Discordances in patients' and physicians' perspectives on which contextual factors should be accounted for during smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Smoking cessation interventions requires attending to the circumstances and needs of individual patients. We aimed at highlighting the discordances between patients' and physicians' perspectives on contextual factors that should be considered during smoking cessation. METHODS: We identified 36 contextual factors identified that should be considered during smoking cessation using PubMed and interviewing general practitioners. Physicians recruited through social networks campaigns and smoker or former smoker patients from the ComPaRe cohort selected the factors they considered most relevant in two online paired comparison experiment. Bradley Terry Luce models estimated the ability of each factor (i.e. the probability to be preferred). We calculated the Pearson's correlation and the intraclass correlation coefficients for the contextual factor from each perspective and compared the ranking of the 10 contextual factors with the highest abilities. RESULTS: Seven hundred and ninety-three patients' and 795 physicians' perspectives estimated the ability (i.e., importance) of the contextual factors in 11 963 paired comparisons. We found a high correlation between physicians' and patients' perspectives of the contextual factors to be considered for smoking cessation (r = 0.76, P < 0.0001). However, the agreement between the abilities of contextual factors was poor (ICC = 0.42 [-0.10; 0.75]; P = 0.09). Fine-grain analysis of participants' answers revealed many discrepancies. For example, 40% factors ranked in the top 10 most important for physicians were not in patients' top 10 ranking. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the importance of patient-centered care, the need to engage discussions about patients' values, beyond what is thought to be important, to avoid overlooking their real context.

Preferred study designs to support a comparative therapeutic strategy question in oncology: a vignette study.

OBJECTIVES: Some therapeutic strategy questions in oncology could be answered with studies using observational data. Target trial emulation is the application of design principles from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to the analysis of observational data, to reduce design-induced biases. Our objective was to determine which type of study physicians would preferably plan to answer a comparative effectiveness question lacking evidence in oncology. METHODS: We launched an online survey among physicians specialized in oncology. We constructed a vignette-based inquiry where vignettes described study scenarios which could be conducted to answer the predefined question. We designed six vignettes described by study design (RCT or observational study with a trial emulation framework), main study characteristics, probability of the study succeeding and anticipated delay before results availability. Participants randomly assessed five pair-wise comparisons of the vignettes and were asked which study they would preferably plan by using a Likert scale ranging from -5 to 5. The main outcome was the evaluation of clinicians' preferences for each pairwise comparison. Mean and median preference scores were calculated. RESULTS: Two hundred thirteen participants, specialized in many tumor types, assessed at least one comparison with 82% reporting France as their country of affiliation. The interquartile range was -4 to 4 across pairwise comparisons. The median preference score was in disfavor of the monocentric RCT for the five comparisons where it appeared. The median preference score was strongly in favor of the multicentric national emulated trial when compared to the monocentric emulated trial 4 [IQR 2.5-4]. The mean preference score was the highest for the large European observational study 1.14 (SD 3.33), while the mean preference score was the lowest for the monocentric RCT -1.86 (SD 2.93). CONCLUSION: No study design was strongly preferred, but the monocentric RCT was the least favored study in pair-wise comparisons. The planification of the new research is a compromise between scientific soundness, feasibility, cost, and time before obtaining results. We need to have the right answers to the right questions at the right time.

