Active cycle of breathing technique for cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: People with cystic fibrosis (CF) experience chronic airway infections as a result of mucus buildup within the lungs. Repeated infections often cause lung damage and disease. Airway clearance therapies aim to improve mucus clearance, increase sputum production, and improve airway function. The active cycle of breathing technique (ACBT) is an airway clearance method that uses a cycle of techniques to loosen airway secretions including breathing control, thoracic expansion exercises, and the forced expiration technique. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness of ACBT with other airway clearance therapies in CF. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched clinical trials registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Date of last search: 29 March 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled clinical studies, including cross-over studies, comparing ACBT with other airway clearance therapies in CF. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened each article, abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each study. We used GRADE to assess our confidence in the evidence assessing quality of life, participant preference, adverse events, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) % predicted, forced vital capacity (FVC) % predicted, sputum weight, and number of pulmonary exacerbations. MAIN RESULTS: Our search identified 99 studies, of which 22 (559 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Eight randomised controlled studies (259 participants) were included in the analysis; five were of cross-over design. The 14 remaining studies were cross-over studies with inadequate reports for complete assessment. The study size ranged from seven to 65 participants. The age of the participants ranged from six to 63 years (mean age 18.7 years). In 13 studies follow up lasted a single day. However, there were two long-term randomised controlled studies with follow up of one to three years. Most of the studies did not report on key quality items, and therefore, have an unclear risk of bias in terms of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and outcome assessor blinding. Due to the nature of the intervention, none of the studies blinded participants or the personnel applying the interventions. However, most of the studies reported on all planned outcomes, had adequate follow up, assessed compliance, and used an intention-to-treat analysis. Included studies compared ACBT with autogenic drainage, airway oscillating devices (AOD), high-frequency chest compression devices, conventional chest physiotherapy (CCPT), positive expiratory pressure (PEP), and exercise. We found no difference in quality of life between ACBT and PEP mask therapy, AOD, other breathing techniques, or exercise (very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference in individual preference between ACBT and other breathing techniques (very low-certainty evidence). One study comparing ACBT with ACBT plus postural exercise reported no deaths and no adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). We found no differences in lung function (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) % predicted and forced vital capacity (FVC) % predicted), oxygen saturation or expectorated sputum between ACBT and any other technique (very low-certainty evidence). There were no differences in the number of pulmonary exacerbations between people using ACBT and people using CCPT (low-certainty evidence) or ACBT with exercise (very low-certainty evidence), the only comparisons to report this outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence to support or reject the use of the ACBT over any other airway clearance therapy and ACBT is comparable with other therapies in outcomes such as participant preference, quality of life, exercise tolerance, lung function, sputum weight, oxygen saturation, and number of pulmonary exacerbations. Longer-term studies are needed to more adequately assess the effects of ACBT on outcomes important for people with cystic fibrosis such as quality of life and preference.

Antipsychotics for Treating Delirium in Hospitalized Adults: A Systematic Review.

Background: Delirium is common in hospitalized patients and is associated with worse outcomes. Antipsychotics are commonly used; however, the associated benefits and harms are unclear. Purpose: To conduct a systematic review evaluating the benefits and harms of antipsychotics to treat delirium in adults. Data Sources: PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from inception to July 2019 without language restrictions. Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antipsychotic versus placebo or another antipsychotic, and prospective observational studies reporting harms. Data Extraction: One reviewer extracted data and assessed strength of evidence (SOE) for critical outcomes, with confirmation by another reviewer. Risk of bias was assessed independently by 2 reviewers. Data Synthesis: Across 16 RCTs and 10 observational studies of hospitalized adults, there was no difference in sedation status (low and moderate SOE), delirium duration, hospital length of stay (moderate SOE), or mortality between haloperidol and second-generation antipsychotics versus placebo. There was no difference in delirium severity (moderate SOE) and cognitive functioning (low SOE) for haloperidol versus second-generation antipsychotics, with insufficient or no evidence for antipsychotics versus placebo. For direct comparisons of different second-generation antipsychotics, there was no difference in mortality and insufficient or no evidence for multiple other outcomes. There was little evidence demonstrating neurologic harms associated with short-term use of antipsychotics for treating delirium in adult inpatients, but potentially harmful cardiac effects tended to occur more frequently. Limitations: Heterogeneity was present in terms of dose and administration route of antipsychotics, outcomes, and measurement instruments. There was insufficient or no evidence regarding multiple clinically important outcomes. Conclusion: Current evidence does not support routine use of haloperidol or second-generation antipsychotics to treat delirium in adult inpatients. Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42018109552).

