Representation of evidence-based clinical practice guideline recommendations on FHIR.

BACKGROUND: Various formalisms have been developed to represent clinical practice guideline recommendations in a computer-interpretable way. However, none of the existing formalisms leverage the structured and computable information that emerge from the evidence-based guideline development process. Thus, we here propose a FHIR-based format that uses computer-interpretable representations of the knowledge artifacts that emerge during the process of evidence-based guideline development to directly serve as the basis of evidence-based recommendations. METHODS: We identified the information required to represent evidence-based clinical practice guideline recommendations and reviewed the knowledge artifacts emerging during the evidence-based guideline development process. We then conducted a consensus-based design process with domain experts to develop an information model for guideline recommendation representation that is structurally aligned to the evidence-based guideline recommendation development process and a corresponding representation based on FHIR resources developed for evidence-based medicine (EBMonFHIR). The resulting recommendations were modelled and represented in conformance with the FHIR Clinical Guidelines (CPG-on-FHIR) implementation guide. RESULTS: The information model of evidence-based clinical guideline recommendations and its EBMonFHIR-/CPG-on-FHIR-based representation contain the clinical contents of individual guideline recommendations, a set of metadata for the recommendations, the ratings for the recommendations (e.g., strength of recommendation, certainty of overall evidence), the ratings of certainty of evidence for individual outcomes (e.g., risk of bias) and links to the underlying evidence (systematic reviews based on primary studies). We created profiles and an implementation guide for all FHIR resources required to represent the knowledge artifacts generated during evidence-based guideline development and their re-use as the basis for recommendations and used the profiles to implement an exemplary clinical guideline recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: The FHIR implementation guide presented here can be used to directly link the evidence assessment process of evidence-based guideline recommendation development, i.e. systematic reviews and evidence grading, and the underlying evidence from primary studies to the resulting guideline recommendations. This not only allows the evidence on which recommendations are based on to be evaluated transparently and critically, but also enables guideline developers to leverage computable evidence in a more direct way to facilitate the generation of computer-interpretable guideline recommendations.

Preoperative combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation for preventing complications in elective colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: The success of elective colorectal surgery is mainly influenced by the surgical procedure and postoperative complications. The most serious complications include anastomotic leakages and surgical site infections (SSI)s, which can lead to prolonged recovery with impaired long-term health.  Compared with other abdominal procedures, colorectal resections have an increased risk of adverse events due to the physiological bacterial colonisation of the large bowel. Preoperative bowel preparation is used to remove faeces from the bowel lumen and reduce bacterial colonisation. This bowel preparation can be performed mechanically and/or with oral antibiotics. While mechanical bowel preparation alone is not beneficial, the benefits and harms of combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation is still unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the use of combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation for preventing complications in elective colorectal surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and trial registries on 15 December 2021. In addition, we searched reference lists and contacted colorectal surgery organisations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adult participants undergoing elective colorectal surgery comparing combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (MBP+oAB) with either MBP alone, oAB alone, or no bowel preparation (nBP). We excluded studies in which no perioperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis was given. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. Pooled results were reported as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The certainty of the evidence was assessed with GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 RCTs analysing 5264 participants who underwent elective colorectal surgery. None of the included studies had a high risk of bias, but two-thirds of the included studies raised some concerns. This was mainly due to the lack of a predefined analysis plan or missing information about the randomisation process. Most included studies investigated both colon and rectal resections due to malignant and benign surgical indications. For MBP as well as oAB, the included studies used different regimens in terms of agent(s), dosage and timing.  Data for all predefined outcomes could be extracted from the included studies. However, only four studies reported on side effects of bowel preparation, and none recorded the occurrence of adverse effects such as dehydration, electrolyte imbalances or the need to discontinue the intervention due to side effects. Seventeen trials compared MBP+oAB with sole MBP. The incidence of SSI could be reduced through MBP+oAB by 44% (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.74; 3917 participants from 16 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and the risk of anastomotic leakage could be reduced by 40% (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.99; 2356 participants from 10 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). No difference between the two comparison groups was found with regard to mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.82; 639 participants from 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), the incidence of postoperative ileus (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.32; 2013 participants from 6 studies, low-certainty of evidence) and length of hospital stay (MD -0.19, 95% CI -1.81 to 1.44; 621 participants from 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Three trials compared MBP+oAB with sole oAB. No difference was demonstrated between the two treatment alternatives in terms of SSI (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.21; 960 participants from 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence), anastomotic leakage (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.45; 960 participants from 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.50; 709 participants from 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), incidence of postoperative ileus (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.33; 709 participants from 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) or length of hospital stay (MD 0.1 respectively 0.2, 95% CI -0.68 to 1.08; data from 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial (396 participants) compared MBP+oAB versus nBP. The evidence is uncertain about the effect of MBP+oAB on the incidence of SSI as well as mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.23 respectively RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.22; low-certainty evidence), while no effect on the risk of anastomotic leakages (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.42; low-certainty evidence), the incidence of postoperative ileus (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81; low-certainty evidence) or the length of hospital stay (MD 0.1, 95% CI -0.8 to 1; low-certainty evidence) could be demonstrated. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on moderate-certainty evidence, our results suggest that MBP+oAB is probably more effective than MBP alone in preventing postoperative complications. In particular, with respect to our primary outcomes, SSI and anastomotic leakage, a lower incidence was demonstrated using MBP+oAB. Whether oAB alone is actually equivalent to MBP+oAB, or leads to a reduction or increase in the risk of postoperative complications, cannot be clarified in light of the low- to very low-certainty evidence. Similarly, it remains unclear whether omitting preoperative bowel preparation leads to an increase in the risk of postoperative complications due to limited evidence. Additional RCTs, particularly on the comparisons of MBP+oAB versus oAB alone or nBP, are needed to assess the impact of oAB alone or nBP compared with MBP+oAB on postoperative complications and to improve confidence in the estimated effect. In addition, RCTs focusing on subgroups (e.g. in relation to type and location of colon resections) or reporting side effects of the intervention are needed to determine the most effective approach of preoperative bowel preparation.

