Favipiravir for treating COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to challenge the health workforce and societies worldwide. Favipiravir was suggested by some experts to be effective and safe to use in COVID-19. Although this drug has been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is still unclear if it has a definite role in the treatment of COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of favipiravir compared to no treatment, supportive treatment, or other experimental antiviral treatment in people with acute COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and three other databases, up to 18 July 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for RCTs evaluating the efficacy of favipiravir in treating people with COVID-19. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures for data collection and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 trials that randomized 5750 adults (most under 60 years of age). The trials were conducted in Bahrain, Brazil, China, India, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, the UK, and the USA. Most participants were hospitalized with mild to moderate disease (89%). Twenty-two of the 25 trials investigated the role of favipiravir compared to placebo or standard of care, whilst lopinavir/ritonavir was the comparator in two trials, and umifenovir in one trial. Most trials (24 of 25) initiated favipiravir at 1600 mg or 1800 mg twice daily for the first day, followed by 600 mg to 800 mg twice a day. The duration of treatment varied from five to 14 days. We do not know whether favipiravir reduces all-cause mortality at 28 to 30 days, or in-hospital (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.46; 11 trials, 3459 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; 8 trials, 1383 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference in the need for admission to hospital (if ambulatory) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.46; 4 trials, 670 participants; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the time to clinical improvement (defined as time to a 2-point reduction in patients' admission status on the WHO's ordinal scale) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; 4 trials, 721 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference to the progression to oxygen therapy (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.75; 2 trials, 543 participants; low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may lead to an overall increased incidence of adverse events (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.54; 18 trials, 4699 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may result in little to no difference inserious adverse eventsattributable to the drug (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.42; 12 trials, 3317 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The low- to very low-certainty evidence means that we do not know whether favipiravir is efficacious in people with COVID-19 illness, irrespective of severity or admission status. Treatment with favipiravir may result in an overall increase in the incidence of adverse events but may not result in serious adverse events.

Strategies to detect and manage latent tuberculosis infection among household contacts of pulmonary TB patients in high TB burden countries - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To summarise latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) management strategies among household contacts of bacteriologically confirmed pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) patients in high-TB burden countries. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE (NCBI) and Scopus were searched (January 2006 to December 2021) for studies reporting primary data on LTBI management. Study selection, data management and data synthesis were protocol-driven (PROSPERO-CRD42021208715). Primary outcomes were the proportions of LTBI, initiating and completing tuberculosis preventive treatment (TPT). Reported factors influencing the LTBI care cascade were qualitatively synthesised. RESULTS: From 3694 unique records retrieved, 58 studies from 23 countries were included. Most identified contacts were screened (median 99%, interquartile range [IQR] 82%-100%; 46 studies). Random-effects meta-analysis yielded pooled proportions for: LTBI 41% (95% confidence interval [CI] 33%-49%; 21,566 tested contacts); TPT initiation 91% (95% CI 79%-97%; 129,573 eligible contacts, 34 studies); TPT completion 65% (95% CI 54%-74%; 108,679 TPT-initiated contacts, 28 studies). Heterogeneity was significant (I2 ≥ 95%-100%) and could not be explained in subgroup analyses. Median proportions (IQR) were: LTBI 44% (28%-59%); TPT initiation 86% (60%-100%); TPT completion 68% (44%-82%). Nine broad themes related to diagnostic testing, health system structure and functions, risk perception, documentation and adherence were considered likely to influence the LTBI care cascade. CONCLUSION: The proportions of household contacts screened, detected with LTBI and initiated on TPT, though variable was high, but the proportions completing TPT were lower indicating current strategies used for LTBI management in high TB burden countries are not sufficient.

Nasogastric versus nasojejunal tube feeding for severe acute pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Nutrition is an important aspect of management in severe acute pancreatitis. Enteral nutrition has advantages over parenteral nutrition and is the preferred method of feeding. Enteral feeding via nasojejunal tube is often recommended, but its benefits over nasogastric feeding are unclear. The placement of a nasogastric tube is technically simpler than the placement of a nasojejunal tube. OBJECTIVES: To compare the mortality, morbidity, and nutritional status outcomes of people with severe acute pancreatitis fed via nasogastric tube versus nasojejunal tube. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS on 17 October 2019 without using any language restrictions. We also searched reference lists and conference proceedings for relevant studies and clinical trial registries for ongoing trials. We contacted authors for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing enteral feeding by nasogastric and nasojejunal tubes in participants with severe acute pancreatitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias of the included studies, and extracted data. This information was independently verified by the other review authors. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane to assess the risk of bias and perform data synthesis. We rated the certainty of evidence according to GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs that randomised a total of 220 adult participants from India, Scotland, and the USA. Two of the trial reports were available only as abstracts. The trials differed in the criteria used to rate the severity of acute pancreatitis, and three trials excluded those who presented in severe shock. The duration of onset of symptoms before presentation in the trials ranged from within one week to four weeks. The trials also differed in the methods used to confirm the placement of the tubes and in what was considered to be nasojejunal placement. We assessed none of the trials as at high risk of bias, though reporting of methods in four trials was insufficient to judge the risk of bias for one or more of the domains assessed. There was no evdence of effect with nasogastric or nasojejunal placement on the primary outcome of mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.17; I2 = 0%; 5 trials, 220 participants; very low-certainty evidence due to indirectness and imprecision). Similarly, there was no evidence of effect on the secondary outcomes for which data were available. These included organ failure (3 trials, 145 participants), rate of infection (2 trials, 108 participants), success rate (3 trials, 159 participants), complications associated with the procedure (2 trials, 80 participants), need for surgical intervention (3 trials, 145 participants), requirement of parenteral nutrition (2 trials, 80 participants), complications associated with feeds (4 trials, 195 participants), and exacerbation of pain (4 trials, 195 participants). However, the certainty of the evidence for these secondary outcomes was also very low due to indirectness and imprecision. Three trials (117 participants) reported on length of hospital stay, but the data were not suitable for meta-analysis. None of the trials reported data suitable for meta-analysis for the other secondary outcomes of this review, which included days taken to achieve full nutrition requirement, duration of tube feeding, and duration of analgesic requirement after feeding tube placement. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to conclude that there is superiority, inferiority, or equivalence between the nasogastric and nasojejunal mode of enteral tube feeding in people with severe acute pancreatitis.