Antipsychotics for Preventing Delirium in Hospitalized Adults: A Systematic Review.

Background: Delirium is an acute disorder marked by impairments in attention and cognition, caused by an underlying medical problem. Antipsychotics are used to prevent delirium, but their benefits and harms are unclear. Purpose: To conduct a systematic review evaluating the benefits and harms of antipsychotics for prevention of delirium in adults. Data Sources: PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from inception through July 2019, without restrictions based on study setting, language of publication, or length of follow-up. Study Selection: Randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) that compared an antipsychotic with placebo or another antipsychotic, and prospective observational studies with a comparison group. Data Extraction: One reviewer extracted data and graded the strength of the evidence, and a second reviewer confirmed the data. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias. Data Synthesis: A total of 14 RCTs were included. There were no differences in delirium incidence or duration, hospital length of stay (high strength of evidence [SOE]), and mortality between haloperidol and placebo used for delirium prevention. Little to no evidence was found to determine the effect of haloperidol on cognitive function, delirium severity (insufficient SOE), inappropriate continuation, and sedation (insufficient SOE). There is limited evidence that second-generation antipsychotics may lower delirium incidence in the postoperative setting. There is little evidence that short-term use of antipsychotics was associated with neurologic harms. In some of the trials, potentially harmful cardiac effects occurred more frequently with antipsychotic use. Limitations: There was significant heterogeneity in antipsychotic dosing, route of antipsychotic administration, assessment of outcomes, and adverse events. There were insufficient or no data available to draw conclusions for many of the outcomes. Conclusion: Current evidence does not support routine use of haloperidol or second-generation antipsychotics for prevention of delirium. There is limited evidence that second-generation antipsychotics may lower the incidence of delirium in postoperative patients, but more research is needed. Future trials should use standardized outcome measures. Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42018109552).

Airway clearance techniques for cystic fibrosis: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis is a life-limiting genetic condition in which thick mucus builds up in the lungs, leading to infections, inflammation, and eventually, deterioration in lung function. To clear their lungs of mucus, people with cystic fibrosis perform airway clearance techniques daily. There are various airway clearance techniques, which differ in terms of the need for assistance or equipment, and cost. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews on the effectiveness and safety of various airway clearance techniques in people with cystic fibrosis. METHODS: For this overview, we included Cochrane Reviews of randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (including cross-over trials) that evaluated an airway clearance technique (conventional chest physiotherapy, positive expiratory pressure (PEP) therapy, high-pressure PEP therapy, active cycle of breathing techniques, autogenic drainage, airway oscillating devices, external high frequency chest compression devices and exercise) in people with cystic fibrosis.We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on 29 November 2018.Two review authors independently evaluated reviews for eligibility. One review author extracted data from included reviews and a second author checked the data for accuracy. Two review authors independently graded the quality of reviews using the ROBIS tool. We used the GRADE approach for assessing the overall strength of the evidence for each primary outcome (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), individual preference and quality of life). MAIN RESULTS: We included six Cochrane Reviews, one of which compared any type of chest physiotherapy with no chest physiotherapy or coughing alone and the remaining five reviews included head-to-head comparisons of different airway clearance techniques. All the reviews were considered to have a low risk of bias. However, the individual trials included in the reviews often did not report sufficient information to adequately assess risk of bias. Many trials did not sufficiently report on outcome measures and had a high risk of reporting bias.We are unable to draw definitive conclusions for comparisons of airway clearance techniques in terms of FEV1, except for reporting no difference between PEP therapy and oscillating devices after six months of treatment, mean difference -1.43% predicted (95% confidence interval -5.72 to 2.87); the quality of the body of evidence was graded as moderate. The quality of the body of evidence comparing different airway clearance techniques for other outcomes was either low or very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence to support the use of one airway clearance technique over another. People with cystic fibrosis should choose the airway clearance technique that best meets their needs, after considering comfort, convenience, flexibility, practicality, cost, or some other factor. More long-term, high-quality randomised controlled trials comparing airway clearance techniques among people with cystic fibrosis are needed.