Musical and vocal interventions to improve neurodevelopmental outcomes for preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth interferes with brain maturation, and subsequent clinical events and interventions may have additional deleterious effects. Music as therapy is offered increasingly in neonatal intensive care units aiming to improve health outcomes and quality of life for both preterm infants and the well-being of their parents. Systematic reviews of mixed methodological quality have demonstrated ambiguous results for the efficacy of various types of auditory stimulation of preterm infants. A more comprehensive and rigorous systematic review is needed to address controversies arising from apparently conflicting studies and reviews. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the overall efficacy of music and vocal interventions for physiological and neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants (< 37 weeks' gestation) compared to standard care. In addition, we aimed to determine specific effects of various interventions for physiological, anthropometric, social-emotional, neurodevelopmental short- and long-term outcomes in the infants, parental well-being, and bonding. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, RILM Abstracts, and ERIC in November 2021; and Proquest Dissertations in February 2019. We searched the reference lists of related systematic reviews, and of studies selected for inclusion and clinical trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel, and cluster-randomised controlled trials with preterm infants < 37 weeks` gestation during hospitalisation, and parents when they were involved in the intervention. Interventions were any music or vocal stimulation provided live or via a recording by a music therapist, a parent, or a healthcare professional compared to standard care. The intervention duration was greater than five minutes and needed to occur more than three times. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted data. We analysed the treatment effects of the individual trials using RevMan Web using a fixed-effects model to combine the data. Where possible, we presented results in meta-analyses using mean differences with 95% CI. We performed heterogeneity tests. When the I2 statistic was higher than 50%, we assessed the source of the heterogeneity by sensitivity and subgroup analyses. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 trials recruiting 1532 infants and 691 parents (21 parallel-group RCTs, four cross-over RCTs). The infants gestational age at birth varied from 23 to 36 weeks, taking place in NICUs (level 1 to 3) around the world. Within the trials, the intervention varied widely in type, delivery, frequency, and duration. Music and voice were mainly characterised by calm, soft, musical parameters in lullaby style, often integrating the sung mother's voice live or recorded, defined as music therapy or music medicine. The general risk of bias in the included studies varied from low to high risk of bias. Music and vocal interventions compared to standard care Music/vocal interventions do not increase oxygen saturation in the infants during the intervention (mean difference (MD) 0.13, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.59; P = 0.59; 958 infants, 10 studies; high-certainty evidence). Music and voice probably do not increase oxygen saturation post-intervention either (MD 0.63, 95% CI -0.01 to 1.26; P = 0.05; 800 infants, 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). The intervention may not increase infant development (Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development (BSID)) with the cognitive composition score (MD 0.35, 95% CI -4.85 to 5.55; P = 0.90; 69 infants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence); the motor composition score (MD -0.17, 95% CI -5.45 to 5.11; P = 0.95; 69 infants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence); and the language composition score (MD 0.38, 95% CI -5.45 to 6.21; P = 0.90; 69 infants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Music therapy may not reduce parental state-trait anxiety (MD -1.12, 95% CI -3.20 to 0.96; P = 0.29; 97 parents, 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). The intervention probably does not reduce respiratory rate during the intervention (MD 0.42, 95% CI -1.05 to 1.90; P = 0.57; 750 infants; 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and post-intervention (MD 0.51, 95% CI -1.57 to 2.58; P = 0.63; 636 infants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). However, music/vocal interventions probably reduce heart rates in preterm infants during the intervention (MD -1.38, 95% CI -2.63 to -0.12; P = 0.03; 1014 infants; 11 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). This beneficial effect was even stronger after the intervention. Music/vocal interventions reduce heart rate post-intervention (MD -3.80, 95% CI -5.05 to -2.55; P < 0.00001; 903 infants, 9 studies; high-certainty evidence) with wide CIs ranging from medium to large beneficial effects. Music therapy may not reduce postnatal depression (MD 0.50, 95% CI -1.80 to 2.81; P = 0.67; 67 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of music therapy on parental state anxiety (MD -0.15, 95% CI -2.72 to 2.41; P = 0.91; 87 parents, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about any further effects regarding all other secondary short- and long-term outcomes on the infants, parental well-being, and bonding/attachment. Two studies evaluated adverse effects as an explicit outcome of interest and reported no adverse effects from music and voice. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Music/vocal interventions do not increase oxygen saturation during and probably not after the intervention compared to standard care. The evidence suggests that music and voice do not increase infant development (BSID) or reduce parental state-trait anxiety. The intervention probably does not reduce respiratory rate in preterm infants. However, music/vocal interventions probably reduce heart rates in preterm infants during the intervention, and this beneficial effect is even stronger after the intervention, demonstrating that music/vocal interventions reduce heart rates in preterm infants post-intervention. We found no reports of adverse effects from music and voice. Due to low-certainty evidence for all other outcomes, we could not draw any further conclusions regarding overall efficacy nor the possible impact of different intervention types, frequencies, or durations. Further research with more power, fewer risks of bias, and more sensitive and clinically relevant outcomes are needed.

Pharmacological interventions for pruritus in adult palliative care patients.

BACKGROUND: This is the second update of the original Cochrane review published in 2013 (issue 6), which was updated in 2016 (issue 11). Pruritus occurs in patients with disparate underlying diseases and is caused by different pathologic mechanisms. In palliative care patients, pruritus is not the most prevalent but is a burdening symptom. It can cause considerable discomfort and negatively affect patients' quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different pharmacological treatments compared with active control or placebo for preventing or treating pruritus in adult palliative care patients. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OVID) and Embase (OVID) up to 6 July 2022. In addition, we searched trial registries and checked the reference lists of all relevant studies, key textbooks, reviews and websites, and we contacted investigators and specialists in pruritus and palliative care regarding unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of different pharmacological treatments, compared with a placebo, no treatment, or an alternative treatment, for preventing or treating pruritus in palliative care patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the identified titles and abstracts, performed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias and methodological quality. We summarised the results descriptively and quantitatively (meta-analyses) according to the different pharmacological interventions and the diseases associated with pruritus. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created 13 summary of findings tables. MAIN RESULTS: In total, we included 91 studies and 4652 participants in the review. We added 42 studies with 2839 participants for this update. Altogether, we included 51 different treatments for pruritus in four different patient groups. The overall risk of bias profile was heterogeneous and ranged from high to low risk. The main reason for giving a high risk of bias rating was a small sample size (fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm). Seventy-nine of 91 studies (87%) had fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm. Eight (9%) studies had low risk of bias in the specified key domains; the remaining studies had an unclear risk of bias (70 studies, 77%) or a high risk of bias (13 studies, 14%). Using GRADE criteria, we judged that the certainty of evidence for the primary outcome (i.e. pruritus) was high for kappa-opioid agonists compared to placebo and moderate for GABA-analogues compared to placebo. Certainty of evidence was low for naltrexone, fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids, topical capsaicin, ondansetron and zinc sulphate compared to placebo and gabapentin compared to pregabalin, and very low for cromolyn sodium, paroxetine, montelukast, flumecinol, and rifampicin compared to placebo. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence mainly due to serious study limitations regarding risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. For participants suffering from uraemic pruritus (UP; also known as chronic kidney disease (CKD)-associated pruritus (CKD-aP)), treatment with GABA-analogues compared to placebo likely resulted in a large reduction of pruritus (visual analogue scale (VAS) 0 to 10 cm): mean difference (MD) -5.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.56 to -4.55; five RCTs, N = 297, certainty of evidence: moderate. Treatment with kappa-opioid receptor agonists (difelikefalin, nalbuphine, nalfurafine) compared to placebo reduced pruritus slightly (VAS 0 to 10 cm, MD -0.96, 95% CI -1.22 to -0.71; six RCTs, N = 1292, certainty of evidence: high); thus, this treatment was less effective than GABA-analogues. Treatment with montelukast compared to placebo may result in a reduction of pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (two studies, 87 participants): SMD -1.40, 95% CI -1.87 to -0.92; certainty of evidence: very low. Treatment with fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids compared to placebo may result in a large reduction of pruritus (four studies, 160 observations): SMD -1.60, 95% CI -1.97 to -1.22; certainty of evidence: low. Treatment with cromolyn sodium compared to placebo may result in a reduction of pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (VAS 0 to 10 cm, MD -3.27, 95% CI -5.91 to -0.63; two RCTs, N = 100, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with topical capsaicin compared with placebo may result in a large reduction of pruritus (two studies; 112 participants): SMD -1.06, 95% CI -1.55 to -0.57; certainty of evidence: low. Ondansetron, zinc sulphate and several other treatments may not reduce pruritus in participants suffering from UP. In participants with cholestatic pruritus (CP), treatment with rifampicin compared to placebo may reduce pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (VAS: 0 to 100, MD -42.00, 95% CI -87.31 to 3.31; two RCTs, N = 42, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with flumecinol compared to placebo may reduce pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR > 1 favours treatment group; RR 2.32, 95% CI 0.54 to 10.1; two RCTs, N = 69, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with the opioid antagonist naltrexone compared to placebo may reduce pruritus (VAS: 0 to 10 cm, MD -2.42, 95% CI -3.90 to -0.94; two RCTs, N = 52, certainty of evidence: low). However, effects in participants with UP were inconclusive (percentage of difference -12.30%, 95% CI -25.82% to 1.22%, one RCT, N = 32). In palliative care participants with pruritus of a different nature, the treatment with the drug paroxetine (one study), a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, compared to placebo may reduce pruritus slightly by 0.78 (numerical analogue scale from 0 to 10 points; 95% CI -1.19 to -0.37; one RCT, N = 48, certainty of evidence: low). Most adverse events were mild or moderate. Two interventions showed multiple major adverse events (naltrexone and nalfurafine). AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS: Different interventions (GABA-analogues, kappa-opioid receptor agonists, cromolyn sodium, montelukast, fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids and topical capsaicin compared to placebo) were effective for uraemic pruritus. GABA-analogues had the largest effect on pruritus. Rifampin, naltrexone and flumecinol tended to be effective for cholestatic pruritus. However, therapies for patients with malignancies are still lacking. Due to the small sample sizes in most meta-analyses and the heterogeneous methodological quality of the included trials, the results should be interpreted cautiously in terms of generalisability.