Shortened treatment regimens versus the standard regimen for drug-sensitive pulmonary tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis causes more deaths than any other infectious disease worldwide, with pulmonary tuberculosis being the most common form. Standard first-line treatment for drug-sensitive pulmonary tuberculosis for six months comprises isoniazid, rifampicin, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol (HRZE) for two months, followed by HRE (in areas of high TB drug resistance) or HR, given over a four-month continuation phase. Many people do not complete this full course. Shortened treatment regimens that are equally effective and safe could improve treatment success. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of shortened treatment regimens versus the standard six-month treatment regimen for individuals with drug-sensitive pulmonary tuberculosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 10 July 2019: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (PubMed); Embase; the Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS); Science Citation Index-Expanded; Indian Medlars Center; and the South Asian Database of Controlled Clinical Trials. We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Clinical Trials Unit of the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, the UK Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, and the Clinical Trials Registry India for ongoing trials. We checked the reference lists of identified articles to find additional relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared shorter-duration regimens (less than six months) versus the standard six-month regimen for people of all ages, irrespective of HIV status, who were newly diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis by positive sputum culture or GeneXpert, and with presumed or proven drug-sensitive tuberculosis. The primary outcome of interest was relapse within two years of completion of anti-tuberculosis treatment (ATT). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias for the included trials. For dichotomous outcomes, we used risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). When appropriate, we pooled data from the included trials in meta-analyses. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included five randomized trials that compared fluoroquinolone-containing four-month ATT regimens versus standard six-month ATT regimens and recruited 5825 adults with newly diagnosed drug-sensitive pulmonary tuberculosis from 14 countries with high tuberculosis transmission in Asia, Africa, and Latin Ameria. Three were multi-country trials that included a total of 572 HIV-positive people. These trials excluded children, pregnant or lactating women, people with serious comorbid conditions, and those with diabetes mellitus. Four trials had multiple treatment arms. Moxifloxacin replaced ethambutol in standard four-month, daily or thrice-weekly ATT regimens in two trials; moxifloxacin replaced isoniazid in four-month ATT regimens in two trials, was given daily in one trial, and was given with rifapentine instead of rifampicin daily for two months and twice weekly for two months in one trial. Moxifloxacin was added to standard ATT drugs for three to four months in one ongoing trial that reported interim results. Gatifloxacin replaced ethambutol in standard ATT regimens given daily or thrice weekly for four months in two trials. Follow-up ranged from 12 months to 24 months after treatment completion for the majority of participants. Moxifloxacin-containing four-month ATT regimens Moxifloxacin-containing four-month ATT regimens that replaced ethambutol or isoniazid probably increased the proportions who experienced relapse after successful treatment compared to standard ATT regimens (RR 3.56, 95% CI 2.37 to 5.37; 2265 participants, 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). For death from any cause, there was probably little or no difference between the two regimens (2760 participants, 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Treatment failure was rare, and there was probably little or no difference in proportions with treatment failure between ATT regimens (2282 participants, 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). None of the participants given moxifloxacin-containing regimens developed resistance to rifampicin, and these regimens may not increase the risk of acquired resistance (2282 participants, 3 trials; low-certainty evidence). Severe adverse events were probably little or no different with moxifloxacin-containing four-month regimens that replaced ethambutol or isoniazid, and with three- to four-month regimens that augmented standard ATT with moxifloxacin, when compared to standard six-month ATT regimens (3548 participants, 4 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Gatifloxacin-containing four-month ATT regimens Gatifloxacin-containing four-month ATT regimens that replaced ethambutol probably increased relapse compared to standard six-month ATT regimens in adults with drug-sensitive pulmonary tuberculosis (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.84; 1633 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). The four-month regimen probably made little or no difference in death compared to the six-month regimen (1886 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Treatment failure was uncommon and was probably little or no different between the four-month and six-month regimens (1657 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Acquired resistance to isoniazid or rifampicin was not detected in those given the gatifloxacin-containing shortened ATT regimen, but we are uncertain whether acquired drug resistance is any different in the four- and six-month regimens (429 participants, 1 trial; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events were probably no different with either regimen (1993 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence to date does not support the use of shortened ATT regimens in adults with newly diagnosed drug-sensitive pulmonary tuberculosis. Four-month ATT regimens that replace ethambutol with moxifloxacin or gatifloxacin, or isoniazid with moxifloxacin, increase relapse substantially compared to standard six-month ATT regimens, although treatment success and serious adverse events are little or no different. The results of six large ongoing trials will help inform decisions on whether shortened ATT regimens can replace standard six-month ATT regimens. 9 December 2019 Up to date All studies incorporated from most recent search All eligible published studies found in the last search (10 Jul, 2019) were included.

Lumbar sympathectomy versus prostanoids for critical limb ischaemia due to non-reconstructable peripheral arterial disease.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a common circulatory problem that can lead to reduced blood flow to the limbs, which may result in critical limb ischaemia (CLI), a painful manifestation that occurs when a person is at rest. The mainstay of treatment for CLI is surgical or endovascular repair. However, when these means of treatment are not suitable, due to anatomical reasons or comorbidities, treatment for pain is limited. Lumbar sympathectomy and prostanoids have both been shown to reduce pain from CLI in people who suffer from non-reconstructable PAD, but there is currently insufficient evidence to determine if one treatment is superior. Due to the severity of the rest pain caused by CLI, and its impact on quality of life, it is important that people are receiving the best pain relief treatment available, therefore interest in this area of research is high. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of lumbar sympathectomy with prostanoid infusion in improving symptoms and function and avoiding amputation in people with critical limb ischaemia (CLI) due to non-reconstructable peripheral arterial disease (PAD). SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (last searched 29 March 2017) and CENTRAL (2017, Issue 2). The CIS also searched clinical trials databases for ongoing or unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with parallel treatment groups, that compared lumbar sympathectomy (surgical or chemical) with prostanoids (any type and dosage) in people with CLI due to non-reconstructable PAD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion. We performed fixed-effect model meta-analyses, when there was no overt sign of heterogeneity, with risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We graded the quality of evidence according to GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included a single study in this review comparing lumbar sympathectomy with prostanoids for the treatment of CLI in people with non-reconstructable PAD. The single study included 200 participants with Buerger's disease, a form of PAD, 100 in each treatment group, but only 162 were actually included in the analyses. The study compared an open surgical technique for lumbar sympathectomy with the prostanoid, iloprost, and followed participants for 24 weeks.Risk of bias was low for most evaluated domains. Due to the nature of the treatment, blinding of the participants and those providing the treatment would be impossible as a surgical procedure was compared with intravenous injections. It was not mentioned if blinded assessors evaluated the study outcomes, therefore, we judged subjective outcomes (i.e. pain reduction) to be at unclear risk of detection bias and objective outcomes (i.e. ulcer healing, amputation and mortality) at low risk of detection bias. We also rated the risk of attrition bias as unclear; 38 out of 200 (19%) participants were not included in the analysis without clear explanation (16 of 100 in the iloprost arm and 22 of 100 in the sympathectomy arm). The quality of evidence was low due to serious imprecision because the study numbers were low and there was only one study included.The single included study reported on the outcome of complete healing without pain or major amputation, which fell under three separate outcomes for our review: relief of rest pain, complete ulcer healing and avoidance of major amputation. We chose to keep the outcome as a singularly reported outcome in order to not introduce bias into the outcomes, which may have been the case if reported separately. The limited evidence suggests participants who received prostaglandins had improved complete ulcer healing without rest pain or major amputation when compared with those who received lumbar sympathectomy (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.05), but as it was the only included study, we rated the data as low-quality and could not draw any overall conclusions. The study authors stated that more participants who received prostaglandins reported adverse effects, such as headache, flushing, nausea and abdominal discomfort, but only one participant experienced severe enough adverse effects to drop out. Five participants who underwent lumbar sympathectomy reported minor wound infection (low-quality evidence). There was no reported mortality in either of the treatment groups (low-quality evidence).The included study did not report on claudication distances, quality of life or functional status, ankle brachial pressure index (ABPI), tissue oxygenation or toe pressures, or progression to minor amputation, complications or provide any cost-effectiveness data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-quality evidence from a single study in a select group of participants (people with Buerger's disease) suggests that prostaglandins are superior to open surgical lumbar sympathectomy for complete ulcer healing without rest pain or major amputation, but possibly incur more adverse effects. Further studies are needed to better understand if prostaglandins truly are more efficacious than open surgical lumbar sympathectomy and if there are any concerns with adverse effects. It would be of great importance for future studies to include other forms of PAD (as Buerger's disease is a select type of PAD), other methods of sympathectomy as well as data on quality of life, complications and cost-effectiveness.