The Pediatric Critical Care Transfusion and Anemia Expertise Initiative Consensus Conference Methodology.

OBJECTIVES: This article describes the methodology used for Pediatric Critical Care Transfusion and Anemia Expertise Initiative Consensus Conference. DESIGN: Consensus conference of international experts in pediatric critical care and transfusion medicine, following standards set by the Institute of Medicine, using the Research and Development/UCLA Appropriateness Method, modeled after the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference. Topics related to RBC transfusion in children with or at risk for critical illness were divided into nine subgroups with a systematic review of the literature. METHODS: The panel of 38 content and four methodology experts met three times over the course of 2 years and collaborated to develop evidence-based and, when evidence was lacking, expert-based clinical recommendations as well as research priorities for RBC transfusions in critically ill children or those at risk for critical illness. Electronic searches were conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from 1980 to May 2017. Agreement was obtained using the Research and Development/UCLA Appropriateness Method. We used a standardized data extraction form to construct evidence tables and graded the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. MAIN RESULTS: The consensus conference resulted in 102 recommendation statements, of which 57 were clinical (20 evidence based and 37 based on expert consensus) and 45 detailed recommendations for future research. Dissemination was done via decision tree, a primary publication listing all statements, and separate publications for each subtopic that include supporting arguments for each recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: A consensus conference of experts from around the world developed recommendations for RBC transfusions in critically ill children or children at risk for critical illness, the identification of current research gaps, and future research priorities.

Benefits and Harms of Osteoporosis Medications in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Complications of chronic kidney disease (CKD) include weak bones and increased fracture risk. PURPOSE: To review the benefits and harms of osteoporosis medications (bisphosphonates, teriparatide, raloxifene, and denosumab) compared with placebo, usual care, or active control in terms of bone mineral density (BMD), fractures, and safety in patients with CKD. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from December 2006 through December 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Paired reviewers independently screened abstracts and full-text articles for English-language, randomized, controlled trials that had at least 6 months of follow-up; evaluated osteoporosis medications among patients with CKD; and reported on BMD, fractures, or safety (mortality and adverse events). DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers serially abstracted data and independently assessed risk of bias and graded the strength of evidence (SOE). DATA SYNTHESIS: There were 13 trials (n = 9850) that included kidney transplant recipients (6 trials), patients who had stage 3 to 5 CKD or were receiving dialysis (3 trials), or postmenopausal women with CKD (4 trials). Evidence showed that bisphosphonates may slow loss of BMD among transplant recipients (moderate SOE), but their effects on fractures and safety in transplant recipients and others with CKD are unclear. Raloxifene may prevent vertebral fractures but may not improve BMD (low SOE). Effects of teriparatide and denosumab on BMD and fractures are unclear (very low SOE), and these medications may increase risk for some safety outcomes. LIMITATION: Unclear rigor of evidence, possible reporting biases, and scant evidence among patients with stage 3 to 5 CKD. CONCLUSION: Effects of osteoporosis medications on BMD, fracture risk, and safety among patients with CKD are not clearly established. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes.