Interleukin-6 blocking agents for treating COVID-19: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It has been reported that people with COVID-19 and pre-existing autoantibodies against type I interferons are likely to develop an inflammatory cytokine storm responsible for severe respiratory symptoms. Since interleukin 6 (IL-6) is one of the cytokines released during this inflammatory process, IL-6 blocking agents have been used for treating people with severe COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To update the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to a placebo for people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Living OVerview of Evidence (L·OVE) platform, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify studies on 7 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of researchers independently conducted study selection, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for all critical and important outcomes. In this update we amended our protocol to update the methods used for grading evidence by establishing minimal important differences for the critical outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: This update includes 22 additional trials, for a total of 32 trials including 12,160 randomized participants all hospitalized for COVID-19 disease. We identified a further 17 registered RCTs evaluating IL-6 blocking agents without results available as of 7 June 2022.  The mean age range varied from 56 to 75 years; 66.2% (8051/12,160) of enrolled participants were men. One-third (11/32) of included trials were placebo-controlled. Twenty-two were published in peer-reviewed journals, three were reported as preprints, two trials had results posted only on registries, and results from five trials were retrieved from another meta-analysis. Eight were funded by pharmaceutical companies.  Twenty-six included studies were multicenter trials; four were multinational and 22 took place in single countries. Recruitment of participants occurred between February 2020 and June 2021, with a mean enrollment duration of 21 weeks (range 1 to 54 weeks). Nineteen trials (60%) had a follow-up of 60 days or more. Disease severity ranged from mild to critical disease. The proportion of participants who were intubated at study inclusion also varied from 5% to 95%. Only six trials reported vaccination status; there were no vaccinated participants included in these trials, and 17 trials were conducted before vaccination was rolled out. We assessed a total of six treatments, each compared to placebo or standard care. Twenty trials assessed tocilizumab, nine assessed sarilumab, and two assessed clazakizumab. Only one trial was included for each of the other IL-6 blocking agents (siltuximab, olokizumab, and levilimab). Two trials assessed more than one treatment. Efficacy and safety of tocilizumab and sarilumab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 At day (D) 28, tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement (tocilizumab: risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.11; 15 RCTs, 6116 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; sarilumab: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 2425 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For clinical improvement at ≥ D60, the certainty of evidence is very low for both tocilizumab (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.48; 1 RCT, 97 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and sarilumab (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.63; 2 RCTs, 239 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The effect of tocilizumab on the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score (WHO-CPS) of level 7 or above remains uncertain at D28 (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 13 RCTs, 2117 participants; low-certainty evidence) and that for sarilumab very uncertain (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.33; 5 RCTs, 886 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab reduces all cause-mortality at D28 compared to standard care/placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94; 18 RCTs, 7428 participants; high-certainty evidence). The evidence about the effect of sarilumab on this outcome is very uncertain (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30; 9 RCTs, 3305 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain for all cause-mortality at ≥ D60 for tocilizumab (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.04; 9 RCTs, 2775 participants; low-certainty evidence) and very uncertain for sarilumab (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; 6 RCTs, 3379 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab probably results in little to no difference in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 9 RCTs, 1811 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence about adverse events for sarilumab is uncertain (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.28; 4 RCT, 860 participants; low-certainty evidence).  The evidence about serious adverse events is very uncertain for tocilizumab (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; 16 RCTs; 2974 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and uncertain for sarilumab (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.21; 6 RCTs; 2936 participants; low-certainty evidence). Efficacy and safety of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab and levilimab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 The evidence about the effects of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab, and levilimab comes from only one or two studies for each blocking agent, and is uncertain or very uncertain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized people with COVID-19, results show a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on all-cause mortality in the short term and probably little or no difference in the risk of adverse events compared to standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, both tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28. Evidence for an effect of sarilumab and the other IL-6 blocking agents on critical outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. Most of the trials included in our review were done before the waves of different variants of concern and before vaccination was rolled out on a large scale. An additional 17 RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents are currently registered with no results yet reported. The number of pending studies and the number of participants planned is low. Consequently, we will not publish further updates of this review.

Public information needs and preferences on COVID-19: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Right from the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic the general public faced the challenge to find reliable and understandable information in the overwhelming flood of information. To enhance informed decision-making, evidence-based information should be provided. Aim was to explore the general public's information needs and preferences on COVID-19 as well as the barriers to accessing evidence-based information. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study. Nine hundred twenty-seven panel members were invited to an online survey (12/2020-02/2021). The HeReCa-online-panel is installed at the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg to assess regularly the general public's view on health issues in five regions in Germany. The survey was set up in LimeSurvey, with nine items, multiple-choice and open-ended questions that allowed to gather qualitative data. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively and a content analysis was carried out to categorise the qualitative data. RESULTS: Six hundred thirty-six panel members provided data; mean age 52 years, 56.2% female, and 64.9% with higher education qualifications. Asked about relevant topics related to COVID-19, most participants selected vaccination (63.8%), infection control (52%), and long-term effects (47.8%). The following 11 categories were derived from the qualitative analysis representing the topics of interest: vaccination, infection control, long-term effects, therapies, test methods, mental health, symptoms, structures for pandemic control, infrastructure in health care, research. Participants preferred traditional media (TV 70.6%; radio 58.5%; newspaper 32.7%) to social media, but also used the internet as sources of information, becoming aware of new information on websites (28.5%) or via email/newsletter (20.1%). The knowledge question (Which European country is most affected by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic?) was correctly answered by 7.5% of participants. The Robert Koch Institute (93.7%) and the World Health Organization (78%) were well known, while other organisations providing health information were rarely known (< 10%). Barriers to accessing trustworthy information were lack of time (30.7%), little experience (23.1%), uncertainty about how to get access (22.2%), complexity and difficulties in understanding (23.9%), and a lack of target group orientation (15,3%). CONCLUSIONS: There are extensive information needs regarding various aspects on COVID-19 among the general population. In addition, target-specific dissemination strategies are still needed to reach different groups.

