Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection outside of healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment. This is the first update of a Cochrane review published 6 May 2022, with one new study added. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces aimed at reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to other interventions or no intervention. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collections, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv to 13 April 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by coworkers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls (i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias, and GRADE methods to evaluate the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 2 studies including a total of 16,014 participants. Elimination-of-exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards, which was an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) working at 86 schools were assigned to the test-based attendance strategy. The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (rate ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 working days) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 working days) in the intervention group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71% in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention. The trial did not measure our other outcomes of SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, or hospitalisation. We found seven ongoing studies using elimination-of-hazard strategies, six RCTs and one non-randomised trial. Administrative control interventions We found one ongoing RCT that aims to evaluate the efficacy of the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine in preventing COVID-19 infection and reducing disease severity. Combinations of eligible interventions We included one non-randomised study examining a combination of elimination of hazards, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment. The study was conducted in two large retail companies in Italy in 2020. The study compared a safety operating protocol, measurement of body temperature and oxygen saturation upon entry, and a SARS-CoV-2 test strategy with a minimum activity protocol. Both groups received protective equipment. All employees working at the companies during the study period were included: 1987 in the intervention company and 1798 in the control company. The study did not report an outcome of interest for this systematic review. Other intervention categories We did not find any studies in this category. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. A test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absenteeism rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. The non-randomised study included in our updated search did not report any outcome of interest for this Cochrane review. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective. The included RCT did not report on any of our other primary outcomes (i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events). We identified no completed studies on any other interventions specified in this review; however, eight eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations.

Critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines.

Ten questions to assess to what degree a clinical practice guideline is likely to be trustworthy: 1) Do the authors have conflicts of interests? 2) Is the clinical question relevant? 3) Have relevant stakeholders been involved? 4) Have methods for study selection been described? 5) Is there a link between evidence and recommendations (transparent methods)? 6) Has the certainty of evidence been assessed? 7) Have the methods for reaching recommendations been described? 8) Are the recommendations unambiguous? 9) Are the recommendations relevant in your situation? 10) Is there an implementation strategy?

Critical reading of scientific arcticles on diagnostic studies.

The issue of this review is diagnostic accuracy studies by means of which it can be determined how precisely a test can identify patients with or without a given target condition. Diagnostic accuracy studies vary substantially in design but usually report outcome measures such as sensitivity and specificity. Diagnostic accuracy studies can be critically appraised by using QUADAS-2. Some study characteristics to consider is the avoidance of a case-control study design, patient selection, and the reference standard. Also, the statistical imprecision and the applicability of a study to a general population are essential factors to consider.

Maternal factors associated with labor dystocia in low-risk nulliparous women. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify maternal factors associated with labor dystocia in low-risk nulliparous women. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane, and CINAHL were searched for intervention studies and observational studies published from January 2000 to January 2022. Low-risk was defined as nulliparous women with a singleton, cephalic birth in spontaneous labor at term. Labor dystocia was defined by national or international criteria or treatment. Countries were restricted to OECD members. Two authors independently screened 11,374 titles and abstracts, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results were presented narratively and by meta-analysis when compatible. RESULTS: Seven cohort studies were included. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was moderate. Three studies found that higher maternal age was associated with an increased frequency of labor dystocia (relative risk 1.68; 95% CI 1.43-1.98). Further three studies found that higher maternal BMI was associated with increased frequency of labor dystocia (relative risk 1.20; 95% CI 1.01-1.43). Maternal short stature, fear of childbirth, and high caffeine intake were also associated with an increased frequency of labor dystocia, while maternal physical activity was associated with a decreased frequency. CONCLUSION: Maternal factors associated with an increased frequency of labor dystocia were mainly maternal age, physical characteristics, and fear of childbirth. Maternal physical activity was associated with a decreased frequency. Intervention studies targeting these maternal factors would need to be initiated before or early in pregnancy to test the causality of the identified factors and labor dystocia.

Quantification of overdiagnosis in randomised trials of cancer screening: an overview and re-analysis of systematic reviews.

