Heterologous versus homologous COVID-19 booster vaccinations for adults: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: To combat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), booster vaccination strategies are important. However, the optimal administration of booster vaccine platforms remains unclear. Herein, we aimed to assess the benefits and harms of three or four heterologous versus homologous booster regimens. METHODS: From November 3 2022 to December 21, 2023, we searched five databases for randomised clinical trials (RCT). Reviewers screened, extracted data, and assessed bias risks independently with the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 tool. We conducted meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (TSA) on our primary (all-cause mortality; laboratory confirmed symptomatic and severe COVID-19; serious adverse events [SAE]) and secondary outcomes (quality of life [QoL]; adverse events [AE] considered non-serious). We assessed the evidence with the GRADE approach. Subgroup analyses were stratified for trials before and after 2023, three or four boosters, immunocompromised status, follow-up, risk of bias, heterologous booster vaccine platforms, and valency of booster. RESULTS: We included 29 RCTs with 43 comparisons (12,538 participants). Heterologous booster regimens may not reduce the relative risk (RR) of all-cause mortality (11 trials; RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.33 to 2.26; I2 0%; very low certainty evidence); laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 (14 trials; RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.25; I2 0%; very low certainty); or severe COVID-19 (10 trials; RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.33; I2 0%; very low certainty). For safety outcomes, heterologous booster regimens may have no effect on SAE (27 trials; RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.95; I2 0%; very low certainty) but may raise AE considered non-serious (20 trials; RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32; I2 64.4%; very low certainty). No data on QoL was available. Our TSAs showed that the cumulative Z curves did not reach futility for any outcome. CONCLUSIONS: With our current sample sizes, we were not able to infer differences of effects for any outcomes, but heterologous booster regimens seem to cause more non-serious AE. Furthermore, more robust data are instrumental to update this review.

Executive Summary: International Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pediatric Ventilator Liberation, A Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators (PALISI) Network Document.

Rationale: Pediatric-specific ventilator liberation guidelines are lacking despite the many studies exploring elements of extubation readiness testing. The lack of clinical practice guidelines has led to significant and unnecessary variation in methods used to assess pediatric patients' readiness for extubation. Methods: Twenty-six international experts comprised a multiprofessional panel to establish pediatrics-specific ventilator liberation clinical practice guidelines, focusing on acutely hospitalized children receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 24 hours. Eleven key questions were identified and first prioritized using the Modified Convergence of Opinion on Recommendations and Evidence. A systematic review was conducted for questions that did not meet an a priori threshold of ⩾80% agreement, with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodologies applied to develop the guidelines. The panel evaluated the evidence and drafted and voted on the recommendations. Measurements and Main Results: Three questions related to systematic screening using an extubation readiness testing bundle and a spontaneous breathing trial as part of the bundle met Modified Convergence of Opinion on Recommendations criteria of ⩾80% agreement. For the remaining eight questions, five systematic reviews yielded 12 recommendations related to the methods and duration of spontaneous breathing trials, measures of respiratory muscle strength, assessment of risk of postextubation upper airway obstruction and its prevention, use of postextubation noninvasive respiratory support, and sedation. Most recommendations were conditional and based on low to very low certainty of evidence. Conclusions: This clinical practice guideline provides a conceptual framework with evidence-based recommendations for best practices related to pediatric ventilator liberation.

Pulmonary Specific Ancillary Treatment for Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: From the Second Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted an updated review of the literature on pulmonary-specific ancillary therapies for pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (PARDS) to provide an update to the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference recommendations and statements about clinical practice and research. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier), and CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost). STUDY SELECTION: Searches were limited to children, PARDS or hypoxic respiratory failure and overlap with pulmonary-specific ancillary therapies. DATA EXTRACTION: Title/abstract review, full-text review, and data extraction using a standardized data collection form. DATA SYNTHESIS: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to identify and summarize evidence and develop recommendations. Twenty-six studies were identified for full-text extraction. Four clinical recommendations were generated, related to use of inhaled nitric oxide, surfactant, prone positioning, and corticosteroids. Two good practice statements were generated on the use of routine endotracheal suctioning and installation of isotonic saline prior to endotracheal suctioning. Three research statements were generated related to: the use of open versus closed suctioning, specific methods of airway clearance, and various other ancillary therapies. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence to support or refute any of the specific ancillary therapies in children with PARDS remains low. Further investigation, including a focus on specific subpopulations, is needed to better understand the role, if any, of these various ancillary therapies in PARDS.

Noninvasive Respiratory Support for Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: From the Second Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference.

OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for the Second Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference (PALICC) regarding the effectiveness of noninvasive respiratory support for pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (PARDS). These include consideration of the timing and duration of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), whether effectiveness varies by disease severity or by characteristics of treatment delivery, and best practices for the use of NIV. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier), and CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost). STUDY SELECTION: Searches included all studies involving the use of NIV or HFNC in children with PARDS or hypoxemic respiratory failure. DATA EXTRACTION: Title/abstract review, full-text review, and data extraction using a standardized data extraction form. DATA SYNTHESIS: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to identify and summarize evidence and develop recommendations. Out of 6,336 studies, we identified 187 for full-text review. Four clinical recommendations were generated, related to indications, timing and duration of NIV in patients with PARDS, predictors of NIV failure and need for intubation (signs and symptoms of worsening disease including pulse oximetry saturation/Fio2 ratio), and use of NIV in resource-limited settings. Six good practice statements were generated related to how and where to deliver NIV, the importance of trained experienced staff and monitoring, types of NIV interfaces, the use of sedation, and the potential complications of this therapy. One research statement was generated related to indications of HFNC in patients with PARDS. CONCLUSIONS: NIV is a widely used modality for the treatment of respiratory failure in children and may be beneficial in a subset of patients with PARDS. However, there needs to be close monitoring for worsening disease and NIV failure.