Models of integrated care for multi-morbidity assessed in systematic reviews: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of multi-morbidity is increasing globally. Integrated models of care present a potential intervention to improve patient and health system outcomes. However, the intervention components and concepts within different models of care vary widely and their effectiveness remains unclear. We aimed to describe and map the definitions, characteristics, components, and reported effects of integrated models of care in systematic reviews (SRs). METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of SRs according to pre-specified methods (PROSPERO 2019 CRD42019119265). Eligible SRs assessed integrated models of care at primary health care level for adults and children with multi-morbidity. We searched in PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos, and Health Systems Evidence up to 3 May 2022. Two authors independently assessed eligibility of SRs and extracted data. We identified and described common components of integrated care across SRs. We extracted findings of the SRs as presented in the conclusions and reported on these verbatim. RESULTS: We included 22 SRs, examining data from randomised controlled trials and observational studies conducted across the world. Definitions and descriptions of models of integrated care varied considerably. However, across SRs, we identified and described six common components of integrated care: (1) chronic conditions addressed, (2) where services were provided, (3) the type of services provided, (4) healthcare professionals involved in care, (5) coordination and organisation of care and (6) patient involvement in care. We observed differences in the components of integrated care according to the income setting of the included studies. Some SRs reported that integrated care was beneficial for health and process outcomes, while others found no difference in effect when comparing integrated care to other models of care. CONCLUSIONS: Integrated models of care were heterogeneous within and across SRs. Information that allows the identification of effective components of integrated care was lacking. Detailed, standardised and transparent reporting of the intervention components and their effectiveness on health and process outcomes is needed.

Automated Monitoring of Adherence to Evidenced-Based Clinical Guideline Recommendations: Design and Implementation Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed statements intended to optimize patient care. However, a gapless implementation of guideline recommendations requires health care personnel not only to be aware of the recommendations and to support their content but also to recognize every situation in which they are applicable. To not miss situations in which recommendations should be applied, computerized clinical decision support can be provided through a system that allows an automated monitoring of adherence to clinical guideline recommendations in individual patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to collect and analyze the requirements for a system that allows the monitoring of adherence to evidence-based clinical guideline recommendations in individual patients and, based on these requirements, to design and implement a software prototype that integrates guideline recommendations with individual patient data, and to demonstrate the prototype's utility in treatment recommendations. METHODS: We performed a work process analysis with experienced intensive care clinicians to develop a conceptual model of how to support guideline adherence monitoring in clinical routine and identified which steps in the model could be supported electronically. We then identified the core requirements of a software system to support recommendation adherence monitoring in a consensus-based requirements analysis within the loosely structured focus group work of key stakeholders (clinicians, guideline developers, health data engineers, and software developers). On the basis of these requirements, we designed and implemented a modular system architecture. To demonstrate its utility, we applied the prototype to monitor adherence to a COVID-19 treatment recommendation using clinical data from a large European university hospital. RESULTS: We designed a system that integrates guideline recommendations with real-time clinical data to evaluate individual guideline recommendation adherence and developed a functional prototype. The needs analysis with clinical staff resulted in a flowchart describing the work process of how adherence to recommendations should be monitored. Four core requirements were identified: the ability to decide whether a recommendation is applicable and implemented for a specific patient, the ability to integrate clinical data from different data formats and data structures, the ability to display raw patient data, and the use of a Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources-based format for the representation of clinical practice guidelines to provide an interoperable, standards-based guideline recommendation exchange format. CONCLUSIONS: Our system has advantages in terms of individual patient treatment and quality management in hospitals. However, further studies are needed to measure its impact on patient outcomes and evaluate its resource effectiveness in different clinical settings. We specified a modular software architecture that allows experts from different fields to work independently and focus on their area of expertise. We have released the source code of our system under an open-source license and invite for collaborative further development of the system.

Nonregistration, discontinuation, and nonpublication of randomized trials: A repeated metaresearch analysis.

BACKGROUND: We previously found that 25% of 1,017 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) approved between 2000 and 2003 were discontinued prematurely, and 44% remained unpublished at a median of 12 years follow-up. We aimed to assess a decade later (1) whether rates of completion and publication have increased; (2) the extent to which nonpublished RCTs can be identified in trial registries; and (3) the association between reporting quality of protocols and premature discontinuation or nonpublication of RCTs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We included 326 RCT protocols approved in 2012 by research ethics committees in Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Canada in this metaresearch study. Pilot, feasibility, and phase 1 studies were excluded. We extracted trial characteristics from each study protocol and systematically searched for corresponding trial registration (if not reported in the protocol) and full text publications until February 2022. For trial registrations, we searched the (i) World Health Organization: International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP); (ii) US National Library of Medicine (ClinicalTrials.gov); (iii) European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EUCTR); (iv) ISRCTN registry; and (v) Google. For full text publications, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus. We recorded whether RCTs were registered, discontinued (including reason for discontinuation), and published. The reporting quality of RCT protocols was assessed with the 33-item SPIRIT checklist. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between the independent variables protocol reporting quality, planned sample size, type of control (placebo versus other), reporting of any recruitment projection, single-center versus multicenter trials, and industry versus investigator sponsoring, with the 2 dependent variables: (1) publication of RCT results; and (2) trial discontinuation due to poor recruitment. Of the 326 included trials, 19 (6%) were unregistered. Ninety-eight trials (30%) were discontinued prematurely, most often due to poor recruitment (37%; 36/98). One in 5 trials (21%; 70/326) remained unpublished at 10 years follow-up, and 21% of unpublished trials (15/70) were unregistered. Twenty-three of 147 investigator-sponsored trials (16%) reported their results in a trial registry in contrast to 150 of 179 industry-sponsored trials (84%). The median proportion of reported SPIRIT items in included RCT protocols was 69% (interquartile range 61% to 77%). We found no variables associated with trial discontinuation; however, lower reporting quality of trial protocols was associated with nonpublication (odds ratio, 0.71 for each 10% increment in the proportion of SPIRIT items met; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.92; p = 0.009). Study limitations include that the moderate sample size may have limited the ability of our regression models to identify significant associations. CONCLUSIONS: We have observed that rates of premature trial discontinuation have not changed in the past decade. Nonpublication of RCTs has declined but remains common; 21% of unpublished trials could not be identified in registries. Only 16% of investigator-sponsored trials reported results in a trial registry. Higher reporting quality of RCT protocols was associated with publication of results. Further efforts from all stakeholders are needed to improve efficiency and transparency of clinical research.