Pre-admission antibiotics for suspected cases of meningococcal disease.

BACKGROUND: Meningococcal disease can lead to death or disability within hours after onset. Pre-admission antibiotics aim to reduce the risk of serious disease and death by preventing delays in starting therapy before confirmation of the diagnosis. OBJECTIVES: To study the effectiveness and safety of pre-admission antibiotics versus no pre-admission antibiotics or placebo, and different pre-admission antibiotic regimens in decreasing mortality, clinical failure, and morbidity in people suspected of meningococcal disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (6 January 2017), MEDLINE (1966 to 6 January 2017), Embase (1980 to 6 January 2017), Web of Science (1985 to 6 January 2017), LILACS (1982 to 6 January 2017), and prospective trial registries to January 2017. We previously searched CAB Abstracts from 1985 to June 2015, but did not update this search in January 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing antibiotics versus placebo or no intervention, in people with suspected meningococcal infection, or different antibiotics administered before admission to hospital or confirmation of the diagnosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data from the search results. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous data. We included only one trial and so did not perform data synthesis. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We found no RCTs comparing pre-admission antibiotics versus no pre-admission antibiotics or placebo. We included one open-label, non-inferiority RCT with 510 participants, conducted during an epidemic in Niger, evaluating a single dose of intramuscular ceftriaxone versus a single dose of intramuscular long-acting (oily) chloramphenicol. Ceftriaxone was not inferior to chloramphenicol in reducing mortality (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.56; N = 503; 308 confirmed meningococcal meningitis; 26 deaths; moderate-quality evidence), clinical failures (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.15; N = 477; 18 clinical failures; moderate-quality evidence), or neurological sequelae (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.62; N = 477; 29 with sequelae; low-quality evidence). No adverse effects of treatment were reported. Estimated treatment costs were similar. No data were available on disease burden due to sequelae. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no reliable evidence to support the use pre-admission antibiotics for suspected cases of non-severe meningococcal disease. Moderate-quality evidence from one RCT indicated that single intramuscular injections of ceftriaxone and long-acting chloramphenicol were equally effective, safe, and economical in reducing serious outcomes. The choice between these antibiotics should be based on affordability, availability, and patterns of antibiotic resistance.Further RCTs comparing different pre-admission antibiotics, accompanied by intensive supportive measures, are ethically justified in people with less severe illness, and are needed to provide reliable evidence in different clinical settings.

Index-TB guidelines: Guidelines on extrapulmonary tuberculosis for India.

Extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) is frequently a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. It is a common opportunistic infection in people living with HIV/AIDS and other immunocompromised states such as diabetes mellitus and malnutrition. There is a paucity of data from clinical trials in EPTB and most of the information regarding diagnosis and management is extrapolated from pulmonary TB. Further, there are no formal national or international guidelines on EPTB. To address these concerns, Indian EPTB guidelines were developed under the auspices of Central TB Division and Directorate of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. The objective was to provide guidance on uniform, evidence-informed practices for suspecting, diagnosing and managing EPTB at all levels of healthcare delivery. The guidelines describe agreed principles relevant to 10 key areas of EPTB which are complementary to the existing country standards of TB care and technical operational guidelines for pulmonary TB. These guidelines provide recommendations on three priority areas for EPTB: (i) use of Xpert MTB/RIF in diagnosis, (ii) use of adjunct corticosteroids in treatment, and (iii) duration of treatment. The guidelines were developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria, which were evidence based, and due consideration was given to various healthcare settings across India. Further, for those forms of EPTB in which evidence regarding best practice was lacking, clinical practice points were developed by consensus on accumulated knowledge and experience of specialists who participated in the working groups. This would also reflect the needs of healthcare providers and develop a platform for future research.

Pressure-controlled versus volume-controlled ventilation for acute respiratory failure due to acute lung injury (ALI) or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

BACKGROUND: Acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) account for one-quarter of cases of acute respiratory failure in intensive care units (ICUs). A third to half of patients will die in the ICU, in hospital or during follow-up. Mechanical ventilation of people with ALI/ARDS allows time for the lungs to heal, but ventilation is invasive and can result in lung injury. It is uncertain whether ventilator-related injury would be reduced if pressure delivered by the ventilator with each breath is controlled, or whether the volume of air delivered by each breath is limited. OBJECTIVES: To compare pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) versus volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) in adults with ALI/ARDS to determine whether PCV reduces in-hospital mortality and morbidity in intubated and ventilated adults. SEARCH METHODS: In October 2014, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Isssue 9), MEDLINE (1950 to 1 October 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 1 October 2014), the Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1994 to 1 October 2014) and Science Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) at the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (1990 to 1 October 2014), as well as regional databases, clinical trials registries, conference proceedings and reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (irrespective of language or publication status) of adults with a diagnosis of acute respiratory failure or acute on chronic respiratory failure and fulfilling the criteria for ALI/ARDS as defined by the American-European Consensus Conference who were admitted to an ICU for invasive mechanical ventilation, comparing pressure-controlled or pressure-controlled inverse-ratio ventilation, or an equivalent pressure-controlled mode (PCV), versus volume-controlled ventilation, or an equivalent volume-controlled mode (VCV). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened and selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We sought clarification from trial authors when needed. We pooled risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model. We assessed overall evidence quality using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs that randomly assigned a total of 1089 participants recruited from 43 ICUs in Australia, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Spain and the USA. Risk of bias of the included studies was low. Only data for mortality and barotrauma could be combined in the meta-analysis. We downgraded the quality of evidence for the three mortality outcomes on the basis of serious imprecision around the effect estimates. For mortality in hospital, the RR with PCV compared with VCV was 0.83 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.02; three trials, 1089 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and for mortality in the ICU, the RR with PCV compared with VCV was 0.84 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; two trials, 1062 participants; moderate-quality evidence). One study provided no evidence of clear benefit with the ventilatory mode for mortality at 28 days (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.06; 983 participants; moderate-quality evidence). The difference in effect on barotrauma between PCV and VCV was uncertain as the result of imprecision and different co-interventions used in the studies (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.77; two trials, 1062 participants; low-quality evidence). Data from one trial with 983 participants for the mean duration of ventilation, and from another trial with 78 participants for the mean number of extrapulmonary organ failures that developed with PCV or VCV, were skewed. None of the trials reported on infection during ventilation or quality of life after discharge. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently available data from RCTs are insufficient to confirm or refute whether pressure-controlled or volume-controlled ventilation offers any advantage for people with acute respiratory failure due to acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome. More studies including a larger number of people given PCV and VCV may provide reliable evidence on which more firm conclusions can be based.