Diabetes Medications as Monotherapy or Metformin-Based Combination Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians and patients need updated evidence on the comparative effectiveness and safety of diabetes medications to make informed treatment choices. PURPOSE: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of monotherapy (thiazolidinediones, metformin, sulfonylureas, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 [DPP-4] inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 [SGLT-2] inhibitors, and glucagon-like peptide-1 [GLP-1] receptor agonists) and selected metformin-based combinations in adults with type 2 diabetes. DATA SOURCES: English-language studies from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, indexed from inception through March 2015 (MEDLINE search updated through December 2015). STUDY SELECTION: Paired reviewers independently identified 179 trials and 25 observational studies of head-to-head monotherapy or metformin-based combinations. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently assessed study quality and serially extracted data and graded the strength of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: Cardiovascular mortality was lower for metformin versus sulfonylureas; the evidence on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, and microvascular complications was insufficient or of low strength. Reductions in hemoglobin A1c values were similar across monotherapies and metformin-based combinations, except that DPP-4 inhibitors had smaller effects. Body weight was reduced or maintained with metformin, DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and SGLT-2 inhibitors and increased with sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, and insulin (between-group differences up to 5 kg). Hypoglycemia was more frequent with sulfonylureas. Gastrointestinal adverse events were highest with metformin and GLP-1 receptor agonists. Genital mycotic infections were increased with SGLT-2 inhibitors. LIMITATION: Most studies were short, with limited ability to assess rare safety and long-term clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: The evidence supports metformin as first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes, given its relative safety and beneficial effects on hemoglobin A1c, weight, and cardiovascular mortality (compared with sulfonylureas). On the basis of less evidence, results for add-on therapies to metformin were similar to those for monotherapies. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Active cycle of breathing technique for cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: People with cystic fibrosis experience chronic airway infections as a result of mucus build up within the lungs. Repeated infections often cause lung damage and disease. Airway clearance therapies aim to improve mucus clearance, increase sputum production, and improve airway function. The active cycle of breathing technique (also known as ACBT) is an airway clearance method that uses a cycle of techniques to loosen airway secretions including breathing control, thoracic expansion exercises, and the forced expiration technique. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness of the active cycle of breathing technique with other airway clearance therapies in cystic fibrosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.Date of last search: 25 April 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled clinical studies, including cross-over studies, comparing the active cycle of breathing technique with other airway clearance therapies in cystic fibrosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened each article, abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each study. MAIN RESULTS: Our search identified 62 studies, of which 19 (440 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Five randomised controlled studies (192 participants) were included in the meta-analysis; three were of cross-over design. The 14 remaining studies were cross-over studies with inadequate reports for complete assessment. The study size ranged from seven to 65 participants. The age of the participants ranged from six to 63 years (mean age 22.33 years). In 13 studies, follow up lasted a single day. However, there were two long-term randomised controlled studies with follow up of one to three years. Most of the studies did not report on key quality items, and therefore, have an unclear risk of bias in terms of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and outcome assessor blinding. Due to the nature of the intervention, none of the studies blinded participants or the personnel applying the interventions. However, most of the studies reported on all planned outcomes, had adequate follow up, assessed compliance, and used an intention-to-treat analysis.Included studies compared the active cycle of breathing technique with autogenic drainage, airway oscillating devices, high frequency chest compression devices, conventional chest physiotherapy, and positive expiratory pressure. Preference of technique varied: more participants preferred autogenic drainage over the active cycle of breathing technique; more preferred the active cycle of breathing technique over airway oscillating devices; and more were comfortable with the active cycle of breathing technique versus high frequency chest compression. No significant difference was seen in quality of life, sputum weight, exercise tolerance, lung function, or oxygen saturation between the active cycle of breathing technique and autogenic drainage or between the active cycle of breathing technique and airway oscillating devices. There was no significant difference in lung function and the number of pulmonary exacerbations between the active cycle of breathing technique alone or in conjunction with conventional chest physiotherapy. All other outcomes were either not measured or had insufficient data for analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support or reject the use of the active cycle of breathing technique over any other airway clearance therapy. Five studies, with data from eight different comparators, found that the active cycle of breathing technique was comparable with other therapies in outcomes such as participant preference, quality of life, exercise tolerance, lung function, sputum weight, oxygen saturation, and number of pulmonary exacerbations. Longer-term studies are needed to more adequately assess the effects of the active cycle of breathing technique on outcomes important for people with cystic fibrosis such as quality of life and preference.

Negative pressure wound therapy technologies for chronic wound care in the home setting: A systematic review.

The use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is increasing in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. We conducted a systematic review on the efficacy and safety of NPWT for the treatment of chronic wounds in the home setting. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, up to June 2014. Two independent reviewers screened search results. Seven studies met our criteria for inclusion. Six of the studies compared NPWT devices to other wound care methods and one study compared two different NPWT technologies. Data were limited by variability in the types of comparator groups, methodological limitations, and poor reporting of outcomes. We were unable to draw conclusions about the efficacy or safety of NPWT for the treatment of chronic wounds in the home setting due to the insufficient evidence. Consensus is needed on the methods of conducting and reporting wound care research so that future studies are able inform decisions about the use of NPWT in the home environment for chronic wounds.

