A core outcome set for trials evaluating self-management interventions in people with severe mental illness and coexisting type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: People with severe mental illness (SMI), such as schizophrenia, have higher rates of type 2 diabetes and worse outcomes, compared to those without SMI and it is not known whether diabetes self-management interventions are effective for people who have both conditions. Research in this area has been impeded by a lack of consensus on which outcomes to prioritise in people with co-existing SMI and diabetes. AIMS: To develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in effectiveness trials of diabetes self-management interventions in adults with both type 2 diabetes and SMI. METHODS: The COS was developed in three stages: (i) identification of outcomes from systematic literature review of intervention studies, followed by multi-stakeholder and service user workshops; (ii) rating of outcomes in a two-round online Delphi survey; (iii) agreement of final 'core' outcomes through a stakeholder consensus workshop. RESULTS: Seven outcomes were selected: glucose control, blood pressure, body composition (body weight, BMI, body fat), health-related quality of life, diabetes self-management, diabetes-related distress and medication adherence. CONCLUSIONS: This COS is recommended for future trials of effectiveness of diabetes self-management interventions for people with SMI and type 2 diabetes. Its use will ensure trials capture important outcomes and reduce heterogeneity so findings can be readily synthesised to inform practice and policy.

Development of a Supported Self-management Intervention for People With Severe Mental Illness and Type 2 Diabetes: Theory and Evidence-Based Co-design Approach.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes is 2 to 3 times more common among people with severe mental illness (SMI). Self-management is crucial, with additional challenges faced by people with SMI. Therefore, it is essential that any diabetes self-management program for people with SMI addresses the unique needs of people living with both conditions and the inequalities they experience within health care services. OBJECTIVE: We combined theory, empirical evidence, and co-design approaches to develop a type 2 diabetes self-management intervention for people with SMI. METHODS: The development process encompassed 4 steps: step 1 involved prioritizing the mechanisms of action (MoAs) and behavior change techniques (BCTs) for the intervention. Using findings from primary qualitative research and systematic reviews, we selected candidate MoAs to target in the intervention and candidate BCTs to use. Expert stakeholders then ranked these MoAs and BCTs using a 2-phase survey. The average scores were used to generate a prioritized list of MoAs and BCTs. During step 2, we presented the survey results to an expert consensus workshop to seek expert agreement with the definitive list of MoAs and BCTs for the intervention and identify potential modes of delivery. Step 3 involved the development of trigger films using the evidence from steps 1 and 2. We used animations to present the experiences of people with SMI managing diabetes. These films were used in step 4, where we used a stakeholder co-design approach. This involved a series of structured workshops, where the co-design activities were informed by theory and evidence. RESULTS: Upon the completion of the 4-step process, we developed the DIAMONDS (diabetes and mental illness, improving outcomes and self-management) intervention. It is a tailored self-management intervention based on the synthesis of the outputs from the co-design process. The intervention incorporates a digital app, a paper-based workbook, and one-to-one coaching designed to meet the needs of people with SMI and coexisting type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention development work was underpinned by the MoA theoretical framework and incorporated systematic reviews, primary qualitative research, expert stakeholder surveys, and evidence generated during co-design workshops. The intervention will now be tested for feasibility before undergoing a definitive evaluation in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

Acceptability and feasibility of continuous glucose monitoring in people with diabetes: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence.