Interventions for the treatment of metastatic extradural spinal cord compression in adults.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic extradural spinal cord compression (MESCC) is treated with radiotherapy, corticosteroids, and surgery, but there is uncertainty regarding their comparative effects. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 4, 2008). OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of radiotherapy, surgery and corticosteroids in MESCC. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2015, we updated previous searches (July 2008 and December 2013) of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, CANCERLIT, clinical trials registries, conference proceedings, and references, without language restrictions. We also contacted experts for relevant published, unpublished and ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of radiotherapy, surgery and corticosteroids in adults with MESCC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently screened and selected trials, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We sought clarifications from trial authors. Where possible, we pooled relative risks with their 95% confidence intervals, using a random effects model if heterogeneity was significant. We assessed overall evidence-quality using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This update includes seven trials involving 876 (723 evaluable) adult participants (19 to 87 years) in high-income countries. Most were free of the risk of bias. Different radiotherapy doses and schedulesTwo equivalence trials in people with MESCC and a poor prognosis evaluated different radiotherapy doses and schedules. In one, a single dose (8 Gray (Gy)) of radiotherapy (RT) was as effective as short-course RT (16 Gy in two fractions over one week) in enhancing ambulation in the short term (65% versus 69%; risk ratio (RR) was 0.93, (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.04); 303 participants; moderate quality evidence). The regimens were also equally effective in reducing analgesic and narcotic use (34% versus 40%; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.16; 271 participants), and in maintaining urinary continence (90% versus 87%; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.1; 303 participants) in the short term (moderate quality evidence). In the other trial, split-course RT (30 Gy in eight fractions over two weeks) was no different from short-course RT in enhancing ambulation (70% versus 68%; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.15; 276 participants); reducing analgesic and narcotic use (49% versus 38%; RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.67; 262 participants); and in maintaining urinary continence (87% versus 90%; RR 0.97, 0.93 to 1.02; 275 participants) in the short term (moderate quality evidence). Median survival was similar with the three RT regimens (four months). Local tumour recurrence may be more common with single-dose compared to short-course RT (6% versus 3%; RR 2.21, 95% CI 0.69 to 7.01; 303 participants) and with short-course compared to split-course RT (4% versus 0%; RR 0.1, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.72; 276 participants), but these differences were not statistically significant (low quality evidence). Gastrointestinal adverse effects were infrequent with the three RT regimens (moderate quality evidence), and serious adverse events or post-radiotherapy myelopathy were not noted.We did not find trials comparing radiotherapy schedules in people with MESCC and a good prognosis. Surgery plus radiotherapy compared to radiotherapyLaminectomy plus RT offered no advantage over RT in one small trial with 29 participants (very low quality evidence). In another trial that was stopped early for apparent benefit, decompressive surgery plus RT resulted in better ambulatory rates (84% versus 57%; RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.90; 101 participants, low quality evidence). Narcotic use may also be lower, and bladder control may also be maintained longer than with than RT in selected patients (low quality evidence). Median survival was longer after surgery (126 days versus 100 days), but the proportions surviving at one month (94% versus 86%; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.24; 101 participants) did not differ significantly (low quality evidence). Serious adverse events were not noted. Significant benefits with surgery occurred only in people younger than 65 years. High dose corticosteroids compared to moderate dose or no corticosteroidsData from three small trials suggest that high-dose steroids may not differ from moderate-dose or no corticosteroids in enhancing ambulation (60% versus 55%; RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.45; 3 RCTs, 105 participants); survival over two years (11% versus 10%; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.24 to 5.05; 1 RCT, 57 participants); pain reduction (78% versus 91%; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.20; 1 RCT, 25 participants); or urinary continence (63% versus 53%; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.13; 1 RCT, 34 participants; low quality evidence). Serious adverse effects were more frequent with high-dose corticosteroids (17% versus 0%; RR 8.02, 95% CI 1.03 to 62.37; 2 RCTs, 77 participants; moderate quality evidence).None of the trials reported satisfaction with care or quality of life in participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on current evidence, ambulant adults with MESCC with stable spines and predicted survival of less than six months will probably benefit as much from one dose of radiation (8 Gy) as from two doses (16 Gy) or eight doses (30 Gy). We are unsure if a single dose is as effective as two or more doses in preventing local tumour recurrence. Laminectomy preceding radiotherapy may offer no benefits over radiotherapy alone. Decompressive surgery followed by radiotherapy may benefit ambulant and non-ambulant adults younger than 65 years of age, with poor prognostic factors for radiotherapy, a single area of compression, paraplegia for less than 48 hours, and a predicted survival of more than six months. We are uncertain whether high doses of corticosteroids offer any benefits over moderate doses or indeed no corticosteroids; but high-dose steroids probably significantly increases the risk of serious adverse effects. Early detection; and treatment based on neurological status, age and estimated survival, are crucial with all treatment modalities. Most of the evidence was of low quality. High-quality evidence from more trials is needed to clarify current uncertainties, and some studies are in progress.

Ovulation triggers in anovulatory women undergoing ovulation induction.

BACKGROUND: Anovulation is a common cause of infertility. Drugs used to treat anovulation include selective oestrogen receptor modulators, aromatase inhibitors and gonadotrophins. Ovulation triggers are used with these drugs, as a surrogate for the hormonal surge seen in spontaneous menstrual cycles, to control the timing of ovulation and the timing of sexual intercourse. Ovulation triggers given without reliable evidence of oocyte maturity could be inappropriately timed; they increase costs, and the need to time intercourse precisely after the ovulation trigger is given adds to psychological stress.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 3, 2008, of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of administering an ovulation trigger to anovulatory women receiving treatment with ovulation-inducing agents in comparison with spontaneous ovulation following ovulation induction. SEARCH METHODS: We updated searches of the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO to November 2013. We checked conference proceedings, trial registries and reference lists and contacted researchers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Parallel-group, randomised, controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the administration of an ovulation trigger to anovulatory women receiving treatment with ovulation-inducing agents. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently assessed trial eligibility and trial quality and extracted data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data and used the random-effects model in meta-analyses when significant heterogeneity was present. We assessed overall quality of the evidence by using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: No new trials were identified. This review includes two RCTs with low risk of bias that compared urinary human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) versus no treatment in anovulatory women receiving clomiphene citrate. Urinary hCG did not result in an increase in live birth rate over no hCG (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.83; two trials, 305 participants, I(2) = 16%; low-quality evidence), but very serious imprecision around the effect estimate reduces our confidence in the apparent lack of effect of hCG as an ovulation trigger in clomiphene-induced cycles in anovulatory women.Among this review's secondary outcomes, urinary hCG may not increase ovulation rate (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.77; two trials, 305 participants, I(2) = 55%; low-quality evidence), clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.89; two trials, 305 participants, I(2) = 35%; low-quality evidence) or miscarriage rate in pregnant women (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.17 to 8.23; two trials, 54 participants, I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence). Multiple pregnancies and preterm deliveries were uncommon, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, adverse events and deaths were not reported as outcomes in either trial. We found no trials evaluating other ovulation triggers. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is inadequate to recommend or refute the use of urinary hCG as an ovulation trigger in anovulatory women treated with clomiphene citrate. We found no trials evaluating the use of ovulation triggers in anovulatory women treated with other ovulation-inducing agents.