The degree of overdiagnosis in common cancer screening trials is uncertain due to inadequate design of trials, varying definition and methods used to estimate overdiagnosis. Therefore, we aimed to quantify the risk of overdiagnosis for the most widely implemented cancer screening programmes and assess the implications of design limitations and biases in cancer screening trials on the estimates of overdiagnosis by conducting an overview and re-analysis of systematic reviews of cancer screening. We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Library from their inception dates to November 29, 2021. Eligible studies included systematic reviews of randomised trials comparing cancer screening interventions to no screening, which reported cancer incidence for both trial arms. We extracted data on study characteristics, cancer incidence and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. We included 19 trials described in 30 articles for review, reporting results for the following types of screening: mammography for breast cancer, chest X-ray or low-dose CT for lung cancer, alpha-foetoprotein and ultrasound for liver cancer, digital rectal examination, prostate-specific antigen, and transrectal ultrasound for prostate cancer, and CA-125 test and/or ultrasound for ovarian cancer. No trials on screening for melanoma were eligible. Only one trial (5%) had low risk in all bias domains, leading to a post-hoc meta-analysis, excluding trials with high risk of bias in critical domains, finding the extent of overdiagnosis ranged from 17% to 38% across cancer screening programmes. We conclude that there is a significant risk of overdiagnosis in the included randomised trials on cancer screening. We found that trials were generally not designed to estimate overdiagnosis and many trials had high risk of biases that may draw the estimates of overdiagnosis towards the null. In effect, the true extent of overdiagnosis due to cancer screening is likely underestimated.

Biomarkers as point-of-care tests to guide prescription of antibiotics in people with acute respiratory infections in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are by far the most common reason for prescribing an antibiotic in primary care, even though the majority of ARIs are of viral or non-severe bacterial aetiology. It follows that in many cases antibiotic use will not be beneficial to a patient's recovery but may expose them to potential side effects. Furthermore, limiting unnecessary antibiotic use is a key factor in controlling antibiotic resistance. One strategy to reduce antibiotic use in primary care is point-of-care biomarkers. A point-of-care biomarker (test) of inflammation identifies part of the acute phase response to tissue injury regardless of the aetiology (infection, trauma, or inflammation) and may be used as a surrogate marker of infection, potentially assisting the physician in the clinical decision whether to use an antibiotic to treat ARIs. Biomarkers may guide antibiotic prescription by ruling out a serious bacterial infection and help identify patients in whom no benefit from antibiotic treatment can be anticipated. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of point-of-care biomarker tests of inflammation to guide antibiotic treatment in people presenting with symptoms of acute respiratory infections in primary care settings regardless of patient age. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2022, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1946 to 14 June 2022), Embase (1974 to 14 June 2022), CINAHL (1981 to 14 June 2022), Web of Science (1955 to 14 June 2022), and LILACS (1982 to 14 June 2022). We also searched three trial registries (10 December 2021) for completed and ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in primary care patients with ARIs that compared the use of point-of-care biomarkers with standard care. We included trials that randomised individual participants, as well as trials that randomised clusters of patients (cluster-RCTs). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data on the following primary outcomes: number of participants given an antibiotic prescription at index consultation and within 28 days follow-up; participant recovery within seven days follow-up; and total mortality within 28 days follow-up. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We used random-effects meta-analyses when feasible. We further analysed results with considerable heterogeneity in prespecified subgroups of individual and cluster-RCTs. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven new trials in this update, for a total of 13 included trials. Twelve trials (10,218 participants in total, 2335 of which were children) evaluated a C-reactive protein point-of-care test, and one trial (317 adult participants) evaluated a procalcitonin point-of-care test. The studies were conducted in Europe, Russia, and Asia. Overall, the included trials had a low or unclear risk of bias. However all studies were open-labelled, thereby introducing high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. The use of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests to guide antibiotic prescription likely reduces the number of participants given an antibiotic prescription, from 516 prescriptions of antibiotics per 1000 participants in the control group to 397 prescriptions of antibiotics per 1000 participants in the intervention group (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.86; 12 trials, 10,218 participants; I² = 79%; moderate-certainty evidence).  Overall, use of C-reactive protein tests also reduce the number of participants given an antibiotic prescription within 28 days follow-up (664 prescriptions of antibiotics per 1000 participants in the control group versus 538 prescriptions of antibiotics per 1000 participants in the intervention group) (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.86; 7 trials, 5091 participants; I² = 29; high-certainty evidence). The prescription of antibiotics as guided by C-reactive protein tests likely does not reduce the number of participants recovered, within seven or 28 days follow-up (567 participants recovered within seven days follow-up per 1000 participants in the control group versus 584 participants recovered within seven days follow-up per 1000 participants in the intervention group) (recovery within seven days follow-up: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.12; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) (recovery within 28 days follow-up: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.32; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). The use of C-reactive protein tests may not increase total mortality within 28 days follow-up, from 1 death per 1000 participants in the control group to 0 deaths per 1000 participants in the intervention group (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.92; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain as to whether procalcitonin affects any of the primary or secondary outcomes because there were few participants, thereby limiting the certainty of evidence. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as moderate to high according to GRADE for the primary outcomes for C-reactive protein test, except for mortality, as there were very few deaths, thereby limiting the certainty of the evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The use of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests as an adjunct to standard care likely reduces the number of participants given an antibiotic prescription in primary care patients who present with symptoms of acute respiratory infection. The use of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests likely does not affect recovery rates. It is unlikely that further research will substantially change our conclusion regarding the reduction in number of participants given an antibiotic prescription, although the size of the estimated effect may change.  The use of C-reactive protein point-of-care tests may not increase mortality within 28 days follow-up, but there were very few events. Studies that recorded deaths and hospital admissions were performed in children from low- and middle-income countries and older adults with comorbidities.  Future studies should focus on children, immunocompromised individuals, and people aged 80 years and above with comorbidities. More studies evaluating procalcitonin and potential new biomarkers as point-of-care tests used in primary care to guide antibiotic prescription are needed.  Furthermore, studies are needed to validate C-reactive protein decision algorithms, with a specific focus on potential age group differences.

