptoms and biomarkers of biofilm in chronic wounds reported in the literature.

In the preparation and administration of intravenous medicines, what are the best practice standards that healthcare professionals need to follow to ensure patient safety? Protocol for a systematic review.

Introduction: Intravenous therapy and medicines (IVTM) are the most common invasive interventions in use in healthcare. Prescribed IVTM play an essential role in the treatment of illness, management of chronic conditions and in maintaining health and wellbeing. The intravenous (IV) route is the administration of concentrated medications (diluted or undiluted) directly into peripherally or centrally inserted vascular access devices. Medication safety is a key priority and best practice standards are required to guide the safe preparation and administration of IVTM. Methods: We will conduct a systematic review of the literature pertaining to the preparation and administration of intravenous therapy and medicines. Our search will include studies concerned with the preparation and/or administration of IVTM via peripheral or central vascular access devices. We will be guided by the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) in this review. Literature will include all trial designs, national/international guidelines, and expert consensus opinion made available in English from 2009 to present day. Conclusions: We will synthesise the evidence concerning safe and effective preparation and administration of intravenous therapy and medicines to inform the development of a national guideline for healthcare professionals in Ireland. The availability of up-to-date, contemporaneous evidence-based practice standards will ensure quality and safety for service-users. Registration:  This study has been submitted to PROSPERO and we are awaiting confirmation of registration.

Patient safety initiatives in obstetrics: a rapid review.

OBJECTIVES: This review was commissioned by WHO, South Africa-Country office because of an exponential increase in medical litigation claims related to patient safety in obstetrical care in the country. A rapid review was conducted to examine the effectiveness of quality improvement (QI) strategies on maternal and newborn patient safety outcomes, risk of litigation and burden of associated costs. DESIGN: A rapid review of the literature was conducted to provide decision-makers with timely evidence. Medical and legal databases (eg, MEDLINE, Embase, LexisNexis Academic, etc) and reference lists of relevant studies were searched. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, abstracted data and appraised risk of bias. Results were summarised narratively. INTERVENTIONS: We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of QI strategies targeting health systems (eg, team changes) and healthcare providers (eg, clinician education) to improve the safety of women and their newborns. Eligible studies were limited to trials published in English between 2004 and 2015. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: RCTs reporting on patient safety outcomes (eg, stillbirths, mortality and caesarean sections), litigation claims and associated costs were included. RESULTS: The search yielded 4793 citations, of which 10 RCTs met our eligibility criteria and provided information on over 500 000 participants. The results are presented by QI strategy, which varied from one study to another. Studies including provider education alone (one RCT), provider education in combination with audit and feedback (two RCTs) or clinician reminders (one RCT), as well as provider education with patient education and audit and feedback (one RCT), reported some improvements to patient safety outcomes. None of the studies reported on litigation claims or the associated costs. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that provider education and other QI strategy combinations targeting healthcare providers may improve the safety of women and their newborns during childbirth.

Comparative safety and effectiveness of perinatal antiretroviral therapies for HIV-infected women and their children: Systematic review and network meta-analysis including different study designs.

BACKGROUND: Nearly all newly infected children acquire Human Immunodeficiency virus (HIV) via mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) during pregnancy, labour or breastfeeding from untreated HIV-positive mothers. Antiretroviral therapy (ART) is the standard care for pregnant women with HIV. However, evidence of ART effectiveness and harms in infants and children of HIV-positive pregnant women exposed to ART has been largely inconclusive. The aim of our systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was to evaluate the comparative safety and effectiveness of ART drugs in children exposed to maternal HIV and ART (or no ART/placebo) across different study designs. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (inception until December 7, 2015). Primary outcomes were any congenital malformations (CMs; safety), including overall major and minor CMs, and mother-to-child transmission (MTCT; effectiveness). Random-effects Bayesian pairwise meta-analyses and NMAs were conducted. After screening 6,468 citations and 1,373 full-text articles, 90 studies of various study designs and 90,563 patients were included. RESULTS: The NMA on CMs (20 studies, 7,503 children, 16 drugs) found that none of the ART drugs examined here were associated with a significant increase in CMs. However, zidovudine administered with lamivudine and indinavir was associated with increased risk of preterm births, zidovudine administered with nevirapine was associated with increased risk of stillbirths, and lamivudine administered with stavudine and efavirenz was associated with increased risk of low birth weight. A NMA on MTCT (11 studies, 10,786 patients, 6 drugs) found that zidovudine administered once (odds ratio [OR] = 0.39, 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.19-0.83) or twice (OR = 0.43, 95% CrI: 0.21-0.68) was associated with significantly reduced risk of MTCT. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that ART drugs are not associated with an increased risk of CMs, yet some may increase adverse birth events. Some ART drugs (e.g., zidovudine) effectively reduce MTCT.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Cognitive Enhancers for Treating Alzheimer's Disease: Systematic Review and Network Metaanalysis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To examine the comparative effectiveness and safety of cognitive enhancers for Alzheimer's disease (AD). DESIGN: Systematic review and Bayesian network metaanalysis (NMA). SETTING: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Ageline (inception-March 2016). PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with AD in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and nonrandomized studies. INTERVENTION: Any combination of donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine, or memantine. MEASUREMENTS: Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-texts; abstracted data; and appraised risk of bias. RESULTS: Twenty thousand three hundred forty-three citations were screened, and 142 studies were included (110 RCTs, 21 non-RCTs, 11 cohort studies). NMA found that donepezil (Mini-Mental State Examination: mean difference (MD) = 1.39, 95% credible interval (CrI) = 0.53-2.24), donepezil+memantine (2.59, 95% CrI = 0.12-4.98), and transdermal rivastigmine (2.02, 95% CrI = 0.02-4.08) improved cognition more than placebo. NMA found that donepezil (Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive: MD = -3.29, 95% CrI = -4.57 to -1.99) and galantamine (MD = -2.13, 95% CrI = -3.91 to -0.27) improved cognition more than placebo. NMA found that donepezil+memantine (MD = -5.23, 95% CrI = -8.72 to -1.56) improved behavior more than placebo. NMA found that donepezil (MD = -0.32, 95% CrI = -0.46 to -0.19), donepezil+memantine (MD = -0.57, 95% CrI = -0.95 to -0.21), oral rivastigmine (MD = -0.38, 95% CrI = -0.56 to -0.17), and galantamine (MD = -3.79, 95% CrI = -6.98 to -0.59) improved global status more than placebo. NMA found that galantamine decreased the odds of mortality (odds ratio = 0.56, 95% CrI = 0.36-0.87). No agent increased risk of serious adverse events, falls, or bradycardia. Some increased risk of headache (oral rivastigmine), diarrhea (oral rivastigmine, donepezil), nausea (oral rivastigmine, donepezil, galantamine), and vomiting (oral rivastigmine, donepezil, galantamine). CONCLUSION: An exhaustive review of the literature involving 142 studies demonstrated that cognitive enhancers in general have minimal effects on cognition according to minimal clinically important difference and global ratings. The drugs appear safe, but this must be interpreted cautiously because trial participants may have less comorbidity and fewer adverse effects than those treated with these drugs in clinical practice.