Intermittent versus daily therapy for treating tuberculosis in children.

BACKGROUND: Childhood tuberculosis (TB) is a neglected global public health problem. Short treatment courses with rifampicin-containing anti-TB drugs given daily for six-months cure over 90% of infected children, but poor adherence reduces treatment success. Intermittent, short-course anti-TB regimens, given two or three times a week under direct observation, are associated with higher adherence in observational studies; but how they compare with daily treatment in relation to cure is unclear. Current international and national recommendations differ on use of intermittent regimens to treat TB in children. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of intermittent, short-course anti-TB regimens (twice- or thrice-weekly) with daily short-course anti-TB regimens in treating childhood TB. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Disease Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, clinical trials registries, regional databases, conference proceedings, and references without language restrictions up to 30 May 2013; and contacted experts for relevant published, unpublished, and on-going trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of children aged 15 years or younger, diagnosed with TB (according to the World Health Organization diagnostic categories 1, 2, or 3), who were treated with intermittent twice-weekly or thrice-weekly, short-course anti-TB regimens compared to daily short-course anti-TB treatment regimens. All regimens had to contain rifampicin for at least the first two months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently screened and selected trials, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We sought clarifications from trial authors. We pooled relative risks with their 95% confidence intervals and used a random-effects model where there was significant heterogeneity. We assessed overall evidence-quality using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included four trials published between 1996 to 2000 that randomized 563 children (465 evaluable) aged five months to 15 years to intermittent twice-weekly versus daily anti-TB treatment. Two trials were from India, one from South Africa, and one from Turkey. All trials used rifampicin and isoniazid, three trials used pyrazinamide, and one trial used streptomycin. The drug combination, and the duration of intermittent and daily treatments differed between trials, and no trials used drug combinations and schedules currently recommended for childhood TB. No trial reported if any child was HIV-positive.In comparisons of twice-weekly versus daily anti-TB treatment regimens, the trials did not detect differences in the number of patients cured, but trials were small, and the comparator regimens were not standard (four trials, 465 children; very low quality evidence). Trials were underpowered to provide estimates for death (two trials, 213 participants, very low quality evidence), relapse (one trial, 214 participants,very low quality evidence), and treatment limiting adverse events (four trials, 441 participants, very low quality evidence)Reported adherence to treatment was similar (87% versus 84%; four trials, 458 children, very low quality evidence)We did not find trials comparing the commonly used thrice-weekly anti-TB short-course regimen with the daily treatment regimen. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Trials conducted to date are insufficient to support or refute the use of intermittent twice- or thrice-weekly, short-course treatment regimens over daily short-course treatment in children with TB. Further randomized trials conducted in high TB-transmission settings will help inform policy and practice.

Interventions for treating femoral shaft fractures in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Fractures of the femoral shaft in children are relatively uncommon but serious injuries that disrupt the lives of children and their carers and can result in significant long-term disability. Treatment involves either surgical fixation, such as intramedullary nailing or external fixation, or conservative treatment involving prolonged immobilisation, often in hospital. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of interventions for treating femoral shaft fractures in children and adolescents. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (accessed 16 August 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2013 Issue 7), MEDLINE (1946 to August Week 1 2013), EMBASE (1980 to 2012 week 9), CINAHL (16 August 2013), clinical trials registries, conference proceedings and reference lists; and contacted trial authors and experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing conservative and surgical interventions for diaphyseal fractures of the femur in children under 18 years of age. Our primary outcomes were functional outcome measures, unacceptable malunion, and serious adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened and selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome for each comparison using the GRADE approach. We pooled data using a fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 trials (six randomised and four quasi-randomised) involving a total of 527 children (531 fractures). All trials were at some risk of bias, including performance bias as care provider blinding was not practical, but to a differing extent. Just one trial was at low risk of selection bias. Reflecting both the risk of bias and the imprecision of findings, we judged the quality of evidence to be 'low' for most outcomes, meaning that we are unsure about the estimates of effect. Most trials failed to report on self-assessed function or when children resumed their usual activities. The trials evaluated 10 different comparisons, belonging to three main categories. Surgical versus conservative treatment Four trials presenting data for 264 children aged 4 to 12 years made this comparison. Low quality evidence (one trial, 101 children) showed children had very similar function assessed using the RAND health status score at two years after surgery (external fixation) compared with conservative treatment (spica cast): mean 69 versus 68. The other three trials did not report on function. There was moderate quality evidence (four trials, 264 children, aged 4 to 12 years, followed up 3 to 24 months) that surgery reduced the risk of malunion (risk ratio (RR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.59, 4 trials). Assuming an illustrative baseline risk of 115 malunions per 1000 in children treated conservatively, these data equate to 81 fewer (95% CI 47 to 97 fewer) malunions per 1000 in surgically-treated children. Conversely, low quality evidence indicated that there were more serious adverse events such as infections after surgery (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.10 to 5.17, 4 trials). Assuming an illustrative baseline risk of 40 serious adverse events per 1000 for conservative treatment, these data equate to 56 more (95% CI 4 to 167 more) serious adverse events per 1000 children treated surgically. There was low quality evidence (one trial, 101 children) of similar satisfaction levels in children and parents with surgery involving external fixation and plaster cast only. However, there was low quality evidence (one trial, 46 children) that more parents were satisfied with intramedullary nailing than with traction followed by a cast, and that surgery reduced the time taken off from school. Comparisons of different methods of conservative treatmentThe three trials in this category made three different comparisons. We are very unsure if unacceptable malunion rates differ between immediate hip spica versus skeletal traction followed by spica in children aged 3 to 10 years followed up for six to eight weeks (RR 4.0, 95% CI 0.5 to 32.9; one trial, 42 children; very low quality evidence). Malunion rates at 5 to 10 years may not differ between traction followed by functional orthosis versus traction followed by spica cast in children aged 5 to 13 years (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.12; one trial, 43 children; low quality evidence). We are very unsure (very low quality evidence) if either function or serious adverse events (zero events reported) differ between single-leg versus double-leg spica casts (one trial, 52 young children aged two to seven years). Low quality evidence on the same comparison indicates that single-leg casts are less awkward to manage by parents, more comfortable for the child and may require less time off work by the caregiver. Comparisons of different methods of surgical treatmentThe three trials in this category made three different comparisons. Very low quality evidence means that we are very unsure if the rates of malunion, serious adverse events, time to return to school or parental satisfaction actually differ in children whose fractures were fixed using elastic stable intramedullary nailing or external fixation (one trial, 19 children). The same applies to the rates of serious adverse events and time to resume full weight-bearing in children treated with dynamic versus static external fixation (one trial, 52 children). Very low quality evidence (one trial, 47 children) means that we do not know if malunion, serious adverse events and time to resume weight-bearing actually differ between intramedullary nailing versus submuscular plating. However, there could be more difficulties in plate removal subsequently. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to determine if long-term function differs between surgical and conservative treatment. Surgery results in lower rates of malunion in children aged 4 to 12 years, but may increase the risk of serious adverse events. Elastic stable intramedullary nailing may reduce recovery time.There is insufficient evidence from comparisons of different methods of conservative treatment or of different methods of surgical treatment to draw conclusions on the relative effects of the treatments compared in the included trials.