Description of antidepressant withdrawal symptoms in clinical practice guidelines on depression: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressant withdrawal symptoms may mimic symptoms of depression relapse and can be challenging for patients when tapering or discontinuing antidepressants. We aimed to assess how withdrawal symptoms are described in major clinical practice guidelines on depression. METHODS: Systematic review of major clinical practice guidelines on depression from the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, Singapore, Ireland, and New Zealand. We searched PubMed, 14 guideline registries, and the websites of relevant organisations (last search 10 July 2022). The guidelines were assessed for information and descriptions of antidepressant withdrawal symptoms regarding their type, incidence, duration, severity, onset, and presumed mechanism. RESULTS: We included 21 guidelines, 15 (71 %) of which stated that withdrawal or discontinuation symptoms can occur. None of the guidelines provided an exhaustive list of potential withdrawal symptoms; ten (48 %) guidelines mentioned at least one specific symptom, ranging between four and 39 symptoms. The symptomatic overlap between withdrawal and relapse was mentioned in four (19 %) guidelines. Withdrawal symptoms were generally described as mild, brief, and self-limiting; and severe in a minority of cases. Estimates of the duration, incidence, or expected onset were reported in five (24 %) guidelines, and were in all cases lower than those reported in systematic reviews. LIMITATIONS: We included clinical practice guidelines from English-speaking countries only; our findings may not be generalizable to non-English-speaking countries. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical practice guidelines provide scarce and inadequate information on antidepressant withdrawal symptoms and limited guidance for distinguishing withdrawal symptoms from symptoms of relapse.

Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection outside of healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the spread of more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VoC), and the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.   Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, such as SARS-CoV-2, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment (PPE). OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection relative to other interventions, or no intervention. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS), Clinicaltrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 14 September 2021. We will conduct an update of this review in six months. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised control trials (RCT) and planned to include non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by co-workers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls, i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess the risk of bias, and GRADE methods to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Elimination of exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards. This study is an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) at 86 schools to the test-based attendance strategy.  The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic PCR-positive SARS-COV-2 infection rate ratio ((RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study, very low-certainty evidence)). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-COV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study, very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 days at risk) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 days at risk) in the intervention group (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded to low, due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71 % in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention.  The trial did not measure other outcomes, SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, and hospitalisation. We found one ongoing RCT about screening in schools, using elimination of hazard strategies. Personal protective equipment We found one ongoing non-randomised study on the effects of closed face shields to prevent COVID-19 transmission. Other intervention categories We did not find studies in the other intervention categories. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-postive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. Test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absence rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus, become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective.  The included study did not report on any other primary outcomes of our review, i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events. No completed studies were identified on any other interventions specified in this review, but two eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations.

Extended-release methylphenidate for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults.