Methodology of the Second Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference.

OBJECTIVES: This article describes the methodology used for The Second Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference (PALICC-2). The PALLIC-2 sought to develop evidence-based clinical recommendations and when evidence was lacking, expert-based consensus statements and research priorities for the diagnosis and management of pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (PARDS). DATA SOURCES: Electronic searches were conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) databases from 2012 to March 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Content was divided into 11 sections related to PARDS, with abstract and full text screening followed by data extraction for studies which met inclusion with no exclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: We used a standardized data extraction form to construct evidence tables, grade the evidence, and formulate recommendations or statements using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. DATA SYNTHESIS: This consensus conference was comprised of a multidisciplinary group of international experts in pediatric critical care, pulmonology, respiratory care, and implementation science which followed standards set by the Institute of Medicine, using the GRADE system and Research And Development/University of California, Los Angeles appropriateness method, modeled after PALICC 2015. The panel of 52 content and four methodology experts had several web-based meetings over the course of 2 years. We conducted seven systematic reviews and four scoping reviews to cover the 11 topic areas. Dissemination was via primary publication listing all statements and separate supplemental publications for each subtopic that include supporting arguments for each recommendation and statement. CONCLUSIONS: A consensus conference of experts from around the world developed recommendations and consensus statements for the definition and management of PARDS and identified evidence gaps which need further research.

Executive Summary of the Second International Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (PALICC-2).

OBJECTIVES: We sought to update our 2015 work in the Second Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference (PALICC-2) guidelines for the diagnosis and management of pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (PARDS), considering new evidence and topic areas that were not previously addressed. DESIGN: International consensus conference series involving 52 multidisciplinary international content experts in PARDS and four methodology experts from 15 countries, using consensus conference methodology, and implementation science. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENTS: Patients with or at risk for PARDS. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Eleven subgroups conducted systematic or scoping reviews addressing 11 topic areas: 1) definition, incidence, and epidemiology; 2) pathobiology, severity, and risk stratification; 3) ventilatory support; 4) pulmonary-specific ancillary treatment; 5) nonpulmonary treatment; 6) monitoring; 7) noninvasive respiratory support; 8) extracorporeal support; 9) morbidity and long-term outcomes; 10) clinical informatics and data science; and 11) resource-limited settings. The search included MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost) and was updated in March 2022. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology was used to summarize evidence and develop the recommendations, which were discussed and voted on by all PALICC-2 experts. There were 146 recommendations and statements, including: 34 recommendations for clinical practice; 112 consensus-based statements with 18 on PARDS definition, 55 on good practice, seven on policy, and 32 on research. All recommendations and statements had agreement greater than 80%. CONCLUSIONS: PALICC-2 recommendations and consensus-based statements should facilitate the implementation and adherence to the best clinical practice in patients with PARDS. These results will also inform the development of future programs of research that are crucially needed to provide stronger evidence to guide the pediatric critical care teams managing these patients.

Antibiotics for hospital-acquired pneumonia in neonates and children.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired pneumonia is one of the most common hospital-acquired infections in children worldwide. Most of our understanding of hospital-acquired pneumonia in children is derived from adult studies. To our knowledge, no systematic review with meta-analysis has assessed the benefits and harms of different antibiotic regimens in neonates and children with hospital-acquired pneumonia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of different antibiotic regimens for hospital-acquired pneumonia in neonates and children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trial registers to February 2021, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials comparing one antibiotic regimen with any other antibiotic regimen for hospital-acquired pneumonia in neonates and children. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events; our secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, pneumonia-related mortality, non-serious adverse events, and treatment failure. Our primary time point of interest was at maximum follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: We included four randomised clinical trials (84 participants). We assessed all trials as having high risk of bias. We did not conduct any meta-analyses, as the included trials did not compare similar antibiotic regimens. Each of the four trials assessed a different comparison, as follows: cefepime versus ceftazidime; linezolid versus vancomycin; meropenem versus cefotaxime; and ceftobiprole versus cephalosporin. Only one trial reported our primary outcomes of all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Three trials reported our secondary outcome of treatment failure. Two trials primarily included community-acquired pneumonia and hospitalised children with bacterial infections, hence the children with hospital-acquired pneumonia constituted subgroups of the total sample sizes. Where outcomes were reported, the certainty of the evidence was very low for each of the comparisons. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. None of the included trials assessed health-related quality of life, pneumonia-related mortality, or non-serious adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The relative beneficial and harmful effects of different antibiotic regimens remain unclear due to the very low certainty of the available evidence. The current evidence is insufficient to support any antibiotic regimen being superior to another. Randomised clinical trials assessing different antibiotic regimens for hospital-acquired pneumonia in children and neonates are warranted.