BACKGROUND: Good glycaemic control is a crucial part of diabetes management. Traditional assessment methods, including HbA1c checks and self-monitoring of blood glucose, can be unreliable and inaccurate. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) offers a non-invasive and more detailed alternative. Availability of this technology is increasing worldwide. However, there is no current comprehensive evidence on the acceptability and feasibility of these devices. This is a protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence about acceptability and feasibility of CGM in people with diabetes. METHODS: We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL for qualitative and quantitative evidence about the feasibility and acceptability of CGM in all populations with diabetes (any type) using search terms for "continuous glucose monitoring" and "diabetes". We will not apply any study-type filters. Searches will be restricted to studies conducted in humans and those published from 2011 onwards. We will not restrict the search by language. Study selection and data extraction will be carried out by two reviewers independently using Rayyan and Eppi-Reviewer, respectively, with disagreements resolved by discussion. Data extraction will include key information about each study, as well as qualitative evidence in the form of participant quotes from primary studies and themes and subthemes based on the authors' analysis. Quantitative data relating to acceptability and feasibility including data loss, adherence, and quantitative ratings of acceptability will be extracted as means and standard deviations or n/N as appropriate. Qualitative evidence will be analysed using framework analysis informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Where possible, quantitative evidence will be combined using random-effects meta-analysis; otherwise, a narrative synthesis will be performed. The most appropriate method for integrating qualitative and quantitative findings will be selected based on the data available. DISCUSSION: Ongoing assessment of the acceptability of interventions has been identified as crucially important to scale-up and implementation. This review will provide new knowledge with the potential to inform a programme theory of CGM as well as future roll-out to potentially vulnerable populations, including those with severe mental illness. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021255141.

Exploring the facilitators, barriers, and strategies for self-management in adults living with severe mental illness, with and without long-term conditions: A qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: People living with severe mental illness (SMI) have a reduced life expectancy by around 15-20 years, in part due to higher rates of long-term conditions (LTCs) such as diabetes and heart disease. Evidence suggests that people with SMI experience difficulties managing their physical health. Little is known, however, about the barriers, facilitators and strategies for self-management of LTCs for people with SMI. AIM: To systematically review and synthesise the qualitative evidence exploring facilitators, barriers and strategies for self-management of physical health in adults with SMI, both with and without long-term conditions. METHODS: CINAHL, Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science, HMIC, Medline, NICE Evidence and PsycInfo were searched to identify qualitative studies that explored barriers, facilitators and strategies for self-management in adults with SMI (with or without co-morbid LTCs). Articles were screened independently by two independent reviewers. Eligible studies were purposively sampled for synthesis according to the richness and relevance of data, and thematically synthesised. RESULTS: Seventy-four articles met the inclusion criteria for the review; 25 articles, reporting findings from 21 studies, were included in the synthesis. Seven studies focused on co-morbid LTC self-management for people with SMI, with the remaining articles exploring self-management in general. Six analytic themes and 28 sub-themes were identified from the synthesis. The themes included: the burden of SMI; living with co-morbidities; beliefs and attitudes about self-management; support from others for self-management; social and environmental factors; and routine, structure and planning. CONCLUSIONS: The synthesis identified a range of barriers and facilitators to self-management, including the burden of living with SMI, social support, attitudes towards self-management and access to resources. To adequately support people with SMI with co-morbid LTCs, healthcare professionals need to account for how barriers and facilitators to self-management are influenced by SMI, and meet the unique needs of this population.

Determinants of Physical Health Self-Management Behaviours in Adults With Serious Mental Illness: A Systematic Review.

Behavioural interventions can support the adoption of healthier lifestyles and improve physical health outcomes, but it is unclear what factors might drive success of such interventions in people with serious mental illness (SMI). We systematically identified and reviewed evidence of the association between determinants of physical health self-management behaviours in adults with SMI. Data about American Association of Diabetes Educator's Self-Care Behaviours (AADE-7) were mapped against the novel Mechanisms of Action (MoA) framework. Twenty-eight studies were included in the review, reporting evidence on 104 determinant-behaviour links. Beliefs about capabilities and beliefs about consequences were the most important determinants of behaviour, especially for being physically active and healthy eating. There was some evidence that emotion and environmental context and resources played a role in determining reducing risks, being active, and taking medications. We found very limited evidence associated with problem solving, and no study assessed links between MoAs and healthy coping. Although the review predominantly identified evidence about associations from cross-sectional studies that lacked validated and objective measures of self-management behaviours, these findings can facilitate the identification of behaviour change techniques with hypothesised links to determinants to support self-management in people with SMI. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, registration CRD42018099553.