Prognostic value of cardiac troponin in patients with chronic kidney disease without suspected acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians face uncertainty about the prognostic value of troponin testing in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) without suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS). PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature on troponin testing in patients with CKD without ACS. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through May 2014. STUDY SELECTION: Studies examining elevated versus normal troponin levels in patients with CKD without ACS. DATA EXTRACTION: Paired reviewers selected articles for inclusion, extracted data, and graded strength of evidence (SOE). Meta-analyses were conducted when studies had sufficient homogeneity of key variables. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ninety-eight studies met inclusion criteria. Elevated troponin levels were associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality among patients receiving dialysis (moderate SOE). Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for all-cause mortality from studies that adjusted for age and coronary artery disease or a risk equivalent were 3.0 (95% CI, 2.4 to 4.3) for troponin T and 2.7 (CI, 1.9 to 4.6) for troponin I. The pooled adjusted HRs for cardiovascular mortality were 3.3 (CI, 1.8 to 5.4) for troponin T and 4.2 (CI, 2.0 to 9.2) for troponin I. Findings were similar for patients with CKD who were not receiving dialysis, but there were fewer studies. No study tested treatment strategies by troponin cut points. LIMITATION: Studies were heterogeneous regarding assays, troponin cut points, covariate adjustment, and follow-up. CONCLUSION: In patients with CKD without suspected ACS, elevated troponin levels were associated with worse prognosis. Future studies should focus on whether this biomarker is more appropriate than clinical models for reclassifying risk of patients with CKD and whether such classification can help guide treatment in those at highest risk for death. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Role of troponin in patients with chronic kidney disease and suspected acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have high prevalence of elevated serum troponin levels, which makes diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) challenging. PURPOSE: To evaluate the utility of troponin in ACS diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis among patients with CKD. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through May 2014. STUDY SELECTION: Studies examining elevated versus normal troponin levels in terms of their diagnostic performance in detection of ACS, effect on ACS management strategies, and prognostic value for mortality or cardiovascular events after ACS among patients with CKD. DATA EXTRACTION: Paired reviewers selected articles for inclusion, extracted data, and graded strength of evidence (SOE). DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-three studies met inclusion criteria. The sensitivity of troponin T for ACS diagnosis ranged from 71% to 100%, and specificity ranged from 31% to 86% (6 studies; low SOE). The sensitivity and specificity of troponin I ranged from 43% to 94% and from 48% to 100%, respectively (8 studies; low SOE). No studies examined how troponin levels affect management strategies. Twelve studies analyzed prognostic value. Elevated levels of troponin I or troponin T were associated with higher risk for short-term death and cardiac events (low SOE). A similar trend was observed for long-term mortality with troponin I (low SOE), but less evidence was found for long-term cardiac events for troponin I and long-term outcomes for troponin T (insufficient SOE). Patients with advanced CKD tended to have worse prognoses with elevated troponin I levels than those without them (moderate SOE). LIMITATION: Studies were heterogeneous in design and in ACS definitions and adjudication methods. CONCLUSION: In patients with CKD and suspected ACS, troponin levels can aid in identifying those with a poor prognosis, but the diagnostic utility is limited by varying estimates of sensitivity and specificity. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Comparative effectiveness of advanced wound dressings for patients with chronic venous leg ulcers: a systematic review.

The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature on the benefits and harms of advanced wound dressings on wound healing, mortality, quality of life, pain, condition of the wound bed, and adverse events for patients with chronic venous leg ulcers as compared with treatment with compression alone. We searched for primary studies in the databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature(®) from January 1980 through July 2012. Each study title, abstract, and full article was evaluated by two independent reviewers. Thirty-seven studies met our specific search criteria, although most evidence was of low or insufficient quality. Cellular dressings, collagen, and some antimicrobial dressings may improve healing rates of chronic venous leg ulcers vs. compression alone or other dressings. Limited data were available on other outcomes. The poor quality of the literature limits conclusions and necessitates future, well-conducted studies to evaluate the effectiveness of advanced wound dressings on chronic venous ulcers.