Antibiotic regimens for early-onset neonatal sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Neonatal sepsis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. It is the third leading cause of neonatal mortality globally constituting 13% of overall neonatal mortality. Despite the high burden of neonatal sepsis, high-quality evidence in diagnosis and treatment is scarce. Possibly due to the diagnostic challenges of sepsis and the relative immunosuppression of the newborn, many neonates receive antibiotics for suspected sepsis. Antibiotics have become the most used therapeutics in neonatal intensive care units. The last Cochrane Review was updated in 2004. Given the clinical importance, an updated systematic review assessing the effects of different antibiotic regimens for early-onset neonatal sepsis is needed. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of different antibiotic regimens for early-onset neonatal sepsis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL (2020, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase Ovid; CINAHL; LILACS; Science Citation Index EXPANDED and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 12 March 2021. We searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing different antibiotic regimens for early-onset neonatal sepsis. We included participants from birth to 72 hours of life at randomisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and our secondary outcomes were: serious adverse events, respiratory support, circulatory support, nephrotoxicity, neurological developmental impairment, necrotising enterocolitis, and ototoxicity. Our primary time point of interest was at maximum follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs (865 participants). All trials were at high risk of bias. The certainty of the evidence according to GRADE was very low. The included trials assessed five different comparisons of antibiotics. We did not conduct any meta-analyses due to lack of relevant data. Of the five included trials one trial compared ampicillin plus gentamicin with benzylpenicillin plus gentamicin; one trial compared piperacillin plus tazobactam with amikacin; one trial compared ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid with piperacillin plus gentamicin; one trial compared piperacillin with ampicillin plus amikacin; and one trial compared ceftazidime with benzylpenicillin plus gentamicin. None of the five comparisons found any evidence of a difference when assessing all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, circulatory support, nephrotoxicity, neurological developmental impairment, or necrotising enterocolitis; however, none of the trials were near an information size that could contribute significantly to the evidence of the comparative benefits and risks of any particular antibiotic regimen. None of the trials assessed respiratory support or ototoxicity. The benefits and harms of different antibiotic regimens remain unclear due to the lack of well-powered trials and the high risk of systematic errors. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence is insufficient to support any antibiotic regimen being superior to another. Large RCTs assessing different antibiotic regimens in early-onset neonatal sepsis with low risk of bias are warranted.

Antibiotic regimens for late-onset neonatal sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Neonatal sepsis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. It is the third leading cause of neonatal mortality globally constituting 13% of overall neonatal mortality. Despite the high burden of neonatal sepsis, high-quality evidence in diagnosis and treatment is scarce. Due to the diagnostic challenges of sepsis and the relative immunosuppression of the newborn, many neonates receive antibiotics for suspected sepsis. Antibiotics have become the most used therapeutics in neonatal intensive care units, and observational studies in high-income countries suggest that 83% to 94% of newborns treated with antibiotics for suspected sepsis have negative blood cultures. The last Cochrane Review was updated in 2005. There is a need for an updated systematic review assessing the effects of different antibiotic regimens for late-onset neonatal sepsis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of different antibiotic regimens for late-onset neonatal sepsis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL (2021, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase Ovid; CINAHL; LILACS; Science Citation Index EXPANDED and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on 12 March 2021. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing different antibiotic regimens for late-onset neonatal sepsis. We included participants older than 72 hours of life at randomisation, suspected or diagnosed with neonatal sepsis, meningitis, osteomyelitis, endocarditis, or necrotising enterocolitis. We excluded trials that assessed treatment of fungal infections. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and our secondary outcomes were: serious adverse events, respiratory support, circulatory support, nephrotoxicity, neurological developmental impairment, necrotising enterocolitis, and ototoxicity. Our primary time point of interest was at maximum follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs (580 participants). All trials were at high risk of bias, and had very low-certainty evidence. The five included trials assessed five different comparisons of antibiotics. We did not conduct a meta-analysis due to lack of relevant data. Of the five included trials one trial compared cefazolin plus amikacin with vancomycin plus amikacin; one trial compared ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid with flucloxacillin plus gentamicin; one trial compared cloxacillin plus amikacin with cefotaxime plus gentamicin; one trial compared meropenem with standard care (ampicillin plus gentamicin or cefotaxime plus gentamicin); and one trial compared vancomycin plus gentamicin with vancomycin plus aztreonam. None of the five comparisons found any evidence of a difference when assessing all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, circulatory support, nephrotoxicity, neurological developmental impairment, or necrotising enterocolitis; however, none of the trials were near an information size that could contribute significantly to the evidence of the comparative benefits and risks of any particular antibiotic regimen. None of the trials assessed respiratory support or ototoxicity. The benefits and harms of different antibiotic regimens remain unclear due to the lack of well-powered trials and the high risk of systematic errors. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence is insufficient to support any antibiotic regimen being superior to another. RCTs assessing different antibiotic regimens in late-onset neonatal sepsis with low risks of bias are warranted.