Evaluating agreement between bodies of evidence from randomized controlled trials and cohort studies in medical research: a meta-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies are the most common study design types used to assess the treatment effects of medical interventions. To evaluate the agreement of effect estimates between bodies of evidence (BoE) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies and to identify factors associated with disagreement. METHODS: Systematic reviews were published in the 13 medical journals with the highest impact factor identified through a MEDLINE search. BoE-pairs from RCTs and cohort studies with the same medical research question were included. We rated the similarity of PI/ECO (Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparison, Outcome) between BoE from RCTs and cohort studies. The agreement of effect estimates across BoE was analyzed by pooling ratio of ratios (RoR) for binary outcomes and difference of mean differences for continuous outcomes. We performed subgroup analyses to explore factors associated with disagreements. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-nine BoE pairs from 64 systematic reviews were included. PI/ECO-similarity degree was moderate: two BoE pairs were rated as "more or less identical"; 90 were rated as "similar but not identical" and 37 as only "broadly similar". For binary outcomes, the pooled RoR was 1.04 (95% CI 0.97-1.11) with considerable statistical heterogeneity. For continuous outcomes, differences were small. In subgroup analyses, degree of PI/ECO-similarity, type of intervention, and type of outcome, the pooled RoR indicated that on average, differences between both BoE were small. Subgroup analysis by degree of PI/ECO-similarity revealed high statistical heterogeneity and wide prediction intervals across PI/ECO-dissimilar BoE pairs. CONCLUSIONS: On average, the pooled effect estimates between RCTs and cohort studies did not differ. Statistical heterogeneity and wide prediction intervals were mainly driven by PI/ECO-dissimilarities (i.e., clinical heterogeneity) and cohort studies. The potential influence of risk of bias and certainty of the evidence on differences of effect estimates between RCTs and cohort studies needs to be explored in upcoming meta-epidemiological studies.

Risk score to predict event-free survival after hematopoietic cell transplant for sickle cell disease.

We developed a risk score to predict event-free survival (EFS) after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for sickle cell disease. The study population (n = 1425) was randomly split into training (n = 1070) and validation (n = 355) cohorts. Risk factors were identified and validated via Cox regression models. Two risk factors of 9 evaluated were predictive for EFS: age at transplantation and donor type. On the basis of the training cohort, patients age 12 years or younger with an HLA-matched sibling donor were at the lowest risk with a 3-year EFS of 92% (score, 0). Patients age 13 years or older with an HLA-matched sibling donor or age 12 years or younger with an HLA-matched unrelated donor were at intermediate risk (3-year EFS, 87%; score, 1). All other groups, including patients of any age with a haploidentical relative or HLA-mismatched unrelated donor and patients age 13 years or older with an HLA-matched unrelated donor were high risk (3-year EFS, 57%; score, 2 or 3). These findings were confirmed in the validation cohort. This simple risk score may guide patients with sickle cell disease and hematologists who are considering allogeneic transplantation as a curative treatment relative to other available contemporary treatments.

A1- and A2 beta-casein on health-related outcomes: a scoping review of animal studies.

PURPOSE: Food-derived bioactive peptides may influence important physiological functions. An important example is beta-casomorphins, which are opioid peptides derived from A1 beta-casein in bovine milk and have been associated to be risk factors for non-communicable diseases in humans. A1 and A2 beta-casein are different with respect to the release of bioactive peptides, in particular BCM-7. However, evidence from human studies is limited and could be complemented with evidence derived from animal studies. We conducted a scoping review to identify animal studies investigating the effects of A1 beta-casein or BCM-7 compared to A2 beta-casein or any other intervention on health-related outcomes. METHODS: We systematically searched for relevant studies in two electronic databases (Medline, Embase; last search performed March 2020). Two reviewers independently undertook study selection and data extraction of included references. Results were summarized tabularly and narratively. RESULTS: We included 42 studies investigating various animal models, including rats, mice, rabbits, and dogs. Six studies investigated health-related outcomes of A1- vs. A2 milk, while most studies (n = 36) reported on physiological properties (e.g., analgesic effect) of BCM-7 as an opioid peptide. Included studies were extremely heterogeneous in terms of the study population, type of intervention and dose, and type of outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Only a few studies comparing the effects of A1- and A2 milk were identified. More studies addressing this research question in animal models are needed to provide essential information to inform research gaps. Results from future studies could eventually complement research for humans, particularly when the body of evidence remains uncertain as is the case in the A1- and A2 milk debate.

Extracorporeal photopheresis versus alternative treatment for chronic graft-versus-host disease after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGvHD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation, occurring in 6% to 65% of the paediatric recipients. Currently, the therapeutic mainstay for cGvHD is treatment with corticosteroids, frequently combined with other immunosuppressive agents in people with steroid-refractory manifestations. There is no established standard treatment for steroid-refractory cGvHD. The therapeutic options for these patients include extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP), an immunomodulatory treatment that involves ex vivo collection of mononuclear cells from peripheral blood, exposure to the photoactive agent 8-methoxypsoralen, ultraviolet radiation and re-infusion of the processed cell product. The mechanisms of action of ECP are not completely understood. This is the second update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014 and first updated in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ECP for the management of cGvHD in children and adolescents after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2021), MEDLINE (PubMed) and Embase databases from their inception to 25 January 2021. We searched the reference lists of potentially relevant studies without any language restrictions. We searched five conference proceedings and nine clinical trial registries on 9 November 2020 and 12 November 2020, respectively. SELECTION CRITERIA: We aimed to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ECP with or without alternative treatment versus alternative treatment alone in children and adolescents with cGvHD after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed the study selection. We resolved disagreements in the selection of trials by consultation with a third review author. MAIN RESULTS: We found no studies meeting the criteria for inclusion in this 2021 review update. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We could not evaluate the efficacy of ECP in the treatment of cGvHD in children and adolescents after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation since the second review update again found no RCTs. Current recommendations are based on retrospective or observational studies only. Thus, ideally, ECP should be applied in the context of controlled trials only. However, performing RCTs in this population will be challenging due to the limited number of eligible participants, variable disease presentation and the lack of well-defined response criteria. International collaboration, multicentre trials and appropriate funding for such trials will be needed. If treatment decisions based on clinical data are made in favour of ECP, recipients should be carefully monitored for beneficial and harmful effects. In addition, efforts should be made to share this information with other clinicians, for example by setting up registries for children and adolescents treated with ECP.

Interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Vaccines are effective in preventing severe COVID-19, a disease for which few treatments are available and which can lead to disability or death. Widespread vaccination against COVID-19 may help protect those not yet able to get vaccinated. In addition, new and vaccine-resistant mutations of SARS-CoV-2 may be less likely to develop if the spread of COVID-19 is limited. Different vaccines are now widely available in many settings. However, vaccine hesitancy is a serious threat to the goal of nationwide vaccination in many countries and poses a substantial threat to population health. This scoping review maps interventions aimed at increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake and decreasing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. OBJECTIVES: To scope the existing research landscape on interventions to enhance the willingness of different populations to be vaccinated against COVID-19, increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake, or decrease COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, and to map the evidence according to addressed populations and intervention categories. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index), WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, PsycINFO, and CINAHL to 11 October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that assess the impact of interventions implemented to enhance the willingness of different populations to be vaccinated against COVID-19, increase vaccine uptake, or decrease COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised studies of intervention (NRSIs), observational studies and case studies with more than 100 participants. Furthermore, we included systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We did not limit the scope of the review to a specific population or to specific outcomes assessed. We excluded interventions addressing hesitancy towards vaccines for diseases other than COVID-19. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were analysed according to a protocol uploaded to the Open Science Framework. We used an interactive scoping map to visualise the results of our scoping review. We mapped the identified interventions according to pre-specified intervention categories, that were adapted to better fit the evidence. The intervention categories were: communication interventions, policy interventions, educational interventions, incentives (both financial and non-financial), interventions to improve access, and multidimensional interventions. The study outcomes were also included in the mapping. Furthermore, we mapped the country in which the study was conducted, the addressed population, and whether the design was randomised-controlled or not. MAIN RESULTS: We included 96 studies in the scoping review, 35 of which are ongoing and 61 studies with published results. We did not identify any relevant systematic reviews. For an overview, please see the interactive scoping map (https://tinyurl.com/2p9jmx24) STUDIES WITH PUBLISHED RESULTS Of the 61 studies with published results, 46 studies were RCTs and 15 NRSIs. The interventions investigated in the studies were heterogeneous with most studies testing communication strategies to enhance COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Most studies assessed the willingness to get vaccinated as an outcome. The majority of studies were conducted in English-speaking high-income countries. Moreover, most studies investigated digital interventions in an online setting. Populations that were addressed were diverse. For example, studies targeted healthcare workers, ethnic minorities in the USA, students, soldiers, at-risk patients, or the general population.  ONGOING STUDIES Of the 35 ongoing studies, 29 studies are RCTs and six NRSIs. Educational and communication interventions were the most used types of interventions. The majority of ongoing studies plan to assess vaccine uptake as an outcome. Again, the majority of studies are being conducted in English-speaking high-income countries. In contrast to the studies with published results, most ongoing studies will not be conducted online. Addressed populations range from minority populations in the USA to healthcare workers or students. Eleven ongoing studies have estimated completion dates in 2022.   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We were able to identify and map a variety of heterogeneous interventions for increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake or decreasing vaccine hesitancy. Our results demonstrate that this is an active field of research with 61 published studies and 35 studies still ongoing. This review gives a comprehensive overview of interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake and can be the foundation for subsequent systematic reviews on the effectiveness of interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake.  A research gap was shown for studies conducted in low and middle-income countries and studies investigating policy interventions and improved access, as well as for interventions addressing children and adolescents. As COVID-19 vaccines become more widely available, these populations and interventions should not be neglected in research. AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS: We were able to identify and map a variety of heterogeneous interventions for increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake or decreasing vaccine hesitancy. Our results demonstrate that this is an active field of research with 61 published studies and 35 studies still ongoing. This review gives a comprehensive overview of interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake and can be the foundation for subsequent systematic reviews on the effectiveness of interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake.  A research gap was shown for studies conducted in low and middle-income countries and studies investigating policy interventions and improved access, as well as for interventions addressing children and adolescents. As COVID-19 vaccines become more widely available, these populations and interventions should not be neglected in research.

Extracorporeal photopheresis versus standard treatment for acute graft-versus-host disease after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Acute graft-versus-host disease (aGvHD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), occurring in 8% to 85% of paediatric recipients. Currently, the therapeutic mainstay for aGvHD is treatment with corticosteroids. However, there is no established standard treatment for steroid-refractory aGvHD. Extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) is a type of immunomodulatory method amongst different therapeutic options that involves ex vivo collection of peripheral mononuclear cells, exposure to the photoactive agent 8-methoxypsoralen and ultraviolet-A radiation, and reinfusion of these treated blood cells to the patient. The mechanisms of action of ECP are not completely understood. This is the second update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014 and updated in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ECP for the management of aGvHD in children and adolescents after HSCT. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed) and Embase (Ovid) databases from their inception to 25 January 2021. We searched the reference lists of potentially relevant studies without any language restrictions. We searched five conference proceedings and nine clinical trial registries on 9 November 2020 and 12 November 2020, respectively. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ECP with or without standard treatment versus standard treatment alone in children and adolescents with aGvHD after HSCT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed the study selection. We resolved disagreement in the selection of trials by consultation with a third review author. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no additional studies in the 2021 review update, so there are still no studies that meet the criteria for inclusion in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of ECP in the treatment of aGvHD in children and adolescents after HSCT is unknown, and its use should be restricted to within the context of RCTs. Such studies should address a comparison of ECP alone or in combination with standard treatment versus standard treatment alone. The 2021 review update brought about no additions to these conclusions.

Effects of a gluten-reduced or gluten-free diet for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are a major cause of disability and the leading cause of death worldwide. To reduce mortality and morbidity, prevention strategies such as following an optimal diet are crucial. In recent years, low-gluten and gluten-free diets have gained strong popularity in the general population. However, study results on the benefits of a gluten-reduced or gluten-free diet are conflicting, and it is unclear whether a gluten-reduced diet has an effect on the primary prevention of CVD. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of a gluten-reduced or gluten-free diet for the primary prevention of CVD in the general population. SEARCH METHODS: We systematically searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science up to June 2021 without language restrictions or restrictions regarding publication status. Additionally, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing or unpublished trials and checked reference lists of included studies as well as relevant systematic reviews for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), such as prospective cohort studies, comparing a low-gluten or gluten-free diet or providing advice to decrease gluten consumption with no intervention, diet as usual, or a reference gluten-intake category. The population of interest comprised adults from the general population, including those at increased risk for CVD (primary prevention). We excluded cluster-RCTs, case-control studies, studies focusing on participants with a previous myocardial infarction and/or stroke, participants who have undergone a revascularisation procedure as well as participants with angina or angiographically-defined coronary heart disease, with a confirmed diagnosis of coeliac disease or with type 1 diabetes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility of studies in a two-step procedure following Cochrane methods. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB2) and the 'Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions' (ROBINS-I) tool, and the certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: One RCT and three NRSIs (with an observational design reporting data on four cohorts: Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS), Nurses' Health Study (NHS-I), NHS-II, UK Biobank) met the inclusion criteria. The RCT was conducted in Italy (60 participants, mean age 41 ± 12.1 years), two NRSIs (three cohorts, HPFS, NHS-I, NHS II) were conducted across the USA (269,282 health professionals aged 24 to 75 years) and one NRSI (Biobank cohort) was conducted across the UK (159,265 participants aged 49 to 62 years). Two NRSIs reported that the lowest gluten intake ranged between 0.0 g/day and 3.4 g/day and the highest gluten intake between 6.2 g/day and 38.4 g/day. The NRSI reporting data from the UK Biobank referred to a median gluten intake of 8.5 g/day with an interquartile range from 5.1 g/day to 12.4 g/day without providing low- and high-intake categories. Cardiovascular mortality From a total of 269,282 participants, 3364 (1.3%) died due to cardiovascular events during 26 years of follow-up. Low-certainty evidence may show no association between gluten intake and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for low- versus high-gluten intake 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.06; 2 NRSIs (3 cohorts)). All-cause mortality From a total of 159,265 participants, 6259 (3.9%) died during 11.1 years of follow-up. Very low-certainty evidence suggested that it is unclear whether gluten intake is associated with all-cause mortality (adjusted HR for low vs high gluten intake 1.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.01; 1 NRSI (1 cohort)). Myocardial infarction  From a total of 110,017 participants, 4243 (3.9%) participants developed non-fatal myocardial infarction within 26 years. Low-certainty evidence suggested that gluten intake may not be associated with the development of non-fatal myocardial infarction (adjusted HR for low versus high gluten intake 0.99, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.10; 1 NRSI (2 cohorts)). Lowering gluten intake by 5 g/day also showed no association on the primary prevention of non-fatal and fatal myocardial infarction (composite endpoint) in linear dose-response meta-analyses (adjusted HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.06; 1 NRSI (2 cohorts)). Coronary risk factors  Type 2 diabetes From a total of 202,114 participants, 15,947 (8.0%) developed type 2 diabetes after a follow-up between 22 and 28 years. There was low-certainty evidence that a lower compared with a higher gluten intake may be associated with a slightly increased risk to develop type 2 diabetes (adjusted HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.22; 1 NRSI (3 cohorts)). Furthermore, lowering gluten intake by 5 g/day may be associated with a slightly increased risk to develop type 2 diabetes in linear dose-response meta-analyses (adjusted HR 1.12, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.16; 1 NRSI (3 cohorts)). Blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein level, body mass index (BMI) After six months of follow-up, very low-certainty evidence suggested that it is unclear whether gluten intake affects systolic blood pressure (mean difference (MD) -6.9, 95% CI -17.1 to 3.3 mmHg). There was also no difference between the interventions for diastolic blood pressure (MD -0.8, 95% CI -5.9 to 4.3 mmHg), low-density lipoprotein levels (MD -0.1, 95% CI -0.5 to 0.3 mmol/L) and BMI (MD -0.1, 95% CI -3.3 to 3.1 kg/m²).  No study reported data on adverse events or on other outcomes. Funding sources did not appear to have distorted the results in any of the studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Very low-certainty evidence suggested that it is unclear whether gluten intake is associated with all-cause mortality. Our findings also indicate that low-certainty evidence may show little or no association between gluten intake and cardiovascular mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction. Low-certainty evidence suggested that a lower compared with a higher gluten intake may be associated with a slightly increased risk to develop type 2 diabetes - a major cardiovascular risk factor. For other cardiovascular risk factors it is unclear whether there is a difference between a gluten-free and normal diet. Given the limited findings from this review predominantly based on observational studies, no recommendations for practice can be made.