Psychological and pharmacological interventions for posttraumatic stress disorder and comorbid mental health problems following complex traumatic events: Systematic review and component network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Complex traumatic events associated with armed conflict, forcible displacement, childhood sexual abuse, and domestic violence are increasingly prevalent. People exposed to complex traumatic events are at risk of not only posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) but also other mental health comorbidities. Whereas evidence-based psychological and pharmacological treatments are effective for single-event PTSD, it is not known if people who have experienced complex traumatic events can benefit and tolerate these commonly available treatments. Furthermore, it is not known which components of psychological interventions are most effective for managing PTSD in this population. We performed a systematic review and component network meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of psychological and pharmacological interventions for managing mental health problems in people exposed to complex traumatic events. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, MEDLINE, Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress, PsycINFO, and Science Citation Index for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs of psychological and pharmacological treatments for PTSD symptoms in people exposed to complex traumatic events, published up to 25 October 2019. We adopted a nondiagnostic approach and included studies of adults who have experienced complex trauma. Complex-trauma subgroups included veterans; childhood sexual abuse; war-affected; refugees; and domestic violence. The primary outcome was reduction in PTSD symptoms. Secondary outcomes were depressive and anxiety symptoms, quality of life, sleep quality, and positive and negative affect. We included 116 studies, of which 50 were conducted in hospital settings, 24 were delivered in community settings, seven were delivered in military clinics for veterans or active military personnel, five were conducted in refugee camps, four used remote delivery via web-based or telephone platforms, four were conducted in specialist trauma clinics, two were delivered in home settings, and two were delivered in primary care clinics; clinical setting was not reported in 17 studies. Ninety-four RCTs, for a total of 6,158 participants, were included in meta-analyses across the primary and secondary outcomes; 18 RCTs for a total of 933 participants were included in the component network meta-analysis. The mean age of participants in the included RCTs was 42.6 ± 9.3 years, and 42% were male. Nine non-RCTs were included. The mean age of participants in the non-RCTs was 40.6 ± 9.4 years, and 47% were male. The average length of follow-up across all included studies at posttreatment for the primary outcome was 11.5 weeks. The pairwise meta-analysis showed that psychological interventions reduce PTSD symptoms more than inactive control (k = 46; n = 3,389; standardised mean difference [SMD] = -0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.02 to -0.63) and active control (k-9; n = 662; SMD = -0.35, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.14) at posttreatment and also compared with inactive control at 6-month follow-up (k = 10; n = 738; SMD = -0.45, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.08). Psychological interventions reduced depressive symptoms (k = 31; n = 2,075; SMD = -0.87, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.63; I2 = 82.7%, p = 0.000) and anxiety (k = 15; n = 1,395; SMD = -1.03, 95% CI -1.44 to -0.61; p = 0.000) at posttreatment compared with inactive control. Sleep quality was significantly improved at posttreatment by psychological interventions compared with inactive control (k = 3; n = 111; SMD = -1.00, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.51; p = 0.245). There were no significant differences between psychological interventions and inactive control group at posttreatment for quality of life (k = 6; n = 401; SMD = 0.33, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.66; p = 0.021). Antipsychotic medicine (k = 5; n = 364; SMD = -0.45; -0.85 to -0.05; p = 0.085) and prazosin (k = 3; n = 110; SMD = -0.52; -1.03 to -0.02; p = 0.182) were effective in reducing PTSD symptoms. Phase-based psychological interventions that included skills-based strategies along with trauma-focused strategies were the most promising interventions for emotional dysregulation and interpersonal problems. Compared with pharmacological interventions, we observed that psychological interventions were associated with greater reductions in PTSD and depression symptoms and improved sleep quality. Sensitivity analysis showed that psychological interventions were acceptable with lower dropout, even in studies rated at low risk of attrition bias. Trauma-focused psychological interventions were superior to non-trauma-focused interventions across trauma subgroups for PTSD symptoms, but effects among veterans and war-affected populations were significantly reduced. The network meta-analysis showed that multicomponent interventions that included cognitive restructuring and imaginal exposure were the most effective for reducing PTSD symptoms (k = 17; n = 1,077; mean difference = -37.95, 95% CI -60.84 to -15.16). Our use of a non-diagnostic inclusion strategy may have overlooked certain complex-trauma populations with severe and enduring mental health comorbidities. Additionally, the relative contribution of skills-based intervention components was not feasibly evaluated in the network meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we observed that trauma-focused psychological interventions are effective for managing mental health problems and comorbidities in people exposed to complex trauma. Multicomponent interventions, which can include phase-based approaches, were the most effective treatment package for managing PTSD in complex trauma. Establishing optimal ways to deliver multicomponent psychological interventions for people exposed to complex traumatic events is a research and clinical priority.