ANTECEDENTES: La sepsis neonatal es una causa importante de morbilidad y mortalidad. Es la tercera causa de mortalidad neonatal a nivel mundial y constituye el 13% de la mortalidad neonatal total. A pesar de la elevada carga de la sepsis neonatal, la evidencia de alta calidad en el diagnóstico y el tratamiento es escasa. Debido a las dificultades de diagnóstico de la sepsis y a la relativa inmunosupresión del neonato, muchos reciben antibióticos por sospecha de sepsis. Los antibióticos se han convertido en el tratamiento más utilizado en las unidades de cuidados intensivos neonatales, y los estudios observacionales realizados en países de ingresos altos indican que entre el 83% y el 94% de los neonatos tratados con antibióticos por sospecha de sepsis tienen hemocultivos negativos. La última revisión Cochrane se actualizó en 2005. Se necesita una revisión sistemática actualizada que evalúe los efectos de los diferentes regímenes de antibióticos para la sepsis neonatal de inicio tardío. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar los efectos beneficiosos y perjudiciales de diferentes regímenes antibióticos para la sepsis neonatal de inicio tardío. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se hicieron búsquedas en las siguientes bases de datos electrónicas: CENTRAL (2021, número 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase Ovid; CINAHL; LILACS; Science Citation Index EXPANDED y Conference Proceedings Citation Index ­ Science el 12 de marzo de 2021. También se buscaron ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) y cuasialeatorizados en las bases de datos de ensayos clínicos y en las listas de referencias de artículos identificados. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se incluyeron ECA que compararon diferentes regímenes de antibióticos para la sepsis neonatal de inicio tardío. Se incluyeron participantes mayores de 72 horas de vida en el momento de la asignación al azar, con sospecha o diagnóstico de sepsis neonatal, meningitis, osteomielitis, endocarditis o enterocolitis necrosante. Se excluyeron los ensayos que evaluaron el tratamiento de las infecciones micóticas. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Dos autores de la revisión, de forma independiente, evaluaron los estudios para inclusión, extrajeron los datos y evaluaron el riesgo de sesgo. Se utilizó el método GRADE para evaluar la certeza de la evidencia. El desenlace principal fue la mortalidad por todas las causas, y los desenlaces secundarios fueron: eventos adversos graves, asistencia respiratoria, apoyo circulatorio, nefrotoxicidad, deterioro del desarrollo neurológico, enterocolitis necrosante y ototoxicidad. El punto temporal principal de interés fue el seguimiento máximo. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se incluyeron cinco ECA (580 participantes). Todos los ensayos tuvieron alto riesgo de sesgo y evidencia de certeza muy baja. Los cinco ensayos incluidos evaluaron cinco comparaciones diferentes de antibióticos. No se realizó un metanálisis debido a la falta de datos relevantes. De los cinco ensayos incluidos, un ensayo comparó cefazolina más amikacina con vancomicina más amikacina; un ensayo comparó ticarcilina más ácido clavulánico con flucloxacilina más gentamicina; un ensayo comparó cloxacilina más amikacina con cefotaxima más gentamicina; un ensayo comparó meropenem con atención estándar (ampicilina más gentamicina o cefotaxima más gentamicina); y un ensayo comparó vancomicina más gentamicina con vancomicina más aztreonam. Ninguna de las cinco comparaciones encontró evidencia de una diferencia al evaluar la mortalidad por todas las causas, los eventos adversos graves, el apoyo circulatorio, la nefrotoxicidad, el deterioro del desarrollo neurológico o la enterocolitis necrosante; sin embargo, ninguno de los ensayos se acercó a un tamaño de información que pudiera contribuir significativamente a la evidencia de los beneficios y los riesgos comparativos de cualquier régimen antibiótico en particular. Ninguno de los ensayos evaluó la asistencia respiratoria o la ototoxicidad. Los efectos beneficiosos y perjudiciales de los diferentes regímenes de antibióticos aún no están claros debido a la falta de ensayos con un poder estadístico adecuado y al alto riesgo de errores sistemáticos. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: La evidencia actual no es suficiente para apoyar que un régimen de antibióticos sea superior a otro. Se justifica la realización de ECA con bajo riesgo de sesgo que evalúen diferentes regímenes antibióticos en la sepsis neonatal de inicio tardío.

Beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the number one cause of death globally. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 7.4 million people died from ischaemic heart disease in 2012, constituting 15% of all deaths. Beta-blockers are recommended and are often used in patients with heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. However, it is currently unclear whether beta-blockers should be used in patients without heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. Previous meta-analyses on the topic have shown conflicting results. No previous systematic review using Cochrane methods has assessed the effects of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of beta-blockers compared with placebo or no treatment in patients without heart failure and with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) greater than 40% in the non-acute phase after myocardial infarction. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index - Expanded, BIOSIS Citation Index, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency, Food and Drug Administration, Turning Research Into Practice, Google Scholar, and SciSearch from their inception to February 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials assessing effects of beta-blockers versus control (placebo or no treatment) in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction, irrespective of publication type and status, date, and language. We excluded trials randomising participants with diagnosed heart failure at the time of randomisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed our published protocol, with a few changes made, and methodological recommendations provided by Cochrane and Jakobsen and colleagues. Two review authors independently extracted data. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and major cardiovascular events (composite of cardiovascular mortality and non-fatal myocardial reinfarction). Our secondary outcomes were quality of life, angina, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction during follow-up. We assessed all outcomes at maximum follow-up. We systematically assessed risks of bias using seven bias domains and we assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 trials randomising a total of 22,423 participants (mean age 56.9 years). All trials and outcomes were at high risk of bias. In all, 24 of 25 trials included a mixed group of participants with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST myocardial infarction, and no trials provided separate results for each type of infarction. One trial included participants with only ST-elevation myocardial infarction. All trials except one included participants younger than 75 years of age. Methods used to exclude heart failure were various and were likely insufficient. A total of 21 trials used placebo, and four trials used no intervention, as the comparator. All patients received usual care; 24 of 25 trials were from the pre-reperfusion era (published from 1974 to 1999), and only one trial was from the reperfusion era (published in 2018). The certainty of evidence was moderate to low for all outcomes. Our meta-analyses show that beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention probably reduce the risks of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 97.5% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.90; I² = 15%; 22,085 participants, 21 trials; moderate-certainty evidence) and myocardial reinfarction (RR 0.76, 98% CI 0.69 to 0.88; I² = 0%; 19,606 participants, 19 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Our meta-analyses show that beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention may reduce the risks of major cardiovascular events (RR 0.72, 97.5% CI 0.69 to 0.84; 14,994 participants, 15 trials; low-certainty evidence) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.73, 98% CI 0.68 to 0.85; I² = 47%; 21,763 participants, 19 trials; low-certainty evidence). Hence, evidence seems to suggest that beta-blockers versus placebo or no treatment may result in a minimum reduction of 10% in RR for risks of all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction. However, beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention may not affect the risk of angina (RR 1.04, 98% CI 0.93 to 1.13; I² = 0%; 7115 participants, 5 trials; low-certainty evidence). No trials provided data on serious adverse events according to good clinical practice from the International Committee for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH-GCP), nor on quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Beta-blockers probably reduce the risks of all-cause mortality and myocardial reinfarction in patients younger than 75 years of age without heart failure following acute myocardial infarction. Beta-blockers may further reduce the risks of major cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality compared with placebo or no intervention in patients younger than 75 years of age without heart failure following acute myocardial infarction. These effects could, however, be driven by patients with unrecognised heart failure. The effects of beta-blockers on serious adverse events, angina, and quality of life are unclear due to sparse data or no data at all. All trials and outcomes were at high risk of bias, and incomplete outcome data bias alone could account for the effect seen when major cardiovascular events, angina, and myocardial infarction are assessed. The evidence in this review is of moderate to low certainty, and the true result may depart substantially from the results presented here. Future trials should particularly focus on patients 75 years of age and older, and on assessment of serious adverse events according to ICH-GCP and quality of life. Newer randomised clinical trials at low risk of bias and at low risk of random errors are needed if the benefits and harms of beta-blockers in contemporary patients without heart failure following acute myocardial infarction are to be assessed properly. Such trials ought to be designed according to the SPIRIT statement and reported according to the CONSORT statement.