A core outcome domain set to assess cutaneous neurofibromas related to neurofibromatosis type 1 in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous neurofibromas (cNF) are considered one of the highest burdens of neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). To date, no medical treatment can cure cNF or prevent their development. In that context, there is an urgent need to prepare and standardize the methodology of future trials targeting cNF. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to develop a core outcome domain set suitable for all clinical trials targeting NF1-associated cNF. METHODS: The validated approach of this work consisted of a three-phase methodology: (i) generating the domains [systematic literature review (SLR) and qualitative studies]; (ii) agreeing (three-round international e-Delphi consensus process and working groups); and (iii) voting. RESULTS: (i) The SLR and the qualitative studies (three types of focus groups and a French e-survey with 234 participants) resulted in a preliminary list of 31 candidate items and their corresponding definitions. (ii) A total of 229 individuals from 29 countries participated in the first round of the e-Delphi process: 71 patients, relatives or representatives (31.0%), 130 healthcare professionals (HCPs, 56.8%) and 28 researchers, representatives of a drug regulatory authority, industry or pharmaceutical company representatives or journal editors (12.2%). The overall participation rate was 74%. After round 2, five candidate items were excluded. Between rounds 2 and 3, international workshops were held to better understand the disagreements among stakeholders. This phase led to the identification of 19 items as outcome subdomains. (iii) The items were fused to create four outcome domains ('clinical assessment', 'daily life impact', 'patient satisfaction' and 'perception of health') and prioritized. The seven items that did not reach consensus were marked for the research agenda. The final core outcome domain set reached 100% of the votes of the steering committee members. CONCLUSIONS: Although numerous outcomes can be explored in studies related to cNF in NF1, the present study offers four outcome domains that should be reported in all trial studies, agreed on by international patients, relatives and representatives of patients; HCPs; researchers, representatives of drug regulatory authorities or pharmaceutical companies and journal editors. The next step will include the development of a set of core outcome measurement instruments to further standardize how these outcomes should be assessed.

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.

A methodological framework allows the identification of personomic markers to consider when designing personalized interventions.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a methodological framework to identify and prioritize personomic markers (e.g., psychosocial situation, beliefs…) to consider for personalizing interventions and to test in smoking cessation interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: (1) We identified potential personomic markers considered in protocols of personalized interventions, in reviews of predictors of smoking cessation, and in interviews with general practitioners. (2) Physicians, and patient smokers or former smokers selected the markers they considered most relevant during online paired comparison experiments. Data were analyzed with Bradley Terry Luce models. RESULTS: Thirty-six personomic markers were identified from research evidence. They were evaluated by 795 physicians (median age: 34, IQR [30-38]; 95% general practitioners) and 793 patients (median age: 54, IQR [42-64], 71.4% former smokers) during 11,963 paired comparisons. Physicians identified patients' motivation for quitting (e.g., Prochaska stages), patients' preferences, and patients' fears and beliefs (e.g., concerns about weight gain) as the most relevant elements to personalize smoking cessation. Patients considered their motivation for quitting, smoking behavior (e.g., smoking at home/at work), and tobacco dependence (e.g., Fagerström Test) as the most relevant elements to consider. CONCLUSION: We provide a methodological framework to prioritize which personomic markers should be considered when developing smoking cessation interventions.

cNF-Skindex in Adults Living with Neurofibromatosis 1: Severity Strata in France and Validation in United States Adults.

Cutaneous neurofibromas (cNF) contribute to the impairment of QOL in individuals with neurofibromatosis 1. The cNF-Skindex, validated in a French population, specifically assesses the cNF-related QOL. In this study, we first defined severity strata using an anchoring approach on the basis of patient's burden. In total, 209 patients answered the anchor question and the cNF-Skindex. We tested the agreement among the three strata, generated by all potential couples of cut-off values of the cNF-Skindex and the three strata defined in the anchor question. The cut-off values 12 and 49 provided the highest Kappa value (κ = 0.685, 95% confidence interval = 0.604-0.765). Second, we validated the score and the strata in a United States population using the answers provided by 220 French and 148 United States adults. In the multivariable linear regression analysis, the country of origin was not a factor associated with the score (P = 0.297). The number of cNF along the different severity strata was similar between the French and the United States populations. In conclusion, stratification constitutes a powerful tool to better interpret the cNF-Skindex in daily practice and in clinical trials. This study validates its use in two populations that together constitute a large cohort of patients willing to participate in clinical research.

Rituximab vs Cyclophosphamide Induction Therapy for Patients With Granulomatosis With Polyangiitis.