From the sticky floor to the glass ceiling and everything in between: protocol for a systematic review of barriers and facilitators to clinical academic careers and interventions to address these, with a focus on gender inequality.

BACKGROUND: Gender inequality within academic medicine and dentistry is a well-recognised issue, but one which is not completely understood in terms of its causes, or interventions to facilitate equality. This systematic review aims to identify, critically appraise, and synthesise the literature on facilitators and barriers to progression through a clinical academic career across medicine and dentistry. It will also explore interventions developed to increase recruitment and retention to clinical academic careers, with a particular focus on gender inequality. METHODS: The search will cover five databases (MEDLINE (including MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, and MEDLINE Daily), Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, and Education Resource Information Center (ERIC)), reference lists, and forward citation searching. We will include studies of doctors, dentists, and/or those with a supervisory role over their careers, with or without an academic career. Outcomes will be study defined, but relate to success rates of joining or continuing within a clinical academic career, including but not limited to success in gaining funding support, proportion of time spent in academic work, and numbers of awards/higher education qualifications, as well as experiences of professionals within the clinical academic pathway. Study quality will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised controlled trials, the Newcastle-Ottawa tool for non-randomised studies, and the QARI tool for qualitative studies. Detailed plans for screening, data extraction, and analysis are provided within this protocol. DISCUSSION: This systematic review is situated within a larger project evaluating gender inequalities in clinical academic careers. This review will identify and synthetize barriers, facilitators, and interventions addressing gender inequalities in clinical academia. Our findings will increase awareness of inequalities in clinical academic careers through informing clinical academics, regulators and funders of the issues involved, and potential interventions to counteract these. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/mfy7a.

Multi-nutrient fortification of human milk for preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Exclusively breast milk-fed preterm infants may accumulate nutrient deficits leading to extrauterine growth restriction. Feeding preterm infants with multi-nutrient fortified human breast milk rather than unfortified breast milk may increase nutrient accretion and growth rates and may improve neurodevelopmental outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether multi-nutrient fortified human breast milk improves important outcomes (including growth and development) over unfortified breast milk for preterm infants without increasing the risk of adverse effects (such as feed intolerance and necrotising enterocolitis). SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (until February 2016), as well as conference proceedings and previous reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared feeding preterm infants with multi-nutrient (protein and energy plus minerals, vitamins or other nutrients) fortified human breast milk versus unfortified (no added protein or energy) breast milk. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. We separately evaluated trial quality, data extracted by two review authors and data synthesised using risk ratios (RRs), risk differences and mean differences (MDs). We assessed the quality of evidence at the outcome level using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 trials in which a total of 1071 infants participated. The trials were generally small and weak methodologically. Meta-analyses provided low-quality evidence that multi-nutrient fortification of breast milk increases in-hospital rates of growth (MD 1.81 g/kg/d, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 2.40); length (MD 0.12 cm/wk, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.17); and head circumference (MD 0.08 cm/wk, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.12). Only very limited data are available for growth and developmental outcomes assessed beyond infancy, and these show no effects of fortification. The data did not indicate other potential benefits or harms and provided low-quality evidence that fortification does not increase the risk of necrotising enterocolitis in preterm infants (typical RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.76 to 3.23; 11 studies, 882 infants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Limited available data do not provide strong evidence that feeding preterm infants with multi-nutrient fortified breast milk compared with unfortified breast milk affects important outcomes, except that it leads to slightly increased in-hospital growth rates.