Antibiotics for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease is the leading cause of mortality worldwide with approximately 7.4 million deaths each year. People with established coronary heart disease have a high risk of subsequent cardiovascular events including myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death. Antibiotics might prevent such outcomes due to their antibacterial, antiinflammatory, and antioxidative effects. However, a randomised clinical trial and several observational studies have suggested that antibiotics may increase the risk of cardiovascular events and mortality. Furthermore, several non-Cochrane Reviews, that are now outdated, have assessed the effects of antibiotics for coronary heart disease and have shown conflicting results. No previous systematic review using Cochrane methodology has assessed the effects of antibiotics for coronary heart disease. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the benefits and harms of antibiotics compared with placebo or no intervention for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, SCI-EXPANDED, and BIOSIS in December 2019 in order to identify relevant trials. Additionally, we searched TRIP, Google Scholar, and nine trial registries in December 2019. We also contacted 11 pharmaceutical companies and searched the reference lists of included trials, previous systematic reviews, and other types of reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of antibiotics versus placebo or no intervention for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in adult participants (≥18 years). Trials were included irrespective of setting, blinding, publication status, publication year, language, and reporting of our outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted data. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse event according to the International Conference on Harmonization - Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP), and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and sudden cardiac death. Our primary time point of interest was at maximum follow-up. Additionally, we extracted outcome data at 24±6 months follow-up. We assessed the risks of systematic errors using Cochrane 'Rosk of bias' tool. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes. We calculated absolute risk reduction (ARR) or increase (ARI) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) if the outcome result showed a beneficial or harmful effect, respectively. The certainty of the body of evidence was assessed by GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 38 trials randomising a total of 26,638 participants (mean age 61.6 years), with 23/38 trials reporting data on 26,078 participants that could be meta-analysed. Three trials were at low risk of bias and the 35 remaining trials were at high risk of bias. Trials assessing the effects of macrolides (28 trials; 22,059 participants) and quinolones (two trials; 4162 participants) contributed with the vast majority of the data. Meta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed that antibiotics versus placebo or no intervention seemed to increase the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.13; P = 0.07; I2 = 0%; ARI 0.48%; NNTH 208; 25,774 participants; 20 trials; high certainty of evidence), stroke (RR 1.14; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.29; P = 0.04; I2 = 0%; ARI 0.73%; NNTH 138; 14,774 participants; 9 trials; high certainty of evidence), and probably also cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.25; P = 0.11; I2= 0%; 4674 participants; 2 trials; moderate certainty of evidence). Little to no difference was observed when assessing the risk of myocardial infarction (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.03; P = 0.23; I2 = 0%; 25,523 participants; 17 trials; high certainty of evidence). No evidence of a difference was observed when assessing sudden cardiac death (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.31; P = 0.41; I2 = 0%; 4520 participants; 2 trials; moderate certainty of evidence). Meta-analyses at 24±6 months follow-up showed that antibiotics versus placebo or no intervention increased the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.48; P = 0.007; I2 = 0%; ARI 1.26%; NNTH 79 (95% CI 335 to 42); 9517 participants; 6 trials; high certainty of evidence), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.50; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.91; P = 0.001; I2 = 0%; ARI 1.12%; NNTH 89 (95% CI 261 to 49); 9044 participants; 5 trials; high certainty of evidence), and probably also sudden cardiac death (RR 1.77; 95% CI 1.28 to 2.44; P = 0.0005; I2 = 0%; ARI 1.9%; NNTH 53 (95% CI 145 to 28); 4520 participants; 2 trials; moderate certainty of evidence). No evidence of a difference was observed when assessing the risk of myocardial infarction (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.11; P = 0.53; I2 = 43%; 9457 participants; 5 trials; moderate certainty of evidence) and stroke (RR 1.17; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.52; P = 0.24; I2 = 0%; 9457 participants; 5 trials; high certainty of evidence). Meta-analyses of trials at low risk of bias differed from the overall analyses when assessing cardiovascular mortality at maximum follow-up. For all other outcomes, meta-analyses of trials at low risk of bias did not differ from the overall analyses. None of the trials specifically assessed serious adverse event according to ICH-GCP. No data were found on quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our present review indicates that antibiotics (macrolides or quinolones) for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease seem harmful when assessing the risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke at maximum follow-up and all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and sudden cardiac death at 24±6 months follow-up. Current evidence does, therefore, not support the clinical use of macrolides and quinolones for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Future trials on the safety of macrolides or quinolones for the secondary prevention in patients with coronary heart disease do not seem ethical. In general, randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of antibiotics, especially macrolides and quinolones, need longer follow-up so that late-occurring adverse events can also be assessed.