Importance: Results of randomized clinical trials have demonstrated rituximab's noninferiority to cyclophosphamide as induction therapy for antineutrophil cytoplasm antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitides (AAV), with neither treatment having a specific advantage for granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA). However, post hoc analysis results have suggested that rituximab might be more effective than cyclophosphamide in inducing remission in patients with proteinase 3-positive AAV. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of rituximab and cyclophosphamide in inducing GPA remission in a large population of unselected patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness study used multicenter target trial emulation observational data from 32 French hospitals in the French Vasculitis Study Group Registry. Groups were determined according to treatments received, without any intervention from the investigators. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to correct for baseline imbalance between groups. Participants included patients with newly diagnosed or relapsing GPA who satisfied American College of Rheumatology classification criteria and/or Chapel Hill Consensus Conference nomenclature. Data were analyzed from October 1, 2021, to May 31, 2022. Exposures: At least 1 infusion of rituximab or cyclophosphamide for induction therapy between April 1, 2008, and April 1, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was remission rate at month 6 (±2 months), with remission defined as a Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS) of 0 and prednisone dose of 10 mg/d or less. The BVAS is a validated tool for small-vessel vasculitis and used to assess the level of disease activity, with a numerical weight attached to each involved organ system. The BVAS has a range of 0 to 63 points; a score of 0 indicates no disease activity. Subgroup analyses included the primary outcome for patients with a new diagnosis, for most recently treated patients, and for patients with myeloperoxidase-ANCA positivity. Results: Among 194 patients with GPA included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 54 [15] years; 110 men [56.7%]), 165 (85.1%) had a new diagnosis, and 147 of 182 with data available (80.8%) had proteinase 3-ANCA positivity. Sixty-one patients received rituximab and 133 received cyclophosphamide for induction therapy. In the weighted analysis, the primary outcome was reached for 73.1% of patients receiving rituximab vs 40.1% receiving cyclophosphamide (relative risk [RR], 1.82 [95% CI, 1.22-2.73]; risk difference, 33.0% [95% CI, 12.2%-53.8%]; E value for RR, 3.05). Similar results were observed in the subgroup of patients with newly diagnosed GPA and those with a more recent treatment. In the subset of 27 patients with myeloperoxidase-ANCA-positive GPA, 8 of 10 rituximab recipients and 8 of 17 cyclophosphamide recipients met the primary end point (unweighted RR, 1.73 [95% CI, 0.96-3.11]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this comparativeness effectiveness study using clinical data, rituximab induction therapy for GPA was more frequently associated with remission than cyclophosphamide. These results inform clinical decision-making concerning the choice of remission induction therapy for this subset of patients with AAV.

Levels of Evidence Supporting United States Guidelines in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Treatment.

Cancer guidelines are ideally based on high levels of evidence (LOE). We aim to evaluate the LOE supporting recommendations in United States (US) guidelines on pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) treatment and its evolution over time. We searched for current guidelines from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and their prior publicly available versions on societies' websites and/or MEDLINE. We recorded the LOE and class of recommendation (opinion of the writing panel) for each recommendation. We defined high LOE as: a "high" quality of evidence from the GRADE methodology (ASCO) and "Category 1" (NCCN). Our main outcome was the proportion of PDAC recommendations supported by high LOE. Proportions of high LOE recommendations were 5% (2/40) and 8% (12/153) in current ASCO and NCCN guidelines, respectively. Less than 10% of class I recommendations were based on high LOE. For NCCN guidelines, the proportion of high LOE recommendations did not improve over time and only three recommendations increased their LOE. We identified a small percentage of high LOE recommendations for PDAC treatment in US guidelines. However, guidelines authors can only deal with the available evidence. The current framework of evidence should be challenged with consideration of observational evidence.

Availability of Results of Trials Studying Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma over the Past 10 Years.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a lethal cancer with few therapeutic options. Availability of results is a crucial step in interventional research. Our aim was to evaluate results availability for trials in patients with PDAC and explore associated factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study and searched the ClinicalTrials.gov registry for trials evaluating PDAC management with a primary completion date between 1 January 2010 and 1 June 2020. Then, we searched for results submitted on ClinicalTrials.gov and/or published. Our primary outcome was the proportion of PDAC trials with available results: submitted on ClinicalTrials.gov (either publicly available or undergoing quality control check) and/or published in a full-text article. The association of predefined trial characteristics with results availability was assessed. RESULTS: We identified 551 trials of which 386 (70%) had available results. The cumulative percentage of trials with available results was 21% (95% CI, 18-25%) at 12 months after the primary completion date, 44% (95% CI, 30-48%) at 24 months and 57% (95% CI, 53-61%) at 36 months. Applicable clinical trials, required to comply with the 2007 Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act 801 and its final rule on reporting of results on ClinicalTrials.gov, were more likely to have available results over time (HR 2.1 [95% CI 1.72-2.63], P < .001). Industry-funded, small sample size, and terminated trials were less likely to have available results. Other trial characteristics showed no association with results availability. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight a waste in interventional research studying PDAC.