Glutamine supplementation to prevent morbidity and mortality in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Glutamine is a conditionally essential amino acid. Endogenous biosynthesis may be insufficient for tissue needs in states of metabolic stress. Evidence exists that glutamine supplementation improves clinical outcomes in critically ill adults. It has been suggested that glutamine supplementation may also benefit preterm infants. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of glutamine supplementation on mortality and morbidity in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Maternity and Infant Care (to December 2015), conference proceedings and previous reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared glutamine supplementation versus no glutamine supplementation in preterm infants at any time from birth to discharge from hospital. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by two review authors. We synthesised data using a fixed-effect model and reported typical relative risk, typical risk difference and weighted mean difference. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 12 randomised controlled trials in which a total of 2877 preterm infants participated. Six trials assessed enteral glutamine supplementation and six trials assessed parenteral glutamine supplementation. The trials were generally of good methodological quality. Meta-analysis did not find an effect of glutamine supplementation on mortality (typical relative risk 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.17; risk difference 0.00, 95% confidence interval -0.03 to 0.02) or major neonatal morbidities including the incidence of invasive infection or necrotising enterocolitis. Three trials that assessed neurodevelopmental outcomes in children aged 18 to 24 months and beyond did not find any effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available trial data do not provide evidence that glutamine supplementation confers important benefits for preterm infants.

Glutamine supplementation to prevent morbidity and mortality in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Glutamine is a conditionally essential amino acid. Endogenous biosynthesis may be insufficient for tissue needs in states of metabolic stress. Evidence exists that glutamine supplementation improves clinical outcomes in critically ill adults. It has been suggested that glutamine supplementation may also benefit preterm infants. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of glutamine supplementation on mortality and morbidity in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Maternity and Infant Care (to December 2015), conference proceedings and previous reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared glutamine supplementation versus no glutamine supplementation in preterm infants at any time from birth to discharge from hospital. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by two review authors. We synthesised data using a fixed-effect model and reported typical relative risk, typical risk difference and weighted mean difference. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 12 randomised controlled trials in which a total of 2877 preterm infants participated. Six trials assessed enteral glutamine supplementation and six trials assessed parenteral glutamine supplementation. The trials were generally of good methodological quality. Meta-analysis did not find an effect of glutamine supplementation on mortality (typical relative risk 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.17; risk difference 0.00, 95% confidence interval -0.03 to 0.02) or major neonatal morbidities including the incidence of invasive infection or necrotising enterocolitis. Three trials that assessed neurodevelopmental outcomes in children aged 18 to 24 months and beyond did not find any effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available trial data do not provide evidence that glutamine supplementation confers important benefits for preterm infants.

Glutamine supplementation for young infants with severe gastrointestinal disease.

BACKGROUND: Endogenous glutamine biosynthesis may be insufficient to meet the needs of people with severe gastrointestinal disease. Results from studies using experimental animal models of gastrointestinal disease have suggested that glutamine supplementation improves clinical outcomes. This review examines evidence on the effect of glutamine supplementation in young infants with severe gastrointestinal disease. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of supplemental glutamine on mortality and morbidity in young infants with severe gastrointestinal disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searcheed the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (from inception to September 2014), conference proceedings, and reference lists from previous reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared glutamine supplementation versus no glutamine supplementation in infants up to three months old (corrected for preterm birth if necessary) with severe gastrointestinal disease defined as a congenital or acquired gastrointestinal condition that is likely to necessitate providing parenteral nutrition for at least 24 hours. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and undertook data extraction independently. We analysed the treatment effects in the individual trials and reported the risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data and mean difference for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored the potential causes of heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We found three trials in which a total of 274 infants participated. The trials were of good methodological quality but were too small to detect clinically important effects of glutamine supplementation. Meta-analyses did not reveal a statistically significant difference in the risk of death before hospital discharge (typical RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.20; typical RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.03) or in the rate of invasive infection (typical RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.11; typical RD 0.08, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.18]). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available data from randomised controlled trials do not suggest that glutamine supplementation has any important benefits for young infants with severe gastrointestinal disease.