Interleukin-1 blocking agents for treating COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Interleukin-1 (IL-1) blocking agents have been used for treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), on the premise that their immunomodulatory effect might be beneficial in people with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of IL-1 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo on effectiveness and safety outcomes in people with COVID-19. We will update this assessment regularly. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L-OVE Platform (search date 5 November 2021). These sources are maintained through regular searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, trial registers and other sources. We also checked the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, Retraction Watch (search date 3 November 2021). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-1 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed Cochrane methodology. The protocol was amended to reduce the number of outcomes considered. Two researchers independently screened and extracted data and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the critical outcomes of clinical improvement (Day 28; ≥ D60); WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above (i.e. the proportion of participants with mechanical ventilation +/- additional organ support OR death) (D28; ≥ D60); all-cause mortality (D28; ≥ D60); incidence of any adverse events; and incidence of serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four RCTs of anakinra (three published in peer-reviewed journals, one reported as a preprint) and two RCTs of canakinumab (published in peer-reviewed journals). All trials were multicentre (2 to 133 centres). Two trials stopped early (one due to futility and one as the trigger for inferiority was met). The median/mean age range varied from 58 to 68 years; the proportion of men varied from 58% to 77%. All participants were hospitalised; 67% to 100% were on oxygen at baseline but not intubated; between 0% and 33% were intubated at baseline. We identified a further 16 registered trials with no results available, of which 15 assessed anakinra (four completed, four terminated, five ongoing, three not recruiting) and one (completed) trial assessed canakinumab. Effectiveness of anakinra for people with COVID-19 Anakinra probably results in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28 (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.20; 3 RCTs, 837 participants; absolute effect: 59 more per 1000 (from 22 fewer to 147 more); moderate-certainty evidence. The evidence is uncertain about an effect of anakinra on 1) the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above at D28 (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.22; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 55 fewer per 1000 (from 107 fewer to 37 more); low-certainty evidence) and ≥ D60 (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.96; 1 RCT, 606 participants; absolute effect: 47 fewer per 1000 (from 72 fewer to 4 fewer) low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at D28 (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.39; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 32 fewer per 1000 (from 68 fewer to 40 more); low-certainty evidence).  The evidence is very uncertain about an effect of anakinra on 1) the proportion of participants with clinical improvement at ≥ D60 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 115 participants; absolute effect: 59 fewer per 1000 (from 186 fewer to 102 more); very low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.56; 4 RCTs, 1633 participants; absolute effect: 8 more per 1000 (from 84 fewer to 147 more); very low-certainty evidence). Safety of anakinra for people with COVID-19 Anakinra probably results in little or no increase in adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 14 more per 1000 (from 43 fewer to 78 more); moderate-certainty evidence).  The evidence is uncertain regarding an effect of anakinra on serious adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.56; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 12 fewer per 1000 (from 104 fewer to 138 more); low-certainty evidence). Effectiveness of canakinumab for people with COVID-19 Canakinumab probably results in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28 (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 42 more per 1000 (from 33 fewer to 116 more); moderate-certainty evidence).  The evidence of an effect of canakinumab is uncertain on 1) the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above at D28 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.20; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 35 fewer per 1000 (from 69 fewer to 25 more); low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at D28 (RR:0.75; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.42); 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 20 fewer per 1000 (from 48 fewer to 33 more); low-certainty evidence).  The evidence is very uncertain about an effect of canakinumab on all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.91; 1 RCT, 45 participants; absolute effect: 112 fewer per 1000 (from 210 fewer to 227 more); very low-certainty evidence). Safety of canakinumab for people with COVID-19 Canakinumab probably results in little or no increase in adverse events (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21; 1 RCT, 454 participants; absolute effect: 11 more per 1000 (from 74 fewer to 111 more); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence of an effect of canakinumab on serious adverse events is uncertain (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.13; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 44 fewer per 1000 (from 94 fewer to 28 more); low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we did not find evidence for an important beneficial effect of IL-1 blocking agents. The evidence is uncertain or very uncertain for several outcomes. Sixteen trials of anakinra and canakinumab with no results are currently registered, of which four are completed, and four terminated. The findings of this review are updated on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com).

Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Different forms of vaccines have been developed to prevent the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent COVID-19 disease. Several are in widespread use globally.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines (as a full primary vaccination series or a booster dose) against SARS-CoV-2. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L·OVE platform (last search date 5 November 2021). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, and Retraction Watch. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID-19 vaccines to placebo, no vaccine, other active vaccines, or other vaccine schedules. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for all except immunogenicity outcomes.  We synthesized data for each vaccine separately and presented summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).  MAIN RESULTS: We included and analyzed 41 RCTs assessing 12 different vaccines, including homologous and heterologous vaccine schedules and the effect of booster doses. Thirty-two RCTs were multicentre and five were multinational. The sample sizes of RCTs were 60 to 44,325 participants. Participants were aged: 18 years or older in 36 RCTs; 12 years or older in one RCT; 12 to 17 years in two RCTs; and three to 17 years in two RCTs. Twenty-nine RCTs provided results for individuals aged over 60 years, and three RCTs included immunocompromized patients. No trials included pregnant women. Sixteen RCTs had two-month follow-up or less, 20 RCTs had two to six months, and five RCTs had greater than six to 12 months or less. Eighteen reports were based on preplanned interim analyses. Overall risk of bias was low for all outcomes in eight RCTs, while 33 had concerns for at least one outcome. We identified 343 registered RCTs with results not yet available.  This abstract reports results for the critical outcomes of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, severe and critical COVID-19, and serious adverse events only for the 10 WHO-approved vaccines. For remaining outcomes and vaccines, see main text. The evidence for mortality was generally sparse and of low or very low certainty for all WHO-approved vaccines, except AD26.COV2.S (Janssen), which probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants; high-certainty evidence). Confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (ModernaTx), ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), Ad26.COV2.S, BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm-Beijing), and BBV152 (Bharat Biotect) reduce the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (vaccine efficacy (VE): BNT162b2: 97.84%, 95% CI 44.25% to 99.92%; 2 RCTs, 44,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 93.20%, 95% CI 91.06% to 94.83%; 2 RCTs, 31,632 participants; ChAdOx1: 70.23%, 95% CI 62.10% to 76.62%; 2 RCTs, 43,390 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 66.90%, 95% CI 59.10% to 73.40%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 78.10%, 95% CI 64.80% to 86.30%; 1 RCT, 25,463 participants; BBV152: 77.80%, 95% CI 65.20% to 86.40%; 1 RCT, 16,973 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) probably reduces the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE 82.91%, 95% CI 50.49% to 94.10%; 3 RCTs, 42,175 participants). There is low-certainty evidence for CoronaVac (Sinovac) for this outcome (VE 69.81%, 95% CI 12.27% to 89.61%; 2 RCTs, 19,852 participants). Severe or critical COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 result in a large reduction in incidence of severe or critical disease due to COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE: BNT162b2: 95.70%, 95% CI 73.90% to 99.90%; 1 RCT, 46,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 98.20%, 95% CI 92.80% to 99.60%; 1 RCT, 28,451 participants; AD26.COV2.S: 76.30%, 95% CI 57.90% to 87.50%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBV152: 93.40%, 95% CI 57.10% to 99.80%; 1 RCT, 16,976 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 probably reduces the incidence of severe or critical COVID-19 (VE 100.00%, 95% CI 86.99% to 100.00%; 1 RCT, 25,452 participants). Two trials reported high efficacy of CoronaVac for severe or critical disease with wide CIs, but these results could not be pooled. Serious adverse events (SAEs) mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca)/SII-ChAdOx1 (Serum Institute of India), Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 probably result in little or no difference in SAEs compared to placebo (RR: mRNA-1273: 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 34,072 participants; ChAdOx1/SII-ChAdOx1: 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07; 7 RCTs, 58,182 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants); BBV152: 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; 1 RCT, 25,928 participants). In each of these, the likely absolute difference in effects was fewer than 5/1000 participants. Evidence for SAEs is uncertain for BNT162b2, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, and NVX-CoV2373 compared to placebo (RR: BNT162b2: 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; 2 RCTs, 46,107 participants; CoronaVac: 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 23,139 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06; 1 RCT, 26,924 participants; NVX-CoV2373: 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 4 RCTs, 38,802 participants). For the evaluation of heterologous schedules, booster doses, and efficacy against variants of concern, see main text of review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, and for some, there is high-certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com). Implications for practice Due to the trial exclusions, these results cannot be generalized to pregnant women, individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, or immunocompromized people. Most trials had a short follow-up and were conducted before the emergence of variants of concern. Implications for research Future research should evaluate the long-term effect of vaccines, compare different vaccines and vaccine schedules, assess vaccine efficacy and safety in specific populations, and include outcomes such as preventing long COVID-19. Ongoing evaluation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against emerging variants of concern is also vital.

Using GRADE Evidence to Decision frameworks to support the process of health policy-making: an example application regarding taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages.

BACKGROUND: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks are well-known tools that enable guideline panels to structure the process of developing recommendations and making decisions in healthcare and public health. To date, they have not regularly been used for health policy-making. This article aims to illustrate the application of the GRADE EtD frameworks in the process of nutrition-related policy-making for a European country. METHODS: Based on methodological guidance by the GRADE Working Group and the findings of our recently published scoping review, we illustrate the process of moving from evidence to recommendations, by applying the EtD frameworks to a fictitious example. Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxation based on energy density was chosen as an example application. RESULTS: A fictitious guideline panel was convened by a national nutrition association to develop a population-level recommendation on SSB taxation aiming to reduce the burden of overweight and obesity. Exemplary evidence was summarized for each EtD criterion and conclusions were drawn based on all judgements made in relation to each criterion. As a result of the high priority to reduce the burden of obesity and because of the moderate desirable effects on health outcomes, but considering scarce or varying research evidence for other EtD criteria, the panel made a conditional recommendation for SSB taxation. Decision-makers may opt for conducting a pilot study prior to implementing the policy on a national level. CONCLUSIONS: GRADE EtD frameworks can be used by guideline panels to make the process of developing recommendations in the field of health policy more systematic, transparent and comprehensible.

[COVID-19 pandemic: preferences and barriers for dissemination of evidence syntheses : Survey of intensive care personnel in Germany]. / COVID-19-Pandemie: Präferenzen und Barrieren für die Disseminierung von Evidenzsynthesen : Befragung des intensivmedizinischen Personals in Deutschland.

BACKGROUND: In the context of COVID-19, the German CEOsys project (COVID-19 Evidenz Ökosystem, www.covid-evidenz.de ) identifies, evaluates and summarizes the results of scientific studies to obtain evidence on this disease. The evidence syntheses are used to derive specific recommendations for clinical practice and to contribute to national guidelines. Besides the necessity of conducting good quality evidence syntheses during a pandemic, just as important is that the dissemination of evidence needs to be quick and efficient, especially in a health crisis. The CEOsys project has set itself this challenge. OBJECTIVE: Preparing the most suitable distribution of evidence syntheses as part of the CEOsys project tasks. METHODS: Intensive care unit (ICU) personnel in Germany were surveyed via categorical and free text questions. The survey focused on the following topics: evidence syntheses, channels and strategies of distribution, possibility of feedback, structure and barriers of dissemination and trustworthiness of various organizations. Profession, qualification, setting and size of the facility were recorded. Questionnaires were pretested throughout the queried professions (physician, nurse, others). The survey was anonymously carried out online through SosciSurvey® and an e­mail was sent directly to 940 addresses. The survey was launched on 3 December, a reminder was sent after 14 days and it ended on 31 December. The survey was also announced via e­mail through DIVI. RESULTS: Of 317 respondents 200 completed the questionnaire. All information was analyzed including the responses from incomplete questionnaires. The most stated barriers were lack of time and access. Especially residents and nurses without specialization in intensive care mentioned uncertainty or insufficient experience in dealing with evidence syntheses as a barrier. Active distribution of evidence syntheses was clearly preferred. More than half of the participants chose websites of public institutions, medical journals, professional societies and e­mail newsletters for drawing attention to new evidence syntheses. Short versions, algorithms and webinars were the most preferred strategies for dissemination. Trust in organizations supplying information on the COVID-19 pandemic was given to professional societies and the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) as the German governmental institute for infections and public health. The respondents' prioritized topics are long-term consequences of the disease, protection of medical personnel against infection and possibilities of ventilation treatment. CONCLUSION: Even though universally valid, evidence syntheses should be actively brought to the target audience, especially during a health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic with its exceptional challenges including lack of time and uncertainties in patient care. The contents should be clear, short (short versions, algorithms) and with free access. E­mail newsletters, websites or medical journals should continuously report on new evidence syntheses. Professional societies and the governmental institute for infections and public health should be involved in dissemination due to their obvious trustworthiness.