Availability of results of interventional studies assessing colorectal cancer from 2013 to 2020.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most frequent cancers worldwide. Our aim was to evaluate the availability of results of interventional studies studying CRC. We searched the ClinicalTrials.gov registry for all interventional studies on CRC management in adults completed or terminated between 01/01/2013 and 01/01/2020. To identify results, we searched for results posted on the ClinicalTrials.gov registry and/or published in a full-text article. Our primary outcome was the proportion of CRC interventional studies with available results (i.e. posted on the ClinicalTrials.gov registry and/or published in a full-text article). Secondary outcomes were 1) median time between primary completion and earliest date of results availability, 2) the cumulative percentage of interventional studies with results available over time 3) the cumulative percentage of interventional studies with results posted on the ClinicalTrials.gov registry over time and 4) the percentage of results available in open access. We identified 763 eligible interventional studies in ClinicalTrials.gov, which included 679 198 patients. Of these, 286 (37%) trials, including 270 845 (40%) patients, did not have any results available. Median time for results availability was 32.6 months (IQ 16.1-unreached). The cumulative percentage of interventional studies with available results was 17% at 12 months, 39% at 24 months and 55% at 36 months. Results were more likely available for trials that were randomized, completed, had one trial site in the United States, and with mixed funding. The cumulative percentage of interventional studies with results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov was 2% at 12 months. Results were available in open access for 420 (420/477 = 88%) trials. Our results highlight an important waste in research for interventional studies studying CRC.

Assessment of transparency and selective reporting of interventional trials studying colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is currently one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers. Our aim was to evaluate transparency and selective reporting in interventional trials studying CRC. METHODS: First, we assessed indicators of transparency with completeness of reporting, according to the CONSORT statement, and data sharing. We evaluated a selection of reporting items for a sample of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying CRC with published full-text articles between 2021-03-22 and 2018-03-22. Selected items were issued from the previously published CONSORT based peer-review tool (COBPeer tool). Then, we evaluated selective reporting through retrospective registration and primary outcome(s) switching between registration and publication. Finally, we determined if primary outcome(s) switching favored significant outcomes. RESULTS: We evaluated 101 RCTs with published full-text articles between 2021-03-22 and 2018-03-22. Five trials (5%) reported all selected CONSORT items completely. Seventy-four (73%), 53 (52%) and 13 (13%) trials reported the primary outcome(s), the allocation concealment process and harms completely. Twenty-five (25%) trials were willing to share data. In our sample, 49 (49%) trials were retrospectively registered and 23 (23%) trials had primary outcome(s) switching. The influence of primary outcome(s) switching could be evaluated in 16 (16/23 = 70%) trials, with 6 (6/16 = 38%) trials showing a discrepancy that favored statistically significant results. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight a lack of transparency as well as frequent selective reporting in interventional trials studying CRC.

Completeness and Mismatch of Patient-Important Outcomes After Trauma.

To assess the completeness of the collection of patient-important outcomes and the mismatch between outcomes measured in research and patients' important issues after trauma. Summary Background Data: To date, severe trauma has mainly been assessed using in-hospital mortality. Yet, with 80 to 90% survivors discharged from hospital, it is critical to assess the collection of patient important long-term outcomes of trauma. Methods: Mixed methods study combining a systematic review of outcomes and their comparison with domains elicited by patients during a qualitative study. We searched Medline, EMBASE and clinicaltrials.gov from January 1, 2014 to September 30, 2019 and extracted all outcomes from reports including severe trauma. We compared these outcomes with 97 domains that matter to trauma survivors identified in a previous qualitative study. We defined as patient-important outcome as the 10 most frequently elicited domains in the qualitative study. We assessed the number of domains captured in each report to illustrate the completeness of the collection of patient-important outcomes. We also assessed the mismatch between outcomes collected and what matters to patients. Findings: Among the 116 reports included in the systematic review, we identified 403 outcomes collected with 154 unique measurements tools. Beside mortality, measurement tools most frequently used were the Glasgow Outcome Scale (31.0%, n=36), questions on patients' return to work (20,7%, n=24) and the EQ-5D (19.0%, n=22). The comparison between the outcomes identified in the systematic review and the domains from the qualitative study found that 10.3% (n=12) reports did not collect any patient-important domains and one collected all 10 patient-important domains. By examining each of the 10 patient-important domains, none was collected in more than 72% of reports and only five were among the ten most frequently measured domains in studies. Conclusion: The completeness of the collection of the long-term patient-important outcomes after trauma can be improved. There was a mismatch between the domains used in the literature and those considered important by patients during a qualitative study.