Glucocorticosteroids for sepsis in children. A protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is the primary diagnosis in more than 8% of all critically ill children and sepsis is among the ten leading causes of death in children <10 years. Glucocorticosteroids are currently recommended in septic children with fluid or catecholamine resistant refractory shock. Glucocorticosteroids are widely used for severe sepsis in paediatric intensive care units worldwide. However, the evidence on the clinical effects of glucocorticosteroids for sepsis in children is unclear. METHODS: We will perform a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of randomised clinical trials. We will include randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of glucocorticosteroids vs placebo or no intervention as an add-on therapy to standard care for sepsis in children. For the assessment of harms, we will also include quasi-randomised studies and observational studies identified during our searches for randomised clinical trials. DISCUSSION: This review will seek to assess whether glucocorticosteroids indeed have their therapeutic place in the standard treatment for sepsis in children.

Quinolones for sepsis. A protocol for a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a relatively common and deadly condition that constitutes a major challenge to the modern health care system. Quinolones are sometimes used in combination with beta-lactam antibiotics for sepsis, but no former systematic review has assessed the benefits and harms of quinolones in patients with sepsis. METHODS: We will perform a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis including randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of quinolones as add on therapy to usual care in children and adults with sepsis. For the assessment of harms, we will also include quasi-randomised studies and observational studies identified during our searches for randomised clinical trials. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will clarify if there is evidence to support quinolones being part of the standard treatment for sepsis.

Nutrition support in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of disease-related malnutrition in Western European hospitals is estimated to be about 30%. There is no consensus whether poor nutritional status causes poorer clinical outcome or if it is merely associated with it. The intention with all forms of nutrition support is to increase uptake of essential nutrients and improve clinical outcome. Previous reviews have shown conflicting results with regard to the effects of nutrition support. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of nutrition support versus no intervention, treatment as usual, or placebo in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), LILACS (BIREME), and Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science). We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp); ClinicalTrials.gov; Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP); Google Scholar; and BIOSIS, as well as relevant bibliographies of review articles and personal files. All searches are current to February 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We include randomised clinical trials, irrespective of publication type, publication date, and language, comparing nutrition support versus control in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk. We exclude trials assessing non-standard nutrition support. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group. We used trial domains to assess the risks of systematic error (bias). We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control for the risks of random errors. We considered a P value of 0.025 or less as statistically significant. We used GRADE methodology. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: We included 244 randomised clinical trials with 28,619 participants that met our inclusion criteria. We considered all trials to be at high risk of bias. Two trials accounted for one-third of all included participants. The included participants were heterogenous with regard to disease (20 different medical specialties). The experimental interventions were parenteral nutrition (86 trials); enteral nutrition (tube-feeding) (80 trials); oral nutrition support (55 trials); mixed experimental intervention (12 trials); general nutrition support (9 trials); and fortified food (2 trials). The control interventions were treatment as usual (122 trials); no intervention (107 trials); and placebo (15 trials). In 204/244 trials, the intervention lasted three days or more.We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for short-term mortality (end of intervention). The absolute risk was 8.3% across the control groups compared with 7.8% (7.1% to 8.5%) in the intervention groups, based on the risk ratio (RR) of 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.03, P = 0.16, 21,758 participants, 114 trials, low quality of evidence). We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for long-term mortality (maximum follow-up). The absolute risk was 13.2% in the control group compared with 12.2% (11.6% to 13%) following nutritional interventions based on a RR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99, P = 0.03, 23,170 participants, 127 trials, low quality of evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis showed we only had enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more. A risk ratio reduction of 10% or more could be rejected.We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for short-term serious adverse events. The absolute risk was 9.9% in the control groups versus 9.2% (8.5% to 10%), with nutrition based on the RR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.01, P = 0.07, 22,087 participants, 123 trials, low quality of evidence). At long-term follow-up, the reduction in the risk of serious adverse events was 1.5%, from 15.2% in control groups to 13.8% (12.9% to 14.7%) following nutritional support (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.97, P = 0.004, 23,413 participants, 137 trials, low quality of evidence). However, the Trial Sequential Analysis showed we only had enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more. A risk ratio reduction of 10% or more could be rejected.Trial Sequential Analysis of enteral nutrition alone showed that enteral nutrition might reduce serious adverse events at maximum follow-up in people with different diseases. We could find no beneficial effect of oral nutrition support or parenteral nutrition support on all-cause mortality and serious adverse events in any subgroup.Only 16 trials assessed health-related quality of life. We performed a meta-analysis of two trials reporting EuroQoL utility score at long-term follow-up and found very low quality of evidence for effects of nutritional support on quality of life (mean difference (MD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01; 3961 participants, two trials). Trial Sequential Analyses showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject clinically relevant intervention effects on quality of life.Nutrition support may increase weight at short-term follow-up (MD 1.32 kg, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.00, 5445 participants, 68 trials, very low quality of evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-quality evidence for the effects of nutrition support on mortality and serious adverse events. Based on the results of our review, it does not appear to lead to a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more in either all-cause mortality or serious adverse events at short-term and long-term follow-up.There is very low-quality evidence for an increase in weight with nutrition support at the end of treatment in hospitalised adults determined to be at nutritional risk. The effects of nutrition support on all remaining outcomes are unclear.Despite the clinically heterogenous population and the high risk of bias of all included trials, our analyses showed limited signs of statistical heterogeneity. Further trials may be warranted, assessing enteral nutrition (tube-feeding) for different patient groups. Future trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic errors and low risks of random errors, and they also ought to assess health-related quality of life.