Artesunate plus pyronaridine for treating uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that people with uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria are treated using Artemisinin-based Combination Therapy (ACT). ACT combines three-days of a short-acting artemisinin derivative with a longer-acting antimalarial which has a different mode of action. Pyronaridine has been reported as an effective antimalarial over two decades of use in parts of Asia, and is currently being evaluated as a partner drug for artesunate. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of artesunate-pyronaridine compared to alternative ACTs for treating people with uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in The Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; EMBASE; LILACS; ClinicalTrials.gov; the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT); and the WHO International Clinical Trials Search Portal up to 16 January 2014. We searched reference lists and conference abstracts, and contacted experts for information about ongoing and unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of artesunate-pyronaridine versus other ACTs in adults and children with uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria.For the safety analysis, we also included adverse events data from trials comparing any treatment regimen containing pyronaridine with regimens not containing pyronaridine. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We combined dichotomous data using risk ratios (RR) and continuous data using mean differences (MD), and presented all results with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included six randomized controlled trials enrolling 3718 children and adults. Artesunate-pyronaridine versus artemether-lumefantrineIn two multicentre trials, enrolling mainly older children and adults from west and south-central Africa, both artesunate-pyronaridine and artemether-lumefantrine had fewer than 5% PCR adjusted treatment failures during 42 days of follow-up, with no differences between groups (two trials, 1472 participants, low quality evidence). There were fewer new infections during the first 28 days in those given artesunate-pyronaridine (PCR-unadjusted treatment failure: RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.90, two trials, 1720 participants, moderate quality evidence), but no difference was detected over the whole 42 day follow-up (two trials, 1691 participants, moderate quality evidence). Artesunate-pyronaridine versus artesunate plus mefloquineIn one multicentre trial, enrolling mainly older children and adults from South East Asia, both artesunate-pyronaridine and artesunate plus mefloquine had fewer than 5% PCR adjusted treatment failures during 28 days follow-up (one trial, 1187 participants, moderate quality evidence). PCR-adjusted treatment failures were 6% by day 42 for these treated with artesunate-pyronaridine, and 4% for those with artesunate-mefloquine (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.89 to 3.00, one trial, 1116 participants, low quality evidence). Again, there were fewer new infections during the first 28 days in those given artesunate-pyronaridine (PCR-unadjusted treatment failure: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.73, one trial, 1720 participants, moderate quality evidence), but no differences were detected over the whole 42 days (one trial, 1146 participants, low quality evidence). Adverse effectsSerious adverse events were uncommon in these trials, with no difference detected between artesunate-pyronaridine and comparator ACTs. The analysis of liver function tests showed biochemical elevation were four times more frequent with artesunate-pyronaridine than with the other antimalarials (RR 4.17, 95% CI 1.38 to 12.62, four trials, 3523 participants, moderate quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Artesunate-pyronaridine performed well in these trials compared to artemether-lumefantrine and artesunate plus mefloquine, with PCR-adjusted treatment failure at day 28 below the 5% standard set by the WHO. Further efficacy and safety studies in African and Asian children are required to clarify whether this combination is an option for first-line treatment.

The efficacy and safety of 25 µg or 50 µg oral misoprostol versus 25 µg vaginal misoprostol given at 4- or 6-hourly intervals for induction of labour in women at or beyond term with live singleton pregnancies: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Misoprostol is widely used for cervical ripening and labour induction as it is heat-stable and inexpensive. Oral misoprostol 25 µg given 2-hourly is recommended over vaginal misoprostol 25 µg given 6-hourly, but the need for 2-hourly fetal monitoring makes oral misoprostol impractical for routine use in high-volume obstetric units in resource-constrained settings. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of oral misoprostol initiated at 25 or 50 µg versus 25 µg vaginal misoprostol given at 4- to 6-hourly intervals for labor induction in women at or beyond term (≥ 37 weeks) with a single viable fetus and an unscarred uterus. SEARCH STRATEGY: We identified eligible randomized, parallel-group, labor-induction trials from recent systematic reviews. We additionally searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Epistemonikos, and clinical trials registries from February 1, 2020 to December 31, 2022 without language restrictions. Database-specific keywords for cervical priming, labor induction, and misoprostol were used. SELECTION CRITERIA: We excluded labor-induction trials exclusively in women with ruptured membranes, in the third trimester, and those that initiated misoprostol at doses not specified in the review's objectives. The primary outcomes were vaginal birth within 24 h, cesarean section, perinatal mortality, neonatal morbidity, and maternal morbidity. The secondary outcomes were uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes, and oxytocin augmentation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two or more authors selected studies independently, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We derived pooled weighted risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome, subgrouping trials by the dose and frequency of misoprostol regimens. We used the I2 statistic to quantify heterogeneity and the random-effects model for meta-analysis when appropriate. We used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess certainty (confidence) in the effect estimates. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen trials, from Canada, India, Iran, and the US, randomizing 2941 women at ≥37 weeks of gestation with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score <6), met the eligibility criteria. Five misoprostol regimens were compared: 25 µg oral versus 25 µg vaginal, 4-hourly (three trials); 50 µg oral versus 25 µg vaginal, 4-hourly (five trials); 50 µg followed by 100 µg oral versus 25 µg vaginal, 4-hourly (two trials); 50 µg oral, 4-hourly versus 25 µg vaginal, 6-hourly (one trial); and 50 µg oral versus 25 µg vaginal, 6-hourly (two trials). The overall certainty in the evidence ranged from moderate to very low, due to high risk of bias in 11/13 trials (affecting all outcomes), unexplained heterogeneity (1/7 outcomes), indirectness (1/7 outcomes), and imprecision (4/7 outcomes). Vaginal misoprostol probably increased vaginal deliveries within 24 h compared with oral misoprostol (risk ratio [RR] 0.82, 95% CI 0.70-0.96; 11 trials, 2721 mothers; moderate-certainty evidence); this was more likely with 4-hourly than with 6-hourly vaginal regimens. The risk of cesarean sections did not appreciably differ (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80-1.26; 13 trials, 2941 mothers; very low-certainty evidence), although oral misoprostol 25 µg 4-hourly probably increased this risk compared with 25 µg vaginal misoprostol 4-hourly (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.21-2.36; three trials, 515 mothers). The risk of perinatal mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.11-3.90; one trial, 196 participants; very low-certainty evidence), neonatal morbidity (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67-1.06; 13 trials, 2941 mothers; low-certainty evidence), and maternal morbidity (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.48-1.44; 6 trials; 1945 mothers; moderate-certainty evidence) did not differ appreciably. The risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes may be lower with oral misoprostol (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.95; 10 trials, 2565 mothers; low-certainty evidence). Oxytocin augmentation was probably more frequent with oral compared with vaginal misoprostol (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.10-1.51; 13 trials, 2941 mothers; moderate-certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose, 4- to 6-hourly vaginal misoprostol regimens probably result in more vaginal births within 24 h and less frequent oxytocin use compared with low-dose, 4- to 6-hourly, oral misoprostol regimens. Vaginal misoprostol may increase the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart changes compared with oral misoprostol, without increasing the risk of perinatal mortality, neonatal morbidity, or maternal morbidity. Indirect evidence indicates that 25 µg vaginal misoprostol 4-hourly may be more effective and as safe as the recommended 6-hourly vaginal regimen. This evidence could inform clinical decisions in high-volume obstetric units in resource-constrained settings.

Effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for severe agitation in real-world emergency settings: protocol of individual-participant-data network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Severe psychomotor agitation and aggression often require immediate pharmacological intervention, but clear evidence-based recommendations for choosing among the multiple options are lacking. To address this gap, we plan a systematic review and individual-participant-data network meta-analysis to investigate their comparative effectiveness in real-world emergency settings with increased precision. METHODS: We will include randomized controlled trials investigating intramuscular or intravenous pharmacological interventions, as monotherapy or in combination, in adults with severe psychomotor agitation irrespective of the underlying diagnosis and requiring rapid tranquilization in general or psychiatric emergency settings. We will exclude studies before 2002, those focusing on specific reasons for agitation and placebo-controlled trials to avoid concerns related to the transitivity assumption and potential selection biases. We will search for eligible studies in BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL Plus, Embase, LILACS, MEDLINE via Ovid, PubMed, ProQuest, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO-ICTRP. Individual-participant data will be requested from the study authors and harmonized into a uniform format, and aggregated data will also be extracted from the studies. At least two independent reviewers will conduct the study selection, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment using RoB 2, and applicability evaluation using the RITES tool. The primary outcome will be the number of patients achieving adequate sedation within 30 min after treatment, with secondary outcomes including the need for additional interventions and adverse events, using odds ratios as the effect size. If enough individual-participant data will be collected, we will synthesize them in a network meta-regression model within a Bayesian framework, incorporating study- and participant-level characteristics to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. In cases where individual-participant data are unavailable, potential data availability bias will be explored, and models allowing for the inclusion of studies reporting only aggregated data will be considered. We will assess the confidence in the evidence using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approach. DISCUSSION: This individual-participant-data network meta-analysis aims to provide a fine-tuned synthesis of the evidence on the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for severe psychomotor agitation in real-world emergency settings. The findings from this study can greatly be provided clearer evidence-based guidance on the most effective treatments. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023402365.

Clinical Epidemiology (CE) and Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) in the Asia Pacific region (Round Table Forum).

Clinical Epidemiology (CE) and Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) have become increasingly important in an era of rising costs, patient safety concerns and evidence-based health care. CE and EBM research in the Asia Pacific region have grown significantly. However, there are three main challenges such as linking evidence to practice and policy; developing a strong collaborative network; and a need for resources and technical expertise to produce evidence. The Cochrane Collaboration is a possible solution to resolve above challenges identified, particularly the challenge of transforming evidence to practice. In addition, training can be carried out to enhance technical expertise in the region and there is also the promising potential that collaborations could extend beyond systematic reviews. To improve the adoption of evidence-based health policy, selection of the best evidence for the right audience and focusing on the relevant issues through appropriate methodology are essential. Information on effectiveness and cost effectiveness needs to be highlighted for policy makers. The way forward to strengthen research and capacity building is to establish the Asia Pacific Consortium for CE and EBM. The consortium would help to create mutually rewarding scientific research and collaborations that will augur well for advances in CE and EBM.

Minimally invasive versus open surgery for reversal of tubal sterilization.

BACKGROUND: Although tubal sterilization procedures are considered to be permanent, requests for reversal of the procedure (re-canalisation) are not infrequent. The reversal procedure can be done either by an open laparotomy or by minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopic or robotic approach). OBJECTIVES: To compare the relative effectiveness and safety of reversal of tubal sterilization by open laparotomy, laparoscopy and robotically assisted endoscopy. SEARCH METHODS: On 23 October 2012 we searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Review Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (Issue 10, 2012); MEDLINE; EMBASE; LILACS; clinical trials registries; regional databases; conference proceedings; and references for relevant published, unpublished and ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing the different methods of surgical reversal of tubal sterilisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: No trials that met the selection criteria were identified. MAIN RESULTS: No data for evaluation were obtained AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently there is no evidence from randomised controlled trials to recommend or refute the use of a minimally invasive surgical approach (laparoscopic or robotic) or open surgery for reversal of tubal sterilization. There is a need for well conducted and reported randomised clinical trials to generate reliable evidence to inform clinical practice.

Rifamycins (rifampicin, rifabutin and rifapentine) compared to isoniazid for preventing tuberculosis in HIV-negative people at risk of active TB.