Neonatal Listeriosis Presentation and Outcome: A Prospective Study of 189 Cases.

BACKGROUND: Listeriosis is caused by the foodborne pathogen Listeria monocytogenes. It can present as a maternal-neonatal infection. We implemented a nationwide prospective cohort and analyzed the features of neonatal listeriosis. METHODS: We studied all neonates born alive from mothers with microbiologically proven maternal-neonatal listeriosis enrolled from November 2009 to December 2017. We analyzed presentation, neonatal outcome at discharge, and predictors of severe presentation and outcome. RESULTS: We studied 189 infants; 133 of 189 (70%) had abnormal clinical status at birth, including acute respiratory distress in 106 of 189 (56%). There were 132 of 189 (70%) infants who developed early-onset listeriosis and 12 of 189 (6%) who developed late-onset listeriosis; all presented with acute meningitis. There were 17 of 189 (9%) infants who had major adverse outcomes: 3%, (5 of 189) death; 6% (12 of 189), severe brain injury; and 2% (3 of 189), severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Fifteen of 17 infants were born <34 weeks of gestation (P < .0001 vs infants born ≥34 weeks of gestation). Maternal antimicrobial treatment ≥1 day before delivery was associated with a significant decrease in presentation severity for the infant, resulting in significantly fewer inotropic drugs, fluid resuscitation, and mechanical ventilation requirement (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.51; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Antenatal maternal antimicrobial treatment is associated with reduced neonatal listeriosis severity, justifying the prescription of preemptive maternal antimicrobial therapy when maternal-fetal listeriosis is suspected. Neonatal outcome is better than reported earlier, and its major determinant is gestational age at birth. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01520597.

Important Issues to Severe Trauma Survivors: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: Identify issues that are important to severe trauma survivors up to 3 years after the trauma. BACKGROUND: Severe trauma is the first cause of disability-adjusted life years worldwide, yet most attention has focused on acute care and the impact on long-term health is poorly evaluated. METHOD: We conducted a large-scale qualitative study based on semi-structured phone interviews. Qualitative research methods involve the systematic collection, organization, and interpretation of conversations or textual data with patients to explore the meaning of a phenomenon experienced by individuals themselves. We randomly selected severe trauma survivors (abbreviated injury score ≥3 in at least 1 body region) who were receiving care in 6 urban academic level-I trauma centers in France between March 2015 and March 2018. We conducted double independent thematic analysis. Issues reported by patients were grouped into overarching domains by a panel of 5 experts in trauma care. Point of data saturation was estimated with a mathematical model. RESULTS: We included 340 participants from 3 months to 3 years after the trauma [median age: 41 years (Q1-Q3 24-54), median injury severity score: 17 (Q1-Q3 11-22)]. We identified 97 common issues that we grouped into 5 overarching domains: body and neurological issues (29 issues elicited by 277 participants), biographical disruption (23 issues, 210 participants), psychological and personality issues (21 issues, 147 participants), burden of treatment (14 issues, 145 participants), and altered relationships (10 issues, 87 participants). Time elapsed because the trauma, injury location, or in-hospital trauma severity did not affect the distribution of these domains across participants' answers. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study explored trauma survivors' experiences of the long-term effect of their injury and allowed for identifying a set of issues that they consider important, including dimensions that seem overlooked in trauma research. Our findings confirm that trauma is a chronic medical condition that demands new approaches to post-discharge and long-term care.

Association Between Administration of IL-6 Antagonists and Mortality Among Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: A Meta-analysis.