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation for acute asthma in children.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is one of the most common reasons for hospital admission among children and constitutes a significant economic burden. Use of non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) in the care of children with acute asthma has increased even though evidence supporting the intervention has been considered weak and clinical guidelines do not recommend the intervention. NPPV might be an effective intervention for acute asthma, but no systematic review has been conducted to assess the effects of NPPV as an add-on therapy to usual care in children with acute asthma. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of NPPV as an add-on therapy to usual care (e.g. bronchodilators and corticosteroids) in children with acute asthma. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR). The Register contains trial reports identified through systematic searches of bibliographic databases, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO, and by handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. We also conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov) and the WHO trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/). We searched all databases from their inception to February 2016, with no restriction on language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) assessing NPPV as add-on therapy to usual care versus usual care for children (age < 18 years) hospitalised for an acute asthma attack. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts. We retrieved all relevant full-text study reports, independently screened the full text, identified trials for inclusion and identified and recorded reasons for exclusion of ineligible trials. We resolved disagreements through discussion or, if required, consulted a third review author. We recorded the selection process in sufficient detail to complete a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) flow diagram and 'Characteristics of excluded studies' table. We identified the risk of bias of included studies to reduce the risk of systematic error. We contacted relevant study authors when data were missing. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs that randomised 20 participants to NPPV and 20 participants to control. We assessed both studies as having high risk of bias; both trials assessed effects of bilateral positive airway pressure (BiPAP). Neither trial used continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). Controls received standard care. Investigators reported no deaths and no serious adverse events (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE): very low quality of evidence due to serious risk of bias and serious imprecision of results). Both trials showed a statistically significant reduction in symptom score. One trial did not report a standard deviation (SD), but by using an estimated SD, we found a statistically significantly reduced asthma symptom score (mean difference (MD) -2.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.70 to -0.30, P = 0.03, 19 participants, GRADE: very low quality of evidence). In the other trial, NPPV was associated with a lower total symptom score (5.6 vs 1.9, 16 participants, very low quality of evidence) before cross-over, but investigators did not report an SD, nor could it be estimated from the first phase of the trial, before the cross-over. These gains could be clinically relevant, as a reduction of three or more points in symptom score is considered a clinically meaningful change. Researchers documented five dropouts (12.5%), four of which were due to intolerance to NPPV, and one to respiratory failure requiring intubation. Owing to insufficient reporting in the latter trial and use of different scoring systems, it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis nor a Trial Sequential Analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence does not permit confirmation or rejection of the effects of NPPV for acute asthma in children. Large RCTs with low risk of bias are warranted.

Effects of primary or secondary prevention with vitamin A supplementation on clinically important outcomes: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review with meta-analyses of randomised trials evaluated the preventive effects of vitamin A supplements versus placebo or no intervention on clinically important outcomes, in people of any age. METHODS: We searched different electronic databases and other resources for randomised clinical trials that had compared vitamin A supplements versus placebo or no intervention (last search 16 April 2024). We used Cochrane methodology. We used the random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs), with 95% CIs. We analysed individually and cluster randomised trials separately. Our primary outcomes were mortality, adverse events and quality of life. We assessed risks of bias in the trials and used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: We included 120 randomised trials (1 671 672 participants); 105 trials allocated individuals and 15 allocated clusters. 92 trials included children (78 individually; 14 cluster randomised) and 28 adults (27 individually; 1 cluster randomised). 14/105 individually randomised trials (13%) and none of the cluster randomised trials were at overall low risk of bias. Vitamin A did not reduce mortality in individually randomised trials (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; I²=32%; p=0.19; 105 trials; moderate certainty), and this effect was not affected by the risk of bias. In individually randomised trials, vitamin A had no effect on mortality in children (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.04; I²=24%; p=0.28; 78 trials, 178 094 participants) nor in adults (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.13; I²=24%; p=0.27; 27 trials, 61 880 participants). Vitamin A reduced mortality in the cluster randomised trials (0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.93; I²=66%; p=0.0008; 15 trials, 14 in children and 1 in adults; 364 343 participants; very low certainty). No trial reported serious adverse events or quality of life. Vitamin A slightly increased bulging fontanelle of neonates and infants. We are uncertain whether vitamin A influences blindness under the conditions examined. CONCLUSIONS: Based on moderate certainty of evidence, vitamin A had no effect on mortality in the individually randomised trials. Very low certainty evidence obtained from cluster randomised trials suggested a beneficial effect of vitamin A on mortality. If preventive vitamin A programmes are to be continued, supporting evidence should come from randomised trials allocating individuals and assessing patient-meaningful outcomes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018104347.