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a psychiatric diagnosis increasingly used in adults. The recommended first-line pharmacological treatment is central nervous system (CNS) stimulants, such as methylphenidate, but uncertainty remains about its benefits and harms. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of extended-release formulations of methylphenidate in adults diagnosed with ADHD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases and four clinical trial registries up to February 2021. We searched 12 drug regulatory databases for clinical trial data up to 13 May 2020. In addition, we cross-referenced all available trial identifiers, handsearched reference lists, searched pharmaceutical company databases, and contacted trial authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trials comparing extended-release methylphenidate formulations at any dose versus placebo and other ADHD medications in adults diagnosed with ADHD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data. We assessed dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs), and rating scales and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs). We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess risks of bias, and GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We meta-analysed the data using a random-effects model. We assessed three design characteristics that may impair the trial results' 'generalisability'; exclusion of participants with psychiatric comorbidity; responder selection based on previous experience with CNS stimulants; and risk of withdrawal effects. Our prespecified primary outcomes were functional outcomes, self-rated ADHD symptoms, and serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes included quality of life, ADHD symptoms rated by investigators and by peers such as family members, cardiovascular variables, severe psychiatric adverse events, and other adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 trials (5066 participants), of which 21 reported outcome data for this review. We also identified one ongoing study. We included documents from six drug regulatory agencies covering eight trials. Twenty-one trials had an outpatient setting and three were conducted in prisons. They were primarily conducted in North America and Europe. The median participant age was 36 years. Twelve trials (76% of participants) were industry-sponsored, four (14% of participants) were publicly funded with industry involvement, seven (10% of participants) were publicly funded, and one had unclear funding. The median trial duration was eight weeks. One trial was rated at overall unclear risk of bias and 20 trials were rated at overall high risk of bias, primarily due to unclear blinding of participants and investigators, attrition bias, and selective outcome reporting. All trials were impaired in at least one of the three design characteristics related to 'generalisability'; for example, they excluded participants with psychiatric comorbidity such as depression or anxiety, or included participants only with a previous positive response to methylphenidate, or similar drugs. This may limit the trials' usefulness for clinical practice, as they may overestimate the benefits and underestimate the harms. Extended-release methylphenidate versus placebo (up to 26 weeks) For the primary outcomes, we found very low-certainty evidence that methylphenidate had no effect on 'days missed at work' at 13-week follow-up (mean difference (MD) -0.15 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.11 to 1.81; 1 trial, 409 participants) or serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.43, CI 95% CI 0.85 to 2.43; 14 trials, 4078 participants), whereas methylphenidate improved self-rated ADHD symptoms (small-to-moderate effect; SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.30; 16 trials, 3799 participants). For secondary outcomes, we found very low-certainty evidence that methylphenidate improved self-rated quality of life (small effect; SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.05; 6 trials, 1888 participants), investigator-rated ADHD symptoms (small-to-moderate effect; SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.36; 18 trials, 4183 participants), ADHD symptoms rated by peers such as family members (small-to-moderate effect; SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.14; 3 trials, 1005 participants), and increased the risk of experiencing any adverse event (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.37; 14 trials, 4214 participants). We rated the certainty of the evidence as 'very low' for all outcomes, primarily due to high risk of bias and 'indirectness of the evidence'. One trial (419 participants) had follow-up at 52 weeks and two trials (314 participants) included active comparators, hence long-term and comparative evidence is limited. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low-certainty evidence that extended-release methylphenidate compared to placebo improved ADHD symptoms (small-to-moderate effects) measured on rating scales reported by participants, investigators, and peers such as family members. Methylphenidate had no effect on 'days missed at work' or serious adverse events, the effect on quality of life was small, and it increased the risk of several adverse effects. We rated the certainty of the evidence as 'very low' for all outcomes, due to high risk of bias, short trial durations, and limitations to the generalisability of the results. The benefits and harms of extended-release methylphenidate therefore remain uncertain.

Evaluation of evidence supporting NICE recommendations to change people's lifestyle in clinical practice: cross sectional survey.

Objectives: To assess whether recommendations of individually oriented lifestyle interventions (IOLIs) in guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) were underpinned by evidence of benefit, and whether harms and opportunity costs were considered. Design: Cross sectional survey. Setting: UK. Data sources: NICE guidelines and supporting evidence. Eligibility criteria: All NICE pathways for IOLI recommendations (ie, non-drug interventions that healthcare professionals administer to adults to achieve a healthier lifestyle and improve health) were searched systematically on 26 August 2020. One author screened all retrieved pathways for candidate guidelines, while a second author verified these judgments. Two authors independently and in duplicate screened all retrieved guidelines and recommendations for eligibility, extracted data, and evaluated the evidence cited and the outcomes considered. Disagreements were noted and resolved by consensus. Results: Within 57 guidelines, 379 NICE recommendations were found for IOLIs; almost all (n=374; 99%) recommended the lifestyle intervention and five (1%) recommended against the intervention. Of the 379 recommendations, 13 (3%) were supported by moderate or high certainty evidence of a beneficial effect on patient relevant outcomes (n=7; 2%) or surrogate outcomes (n=13; 3%). 19 (5%) interventions considered psychosocial harms, 32 (8%) considered physical harms, and one (<1%) considered the opportunity costs of implementation. No intervention considered the burden placed on individuals by these recommendations. Conclusion: Few NICE recommendations of lifestyle interventions are supported by reliable evidence. While this finding does not contest the beneficial effects of healthy habits, guidelines recommending clinicians to try to change people's lifestyle need to be reconsidered given the substantial uncertainty about the effectiveness, harms, and opportunity costs of such interventions.