Importance: Clinical trials assessing the efficacy of IL-6 antagonists in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 have variously reported benefit, no effect, and harm. Objective: To estimate the association between administration of IL-6 antagonists compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality and other outcomes. Data Sources: Trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases between October 2020 and January 2021. Searches were not restricted by trial status or language. Additional trials were identified through contact with experts. Study Selection: Eligible trials randomly assigned patients hospitalized for COVID-19 to a group in whom IL-6 antagonists were administered and to a group in whom neither IL-6 antagonists nor any other immunomodulators except corticosteroids were administered. Among 72 potentially eligible trials, 27 (37.5%) met study selection criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis: In this prospective meta-analysis, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for 28-day all-cause mortality. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. There were 9 secondary outcomes including progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death and risk of secondary infection by 28 days. Results: A total of 10 930 patients (median age, 61 years [range of medians, 52-68 years]; 3560 [33%] were women) participating in 27 trials were included. By 28 days, there were 1407 deaths among 6449 patients randomized to IL-6 antagonists and 1158 deaths among 4481 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.95]; P = .003 based on a fixed-effects meta-analysis). This corresponds to an absolute mortality risk of 22% for IL-6 antagonists compared with an assumed mortality risk of 25% for usual care or placebo. The corresponding summary ORs were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.92; P < .001) for tocilizumab and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.86-1.36; P = .52) for sarilumab. The summary ORs for the association with mortality compared with usual care or placebo in those receiving corticosteroids were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.68-0.87) for tocilizumab and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.61-1.38) for sarilumab. The ORs for the association with progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death, compared with usual care or placebo, were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.70-0.85) for all IL-6 antagonists, 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.82) for tocilizumab, and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.74-1.34) for sarilumab. Secondary infections by 28 days occurred in 21.9% of patients treated with IL-6 antagonists vs 17.6% of patients treated with usual care or placebo (OR accounting for trial sample sizes, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85-1.16). Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective meta-analysis of clinical trials of patients hospitalized for COVID-19, administration of IL-6 antagonists, compared with usual care or placebo, was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality. Trial Registration: PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42021230155.