Evaluation of guideline recommendations on oral medications for type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines have an important role in guiding choices among the numerous medications available to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus, but little is known about their quality. PURPOSE: To assess whether guidelines on oral medications for type 2 diabetes are consistent with a systematic review of the current evidence and whether the consistency of the guidelines depends on the quality of guideline development. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, and guideline-specific databases were searched between July 2007 and August 2011, after the 2007 publication of a peer-reviewed systematic review on oral diabetes medications. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently screened citations to identify English-language guidelines on oral medications to treat type 2 diabetes that were applied in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers assessed whether the guidelines addressed and agreed with 7 evidence-based conclusions from the 2007 systematic review. Two reviewers independently rated guideline quality by using 2 domains from the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation instrument. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of the 1000 screened citations, 11 guidelines met the inclusion criteria. Seven guidelines agreed with the conclusion that metformin is favored as the first-line agent. Ten guidelines agreed that thiazolidinediones are associated with higher rates of edema and congestive heart failure compared with other oral medications to treat type 2 diabetes. One guideline addressed no evidence-based conclusions, and 5 guidelines agreed with all 7 conclusions. The summary scores of the rigor of development (median, 28.6% [range, 16.7% to 100.0%]) and editorial independence (median, 75.0% [range, 8.3% to 100.0%]) domains varied greatly across guidelines. Guidelines that received higher quality scores contained more recommendations that were consistent with the evidence-based conclusions. LIMITATION: Only English-language guidelines targeting users in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada that contained recommendations on oral medications were included. CONCLUSION: Not all practice guidelines on oral treatment of type 2 diabetes were consistent with available evidence from a systematic review. Guidelines judged to be of higher quality contained more recommendations consistent with evidence-based conclusions. The quality of guideline development processes varied substantially. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of methods of insulin delivery and glucose monitoring for diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with diabetes mellitus need information about the effectiveness of innovations in insulin delivery and glucose monitoring. PURPOSE: To review how intensive insulin therapy (multiple daily injections [MDI] vs. rapid-acting analogue-based continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII]) or method of monitoring (self-monitoring of blood glucose [SMBG] vs. real-time continuous glucose monitoring [rt-CGM]) affects outcomes in types 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through February 2012 without language restrictions. STUDY SELECTION: 33 randomized, controlled trials in children or adults that compared CSII with MDI (n=19), rt-CGM with SMBG (n=10), or sensor-augmented insulin pump use with MDI and SMBG (n=4). DATA EXTRACTION: 2 reviewers independently evaluated studies for eligibility and quality and serially abstracted data. DATA SYNTHESIS: In randomized, controlled trials, MDI and CSII showed similar effects on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels and severe hypoglycemia in children or adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus and adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. In adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus, HbA1c levels decreased more with CSII than with MDI, but 1 study heavily influenced these results. Compared with SMBG, rt-CGM achieved a lower HbA1c level (between-group difference of change, 0.26% [95% CI, 0.33% to 0.19%]) without any difference in severe hypoglycemia. Sensor-augmented insulin pump use decreased HbA1c levels more than MDI and SMBG did in persons with type 1 diabetes mellitus (between-group difference of change, 0.68% [CI, 0.81% to 0.54%]). Little evidence was available on other outcomes. LIMITATION: Many studies were small, of short duration, and limited to white persons with type 1 diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSION: Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and MDI have similar effects on glycemic control and hypoglycemia, except CSII has a favorable effect on glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus. For glycemic control, rt-CGM is superior to SMBG and sensor-augmented insulin pumps are superior to MDI and SMBG without increasing the risk for hypoglycemia. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

A review of infectious disease epidemiology in emergency medical service clinicians.

BACKGROUND: The emergency medical service (EMS) workforce is at high risk of occupationally-acquired infections. This review synthesized existing literature on the prevalence, incidence, and severity of infections in the EMS workforce. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and SCOPUS from January 1, 2006 to March 15, 2022 for studies in the US that involved EMS clinician or firefighter populations and reported 1 or more health outcomes related to occupationally-acquired infections. RESULTS: Of the 25 studies that met the inclusion criteria, most focused on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, with prevalence rates ranging from 1.1% to 36.2% (median 6.7%). The prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in 4 studies ranged from 1.9% to 6.4%, and the prevalence of Hepatitis C in 1 study was 1.3%. Few studies reported incidence rates. The prevalence or incidence of these infections generally did not differ by age or gender, but 4 studies reported differences by race or ethnicity. In the 4 studies that compared infection rates between EMS clinicians and firefighters, EMS clinicians had a higher chance of hospitalization or death from SAR-CoV-2 (odds ratio 4.23), a higher prevalence of Hepatitis C in another study (odds ratio 1.74), and no significant difference in MRSA colonization in a separate study. CONCLUSIONS: More research is needed to better characterize the incidence and severity of occupationally-acquired infections in the EMS workforce.