BACKGROUND: Preventing active tuberculosis (TB) from developing in people with latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is important for global TB control. Isoniazid (INH) for six to nine months has 60% to 90% protective efficacy, but the treatment period is long, liver toxicity is a problem, and completion rates outside trials are only around 50%. Rifampicin or rifamycin-combination treatments are shorter and may result in higher completion rates. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of rifampicin monotherapy or rifamycin-combination therapy versus INH monotherapy for preventing active TB in HIV-negative people at risk of developing active TB. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Disease Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; LILACS; clinical trials registries; regional databases; conference proceedings; and references, without language restrictions to December 2012; and contacted experts for relevant published, unpublished and ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of HIV-negative adults and children at risk of active TB treated with rifampicin, or rifamycin-combination therapy with or without INH (any dose or duration), compared with INH for six to nine months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two authors independently screened and selected trials, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We sought clarifications from trial authors. We pooled relative risks (RRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using a random-effects model if heterogeneity was significant. We assessed overall evidence quality using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials are included, enrolling 10,717 adults and children, mostly HIV-negative (2% HIV-positive), with a follow-up period ranging from two to five years. Rifampicin (three/four months) vs. INH (six months)Five trials published between 1992 to 2012 compared these regimens, and one small 1992 trial in adults with silicosis did not detect a difference in the occurrence of TB over five years of follow up (one trial, 312 participants; very low quality evidence). However, more people in these trials completed the shorter course (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.30; five trials, 1768 participants; moderate quality evidence). Treatment-limiting adverse events were not significantly different (four trials, 1674 participants; very low quality evidence), but rifampicin caused less hepatotoxicity (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.30; four trials, 1674 participants; moderate quality evidence). Rifampicin plus INH (three months) vs. INH (six months)The 1992 silicosis trial did not detect a difference between people receiving rifampicin plus INH compared to INH alone for occurrence of active TB (one trial, 328 participants; very low quality evidence). Adherence was similar in this and a 1998 trial in people without silicosis (two trials, 524 participants; high quality evidence). No difference was detected for treatment-limiting adverse events (two trials, 536 participants; low quality evidence), or hepatotoxicity (two trials, 536 participants; low quality evidence). Rifampicin plus pyrazinamide (two months) vs. INH (six months)Three small trials published in 1994, 2003, and 2005 compared these two regimens, and two reported a low occurrence of active TB, with no statistically significant differences between treatment regimens (two trials, 176 participants; very low quality evidence) though, apart from one child from the 1994 trial, these data on active TB were from the 2003 trial in adults with silicosis. Adherence with both regimens was low with no statistically significant differences (four trials, 700 participants; very low quality evidence). However, people receiving rifampicin plus pyrazinamide had more treatment-limiting adverse events (RR 3.61, 95% CI 1.82 to 7.19; two trials, 368 participants; high quality evidence), and hepatotoxicity (RR 4.59, 95% 2.14 to 9.85; three trials, 540 participants; moderate quality evidence). Weekly, directly-observed rifapentine plus INH (three months) vs. daily, self-administered INH (nine months)A large trial conducted from 2001 to 2008 among close contacts of TB in the USA, Canada, Brazil and Spain found directly observed weekly treatment to be non-inferior to nine months self-administered INH for the incidence of active TB (0.2% vs 0.4%, RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.07, one trial, 7731 participants; moderate quality evidence). The directly-observed, shorter regimen had higher treatment completion (82% vs 69%, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.22, moderate quality evidence), and less hepatotoxicity (0.4% versus 2.4%; RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.27; high quality evidence), though treatment-limiting adverse events were more frequent (4.9% versus 3.7%; RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.64 moderate quality evidence) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Trials to date of shortened prophylactic regimens using rifampicin alone have not demonstrated higher rates of active TB when compared to longer regimens with INH. Treatment completion is probably higher and adverse events may be fewer with shorter rifampicin regimens. Shortened regimens of rifampicin with INH may offer no advantage over longer INH regimens. Rifampicin combined with pyrazinamide is associated with more adverse events. A weekly regimen of rifapentine plus INH has higher completion rates, and less liver toxicity, though treatment discontinuation due to adverse events is probably more likely than with INH.

Conservative interventions for treating diaphyseal fractures of the forearm bones in children.

BACKGROUND: Diaphyseal forearm fractures in children are common injuries, the vast majority of which are treated conservatively. There is a need to assess the role of modifiable factors such as techniques of reduction and casting in order to optimise functional recovery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different conservative interventions for diaphyseal forearm fractures in children, including adolescents. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (to November 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2012 Issue 11), MEDLINE (1950 to November 2012), EMBASE (1980 to November 2012), CINAHL (1982 to November 2012), trial registries (to November 2012), conference proceedings and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing conservative interventions for diaphyseal forearm fractures in children were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently examined search results to identify eligible trials. MAIN RESULTS: After screening 493 citations, 17 potentially eligible studies were identified. Of these 13 studies were excluded, two studies, both reported incompletely in conference abstracts only, await assessment and two are ongoing trials whose recruitment status is unknown. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found no usable evidence from randomised trials to make recommendations concerning different conservative interventions for the treatment of diaphyseal fractures of the forearm bones in children. Publication in full of trials that have already been performed on this topic would be a useful start to changing this unsatisfactory situation.

Primaquine for preventing relapse in people with Plasmodium vivax malaria treated with chloroquine.

BACKGROUND: Plasmodium vivax infections are an important contributor to the malaria burden worldwide. The World Health Organization recommends a 14-day course of primaquine (0.25 mg/kg/day, giving an adult dose of 15 mg/day) to eradicate the liver stage of the parasite and prevent relapse of the disease. Many people find a 14-day primaquine regimen difficult to complete, and there is a potential risk of haemolytic anaemia in people with glucose-6-phosphate-dehydrogenase enzyme (G6PD) deficiency. This review evaluates primaquine in P. vivax, particularly alternatives to the standard 14-day course. OBJECTIVES: To compare alternative primaquine regimens to the recommended 14-day regimen for preventing relapses (radical cure) in people with P. vivax malaria treated for blood stage infection with chloroquine. We also summarize trials comparing primaquine to no primaquine that led to the recommendation for the 14-day regimen. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group's Specialized Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS up to 8 October 2013. We checked conference proceedings, trial registries and reference lists and contacted researchers and pharmaceutical companies for eligible studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing various primaquine dosing regimens with the standard primaquine regimen (15 mg/day for 14 days), or with no primaquine, in people with vivax malaria treated for blood stage infection with chloroquine. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently assessed trial eligibility, trial quality, and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous data, and used the random-effects model in meta-analyses if there was significant heterogeneity. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 trials (two cluster-RCTs) of 4377 adult and child participants. Most trials excluded people with G6PD deficiency. Trials compared various regimens of primaquine with the standard primaquine regimen, or with placebo or no treatment. All trials treated blood stage infection with chloroquine. Alternative primaquine regimens compared to 14-day primaquineRelapse rates were higher over six months with the five-day primaquine regimen than the standard 14-day regimen (RR 10.05, 95% CI 2.82 to 35.86; two trials, 186 participants, moderate quality evidence). Similarly, relapse over six months was higher with three days of primaquine than the standard 14-day regimen (RR 3.18, 95% CI 2.1 to 4.81; two trials, 262 participants, moderate quality evidence; six months follow-up); and with primaquine for seven days followed up over two months, compared to 14-day primaquine (RR 2.24, 95% CI 1.24 to 4.03; one trial, 126 participants, low quality evidence).Relapse with once-weekly supervised primaquine for eight weeks was little different over nine months follow-up compared to 14-day self-administered primaquine in one small study (RR 2.97, 95% CI 0.34 to 25.87; one trial, 129 participants, very low quality evidence). Primaquine regimens compared to no primaquineThe number of people that relapsed was similar between people given five days of primaquine or given placebo or no primaquine (four trials, 2213 participants, high quality evidence; follow-up six to 15 months); but lower with 14 days of primaquine (RR 0.6; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.75; ten trials, 1740 participants, high quality evidence; follow-up seven weeks to 15 months).No serious adverse events were reported. Treatment-limiting adverse events were rare and non-serious adverse events were mild and transient. Trial authors reported that people tolerated the drugs.We did not find trials comparing higher dose primaquine regimens (0.5 mg/kg/day or more) for five days or more with the 14-day regimen. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The analysis confirms the current World Health Organization recommendation for 14-day primaquine (15 mg/day) to prevent relapse of vivax malaria. Shorter primaquine regimens at the same daily dose are associated with higher relapse rates. The comparative effects with weekly primaquine are promising, but require further trials to establish equivalence or non-inferiority compared to the 14-day regimen in high malaria transmission settings.