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

BACKGROUND: Interleukin 6 (IL-6) blocking agents have been used for treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Their immunosuppressive effect might be valuable in patients with COVID-19 characterised by substantial immune system dysfunction by controlling inflammation and promoting disease tolerance. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or with placebo on efficacy and safety outcomes in COVID-19. We will update this assessment regularly. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (up to 11 February 2021) and the L-OVE platform, and Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify trials up to 26 February 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 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 standard Cochrane methodology. The protocol was amended to reduce the number of outcomes considered. Two review authors independently collected data and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence with the GRADE approach for the critical outcomes such as clinical improvement (defined as hospital discharge or improvement on the scale used by trialists to evaluate clinical progression or recovery) (day (D) 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 10 RCTs with available data including one platform trial comparing tocilizumab and sarilumab with standard of care. These trials evaluated tocilizumab (nine RCTs including two platform trials; seven were reported as peer-reviewed articles, two as preprints; 6428 randomised participants); and two sarilumab (one platform trial reported as peer reviewed article, one reported as preprint, 880 randomised participants). All trials included were multicentre trials. They were conducted in Brazil, China, France, Italy, UK, USA, and four were multi-country trials. The mean age range of participants ranged from 56 to 65 years; 4572 (66.3%) of trial participants were male. Disease severity ranged from mild to critical disease. The reported proportion of participants on oxygen at baseline but not intubated varied from 56% to 100% where reported. Five trials reported the inclusion of intubated patients at baseline. We identified a further 20 registered RCTs of tocilizumab compared to placebo/standard care (five completed without available results, five terminated without available results, eight ongoing, two not recruiting); 11 RCTs of sarilumab (two completed without results, three terminated without available results, six ongoing); six RCTs of clazakisumab (five ongoing, one not recruiting); two RCTs of olokizumab (one completed, one not recruiting); one of siltuximab (ongoing) and one RCT of levilimab (completed without available results). Of note, three were cancelled (2 tocilizumab, 1 clazakisumab). One multiple-arm RCT evaluated both tocilizumab and sarilumab compared to standard of care, one three-arm RCT evaluated tocilizumab and siltuximab compared to standard of care and consequently they appear in each respective comparison. Tocilizumab versus standard care alone or with placebo a. Effectiveness of tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 Tocilizumab probably results in little or no increase in the outcome of clinical improvement at D28 (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13; I2 = 40.9%; 7 RCTs, 5585 participants; absolute effect: 31 more with clinical improvement per 1000 (from 0 fewer to 67 more); moderate-certainty evidence). However, we cannot exclude that some subgroups of patients could benefit from the treatment. We did not obtain data for longer-term follow-up (≥ D60). The effect of tocilizumab on the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level of 7 or above is uncertain at D28 (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.74; I2 = 64.4%; 3 RCTs, 712 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not obtain data for longer-term follow-up (≥ D60). Tocilizumab reduces all-cause mortality at D28 compared to standard care alone or placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; I2 = 0.0%; 8 RCTs, 6363 participants; absolute effect: 32 fewer deaths per 1000 (from 52 fewer to 9 fewer); high-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests uncertainty around the effect on mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.40; I2 = 0.0%; 2 RCTs, 519 participants; low-certainty evidence). b. Safety of tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tocilizumab on adverse events (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.72; I2 = 86.4%; 7 RCTs, 1534 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Nevertheless, tocilizumab probably results in slightly fewer serious adverse events than standard care alone or placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.06; I2 = 0.0%; 8 RCTs, 2312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Sarilumab versus standard care alone or with placebo The evidence is uncertain about the effect of sarilumab on all-cause mortality at D28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.36; 2 RCTs, 880 participants; low certainty), on all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.0; 1 RCT, 420 participants; low certainty), and serious adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.77; 2 RCTs, 880 participants; low certainty). It is unlikely that sarilumab results in an important increase of adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.25; 1 RCT, 420 participants; moderate certainty). However, an increase cannot be excluded No data were available for other critical outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: On average, tocilizumab reduces all-cause mortality at D28 compared to standard care alone or placebo and probably results in slightly fewer serious adverse events than standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, tocilizumab probably results in little or no increase in the outcome clinical improvement (defined as hospital discharge or improvement measured by trialist-defined scales) at D28. The impact of tocilizumab on other outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. With the data available, we were not able to explore heterogeneity. Individual patient data meta-analyses are needed to be able to identify which patients are more likely to benefit from this treatment. Evidence for an effect of sarilumab is uncertain and evidence for other anti-IL6 agents is unavailable. Thirty-nine RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents with no results are currently registered, of which nine are completed and seven trials were terminated with no results available. The findings of this review will be updated as new data are made available on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com).

Behaviour of plasma citrulline after bariatric surgery in the BARIASPERM cohort.

BACKGROUND: Plasma citrulline is currently used in clinical practice as a marker of small bowel functional mass. Behaviour of plasma citrulline after bariatric surgery and its link with post-operative outcome are still poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: Primary objective was to compare plasma citrulline 12 months after two types of bariatric surgery with pre-operative concentrations. Secondary objectives were to search for correlation between plasma citrulline variation and body weight and fat mass loss. DESIGN: This is an ancillary study of the BARIASPERM study. Forty-six adult men (mean age 38.9 ± 7.9 years) who underwent gastric bypass (GB, n = 20) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG, n = 26) were included in this prospective study. Plasma citrulline was measured at baseline, 6 months and 12 months after surgery, as well as total body weight and fat mass measured by dual x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). RESULTS: Plasma citrulline increased significantly 12 months after surgery, both after gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy (respectively 30.2% [18.3-42.2] and 17.8% [5.8-29.7]). The increase was significantly higher after GB than after SG (p = 0.02) while total body weight and fat mass loss were not significantly different between GB and SG. The increase in plasma citrulline levels tended to be positively correlated with both weight and fat mass loss however the association did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.07 and p = 0.06 respectively). CONCLUSION: These results confirm the increase in plasma citrulline after GB published in two previous small studies. Citrulline also significantly increased after SG, and in spite of similar weight loss obtained with both surgery types, citrulline increase was higher after GB than SG. This suggests different modifications of intestinal functional mass after these two different techniques.