Safety and effectiveness of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 for spinal fusion: a meta-analysis of individual-participant data.

BACKGROUND: Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) is widely used to promote fusion in spinal surgery, but its safety has been questioned. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of rhBMP-2. DATA SOURCES: Individual-participant data obtained from the sponsor or investigators and data extracted from study publications identified by systematic bibliographic searches through June 2012. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials of rhBMP-2 versus iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) in spinal fusion surgery for degenerative disc disease and related conditions and observational studies in similar populations for investigation of adverse events. DATA EXTRACTION: Individual-participant data from 11 eligible of 17 provided trials sponsored by Medtronic (Minneapolis, Minnesota) (n = 1302) and 1 of 2 other eligible trials (n = 106) were included. Additional aggregate adverse event data were extracted from 35 published observational studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Primary outcomes were pain (assessed with the Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] or Short Form-36), fusion, and adverse events. At 24 months, ODI scores were 3.5% lower (better) with rhBMP-2 than with ICBG (95% CI, 0.5% to 6.5%) and radiographic fusion was 12% higher (CI, 2% to 23%). At or shortly after surgery, pain was more common with rhBMP-2 (odds ratio, 1.78 [CI, 1.06 to 2.95]). Cancer was more common after rhBMP-2 (relative risk, 1.98 [CI, 0.86 to 4.54]), but the small number of events precluded definite conclusions. LIMITATION: The observational studies were diverse and at risk of bias. CONCLUSION: At 24 months, rhBMP-2 increases fusion rates, reduces pain by a clinically insignificant amount, and increases early postsurgical pain compared with ICBG. Evidence of increased cancer incidence is inconclusive. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Yale University Open Data Access Project.

Reporting of industry funded study outcome data: comparison of confidential and published data on the safety and effectiveness of rhBMP-2 for spinal fusion.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether published results of industry funded trials of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2 (rhBMP-2) in spinal fusion match underlying trial data by comparing three different data sources: individual participant data, internal industry reports, and publicly available journal publications and conference abstracts. DATA COLLECTION AND SYNTHESIS: The manufacturer of rhBMP-2 products (Medtronic; Minneapolis, MN) provided complete individual participant data and internal reports for all its studies of rhMBP-2 in spinal fusion. We identified publications and conference abstracts through comprehensive literature searches. We compared outcomes provided in the individual participant data against outcomes reported in publications. For effectiveness outcomes, we compared meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials based on each of the three data sources. For adverse events, meta-analysis of the published aggregate data was not possible and we compared the number and type of adverse events reported between data sources. RESULTS: 32 publications reported outcomes from 11 of the 17 existing manufacturer sponsored studies. For individual randomised controlled trials, 56% (9/16) to 88% (15/17) of effectiveness outcomes known to have been collected were reported in the published literature. Meta-analyses of effectiveness data were almost identical for pain outcomes and similar for fusion across the three data sources. A minority of adverse event data known to have been collected were reported in the published literature. Several journal articles reported only "serious," "related," or "unanticipated" adverse events, without defining these terms. Others reported a small proportion of the collected adverse event categories. Around 23% (533/2302) of the total adverse events collected in published randomised controlled trials have been reported in the literature, with randomised controlled trials evaluating the licensed preparation (Infuse) reporting around 11% (122/1108) of collected adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The published literature only partially represents the total data known to have been collected on the effects of rhBMP-2. This did not lead to substantially different results for meta-analysis of effectiveness outcomes. In contrast, reporting of adverse event data in trial publications was inadequate and inconsistent to the extent that any systematic review based solely on the publicly available data would not be able to properly evaluate the safety of rhBMP-2. Analysis of individual participant data enabled the most complete, detailed, and in-depth analysis and was not more resource intensive than extracting, collating, and analysing aggregate data from multiple trial publications and conference abstracts. Confidential internal reports presented considerably more adverse event data than publications, and in the absence of individual participant data access to these reports would support more accurate and reliable investigation, with less time and effort than relying on incomplete published data.