Cannabinoids versus placebo for pain: A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of cannabinoids in participants with pain. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis, Trial Sequential Analysis, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, and BIOSIS. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Published and unpublished randomised clinical trials comparing cannabinoids versus placebo in participants with any type of pain. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All-cause mortality, pain, adverse events, quality of life, cannabinoid dependence, psychosis, and quality of sleep. RESULTS: We included 65 randomised placebo-controlled clinical trials enrolling 7017 participants. Fifty-nine of the trials and all outcome results were at high risk of bias. Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis showed no evidence of a difference between cannabinoids versus placebo on all-cause mortality (RR 1.20; 98% CI 0.85 to 1.67; P = 0.22). Meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analysis showed that cannabinoids neither reduced acute pain (mean difference numerical rating scale (NRS) 0.52; 98% CI -0.40 to 1.43; P = 0.19) or cancer pain (mean difference NRS -0.13; 98% CI -0.33 to 0.06; P = 0.1) nor improved quality of life (mean difference -1.38; 98% CI -11.81 to 9.04; P = 0.33). Meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analysis showed that cannabinoids reduced chronic pain (mean difference NRS -0.43; 98% CI -0.72 to -0.15; P = 0.0004) and improved quality of sleep (mean difference -0.42; 95% CI -0.65 to -0.20; P = 0.0003). However, both effect sizes were below our predefined minimal important differences. Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis indicated that cannabinoids increased the risk of non-serious adverse events (RR 1.20; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.25; P < 0.001) but not serious adverse events (RR 1.18; 98% CI 0.95 to 1.45; P = 0.07). None of the included trials reported on cannabinoid dependence or psychosis. CONCLUSIONS: Cannabinoids reduced chronic pain and improved quality of sleep, but the effect sizes are of questionable importance. Cannabinoids had no effects on acute pain or cancer pain and increased the risks of non-serious adverse events. The harmful effects of cannabinoids for pain seem to outweigh the potential benefits.

Operational Definitions Related to Pediatric Ventilator Liberation.

BACKGROUND: Common, operational definitions are crucial to assess interventions and outcomes related to pediatric mechanical ventilation. These definitions can reduce unnecessary variability among research and quality improvement efforts, to ensure findings are generalizable, and can be pooled to establish best practices. RESEARCH QUESTION: Can we establish operational definitions for key elements related to pediatric ventilator liberation using a combination of detailed literature review and consensus-based approaches? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A panel of 26 international experts in pediatric ventilator liberation, two methodologists, and two librarians conducted systematic reviews on eight topic areas related to pediatric ventilator liberation. Through a series of virtual meetings, we established draft definitions that were voted upon using an anonymous web-based process. Definitions were revised by incorporating extracted data gathered during the systematic review and discussed in another consensus meeting. A second round of voting was conducted to confirm the final definitions. RESULTS: In eight topic areas identified by the experts, 16 preliminary definitions were established. Based on initial discussion and the first round of voting, modifications were suggested for 11 of the 16 definitions. There was significant variability in how these items were defined in the literature reviewed. The final round of voting achieved ≥ 80% agreement for all 16 definitions in the following areas: what constitutes respiratory support (invasive mechanical ventilation and noninvasive respiratory support), liberation and failed attempts to liberate from invasive mechanical ventilation, liberation from respiratory support, duration of noninvasive respiratory support, total duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, spontaneous breathing trials, extubation readiness testing, 28 ventilator-free days, and planned vs rescue use of post-extubation noninvasive respiratory support. INTERPRETATION: We propose that these consensus-based definitions for elements of pediatric ventilator liberation, informed by evidence, be used for future quality improvement initiatives and research studies to improve generalizability and facilitate comparison.

Necessity of Prophylactic Extrapleural Chest Tube During Primary Surgical Repair of Esophageal Atresia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Esophageal atresia is corrected surgically by anastomosing and recreating esophageal continuity. To allow the removal of excess fluid and air from the anastomosis, a prophylactic and temporary intraoperative chest tube (IOCT) has traditionally been placed in this area during surgery. However, whether the potential benefits of this prophylactic IOCT overweigh the potential harms is unclear. Objective: To assess the benefits and harms of using a prophylactic IOCT during primary surgical repair of esophageal atresia. Data Sources: We conducted a systematic review with a meta-analysis. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2021, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, CINAHL, and Science Citation Index Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-(Web of Science). Search was performed from inception until December 3rd, 2021. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCT) assessing the effect of a prophylactic IOCT during primary surgical repair of esophageal atresia and observational studies identified during our searches for RCT. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers screened studies and performed data extraction. The certainty of the evidence was assessed by GRADE and ROBINS-I. PROSPERO Registration: A protocol for this review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021257834). Results: We included three RCTs randomizing 162 neonates, all at overall "some risk of bias." The studies compared the placement of an IOCT vs. none. The meta-analysis did not identify any significant effect of profylacitic IOCT, as confidence intervals were compatible with no effect, but the analyses suggests that the placement of an IOCT might lead to an increase in all-cause mortality (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.76-3.65; three trials), serious adverse events (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.58-2.00; three trials), intervention-requiring pneumothorax (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.28-9.50; two trials), and anastomosis leakage (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.63-4.40). None of our included studies assessed esophageal stricture or pain. Certainty of evidence was very low for all outcomes. Conclusions: Evidence from RCTs does not support the routine use of a prophylactic IOCT during primary surgical repair of esophageal atresia.

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.