EMA's mishandling of an investigation into suspected serious neurological harms of HPV vaccines.

Concern has been raised about whether HPV vaccines might cause serious neurological disorders including postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and chronic regional pain syndrome (CRPS). The European Medicines Agency (EMA) investigated the issue and declared in 2015 that there is no link between HPV vaccines and serious neurological adverse events. However, the certainty conveyed in EMA's official report is undermined by a leaked, confidential document that reveals important disagreements among the experts. Furthermore, in its assessments, EMA relied on the data the drug companies had provided to them even though it had been demonstrated that the companies had underreported possible neurological harms. Even though active comparators were used (aluminium adjuvants and other vaccines), our research group found significantly more serious neurological harms in the HPV vaccine groups than in the comparator groups in a systematic review based on clinical study reports in EMA's possession. We outline areas where we believe the basis for EMA's decision was flawed; highlight that the relationship between HPV vaccines and POTS remains uncertain; and suggest ways forward to resolve the uncertainty and debate.

Clinical trials were missing from regulatory documents of extended-release methylphenidate for ADHD in adults: a case study of public documents.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether drug regulatory agencies decided on applications for extended-release methylphenidate for use in adult ADHD based on select samples of trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Case series of publicly available regulatory documents. We matched an index of extended-release methylphenidate trials for adult ADHD with trials appearing in regulatory documents of extended-release methylphenidate applications. Trials and regulatory documents were identified as part of this systematic review (https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012857). We sought to identify missing trials in the regulatory documents and to clarify regulatory submission requirements. RESULTS: We indexed 18 trials and matched those with 13 drug applications (11 approved, 2 rejected) published by 7 agencies. There were trials missing in 7 (54%) of 13 applications, median 4 trials (range 1-6). The median proportion of missing trial participants was 45% (range 23% - 72%). Regulators seemingly require that all trials must be included in new drug applications, but wording is ambiguous. CONCLUSION: In this sample of extended-release methylphenidate drug applications for adult ADHD, 7 of 13 regulatory decisions were missing entire trials according to public documents, even though regulatory requirements seem to stipulate that all available trials should be included in drug applications.

Antileukotrienes for the prevention and treatment of chronic lung disease in very preterm newborns: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Very preterm infants are at high risk of developing chronic lung disease, which requires respiratory support and might have long-term sequelae. As lung inflammation plays an important role in pathogenesis, antileukotrienes have been explored in both clinical and animal studies. We aimed to assess the benefits and harms of antileukotrienes for the prevention and treatment of respiratory morbidity and mortality in very preterm newborns. METHODS: In this systematic review, we included randomized trials and non-randomized studies in humans and animals reporting the effects of antileukotrienes in very preterm infants or other mammals within 10 days of birth. Our pre-specified primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and any harm, and, for the clinical studies, incidence of chronic lung disease. Included studies underwent risk of bias-assessment and data extraction performed by two authors independently. There were no language restrictions. RESULTS: Fifteen studies totally met our inclusion criteria: one randomized trial and four non-randomized studies in humans and 10 animal studies (five in rodents, two in lambs and one in either guinea pigs, rabbits or caprinae). All five clinical studies used montelukast and had a small sample size, ranging from 4 to 77 infants. The randomized trial (n = 60) found no difference in the incidence of chronic lung disease between the groups. Only one clinical study, which enrolled four very preterm infants and had a critical overall risk of bias, reported long-term outcomes. All other studies had unclear or greater overall risk of bias and meta-analyses were therefore deemed unfeasible. Eight of ten animal studies used leukotriene receptor antagonists as antileukotriene (montelukast in three of ten studies) and seven had an experimental study design (i.e. some animals were not exposed to antileukotrienes but no randomization). Three of the ten animal studies assessed different doses. Animal studies found no effect on the outcomes mortality, growth, or lung function related surrogate outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Use of antileukotrienes in very preterm infants to prevent or treat chronic lung disease is not supported by the available evidence. Large randomized trials focusing on outcomes relevant to patients, including long-term outcomes, are needed. Studies should also minimize risk of bias.