Current Evidence for Infection Prevention and Control Interventions in Emergency Medical Services: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to summarize current evidence from the United States on the effectiveness of practices and interventions for preventing, recognizing, and controlling occupationally acquired infectious diseases in Emergency Medical Service (EMS) clinicians. REPORT AND METHODS: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and SCOPUS were searched from January 1, 2006 through March 15, 2022 for studies in the United States that involved EMS clinicians and firefighters, reported on one or more workplace practices or interventions that prevented or controlled infectious diseases, and included outcome measures. Eleven (11) observational studies reported on infection prevention and control (IPC) practices providing evidence that hand hygiene, standard precautions, mandatory vaccine policies, and on-site vaccine clinics are effective. Less frequent handwashing (survey-weight adjusted odds ratio [OR] 4.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 17.27) and less frequent hand hygiene after glove use (survey-weight adjusted OR 10.51; 95% CI, 2.54 to 43.45) were positively correlated with nasal colonization of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) or PPE breach were correlated with higher severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) seropositivity (unadjusted risk ratio [RR] 4.2; 95% CI, 1.03 to 17.22). Workers were more likely to be vaccinated against influenza if their employer offered the vaccine (unadjusted OR 3.3; 95% CI, 1.3 to 8.3). Active, targeted education modules for H1N1 influenza were effective at increasing vaccination rates and the success of on-site vaccine clinics. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from the United States exists on the effectiveness of IPC practices in EMS clinicians, including hand hygiene, standard precautions, mandatory vaccine policies, and vaccine clinics. More research is needed on the effectiveness of PPE and vaccine acceptance.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of medications for type 2 diabetes: an update including new drugs and 2-drug combinations.

BACKGROUND: Given the increase in medications for type 2 diabetes mellitus, clinicians and patients need information about their effectiveness and safety to make informed choices. PURPOSE: To summarize the benefits and harms of metformin, second-generation sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, meglitinides, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, as monotherapy and in combination, to treat adults with type 2 diabetes. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception through April 2010 for English-language observational studies and trials. The MEDLINE search was updated to December 2010 for long-term clinical outcomes. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently screened reports and identified 140 trials and 26 observational studies of head-to-head comparisons of monotherapy or combination therapy that reported intermediate or long-term clinical outcomes or harms. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers following standardized protocols serially extracted data, assessed applicability, and independently evaluated study quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Evidence on long-term clinical outcomes (all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, nephropathy, and neuropathy) was of low strength or insufficient. Most medications decreased the hemoglobin A(1c) level by about 1 percentage point and most 2-drug combinations produced similar reductions. Metformin was more efficacious than the DPP-4 inhibitors, and compared with thiazolidinediones or sulfonylureas, the mean differences in body weight were about -2.5 kg. Metformin decreased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels compared with pioglitazone, sulfonylureas, and DPP-4 inhibitors. Sulfonylureas had a 4-fold higher risk for mild or moderate hypoglycemia than metformin alone and, in combination with metformin, had more than a 5-fold increased risk compared with metformin plus thiazolidinediones. Thiazolidinediones increased risk for congestive heart failure compared with sulfonylureas and increased risk for bone fractures compared with metformin. Diarrhea occurred more often with metformin than with thiazolidinediones. LIMITATIONS: Only English-language publications were reviewed. Some studies may have selectively reported outcomes. Many studies were small, were of short duration, and had limited ability to assess clinically important harms and benefits. CONCLUSION: Evidence supports metformin as a first-line agent to treat type 2 diabetes. Most 2-drug combinations similarly reduce hemoglobin A(1c) levels, but some increased risk for hypoglycemia and other adverse events. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.