Naloxone for opiate-exposed newborn infants.

BACKGROUND: Naloxone, a specific opiate antagonist, is available for the treatment of newborn infants with cardiorespiratory or neurological depression that may be due to intrauterine exposure to opiate. It is unclear whether newborn infants may benefit from this therapy and whether naloxone has any harmful effects. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of naloxone as a treatment for newborn infants who have been exposed in utero to opiate. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases in June 2012 for new studies published since the previous search in 2007: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 6), MEDLINE (OvidSP), MEDLINE In process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCO), Maternity and Infant Care (OvidSP) and PubMed. We searched for ongoing and completed trials in Clinical Trials.gov, metaRegister of Controlled Trials, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the EU Clinical Trials Register. We checked the reference lists of relevant articles to identify further potentially relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing the administration of naloxone versus placebo, or no drug, or another dose of naloxone to newborn infants with suspected or confirmed in utero exposure to opiate. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by two review authors and synthesis of data using risk ratio, risk difference and weighted mean difference. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine trials that compared the effects of naloxone versus placebo or no drug in newborn infants exposed to maternal opiate analgesia prior to delivery. None of these trials specifically recruited infants with cardiorespiratory or neurological depression. The main outcomes reported were measures of respiratory function in the first six hours of life. There is some evidence that naloxone increases alveolar ventilation. The trials did not assess the effect on the primary outcomes of this review (admission to a neonatal unit and failure to establish breastfeeding). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The existing evidence from randomised controlled trials is insufficient to determine whether naloxone confers any important benefits to newborn infants with cardiorespiratory or neurological depression that may be due to intrauterine exposure to opiate. Given concerns about the safety of naloxone in this context it may be appropriate to limit its use to randomised controlled trials that aim resolve these uncertainties.

Lower versus higher oxygen concentration for delivery room stabilisation of preterm neonates: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence suggests that initiating delivery room respiratory support or resuscitation for term infants using lower rather than higher concentrations of oxygen reduces mortality and the risk of serious morbidity. Uncertainty exists with regard to applicability of this strategy for preterm infants who have different underlying reasons for respiratory distress and risks for harm at birth than term infants. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to determine the effect on mortality and morbidity of using lower (21- 50%) versus higher (>50%) oxygen concentrations for delivery room transition support of preterm infants. RESULTS: We identified six randomised controlled trials in which a total of 484 infants participated. Most participants were preterm infants born before 32 weeks' gestation. One trial was quasi-randomised and in one trial allocation concealment was not described. Clinicians and investigators were aware of the interventions in all but one trial. Meta-analyses found a statistically significant reduction in the risk of death pooled risk ratio 0.65 (95% confidence interval 0.43, 0.98), but this effect disappeared when only the four trials with adequate allocation concealment were included [pooled risk ratio 1.0 (95% confidence interval 0.45, 2.24)]. None of the trials has evaluated any neuro-developmental outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The available trial data do not provide strong evidence that using lower versus higher oxygen concentrations for delivery room transition support for preterm infants confers important benefits or harms. Lack of allocation concealment and blinding of clinicians and assessors are the major sources of bias in the existing trials. Further, large, good-quality trials are needed to resolve on-going uncertainties and inform clinical practice.