Pharmacological agents for procedural sedation and analgesia in the emergency department and intensive care unit: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of various i.v. pharmacologic agents used for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department (ED) and ICU. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to enable direct and indirect comparisons between available medications. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and PubMed from inception to 2 March 2023 for RCTs comparing two or more procedural sedation and analgesia medications in all patients (adults and children >30 days of age) requiring emergent procedures in the ED or ICU. We focused on the outcomes of sedation recovery time, patient satisfaction, and adverse events (AEs). We performed frequentist random-effects model network meta-analysis and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate certainty in estimates. RESULTS: We included 82 RCTs (8105 patients, 78 conducted in the ED and four in the ICU) of which 52 studies included adults, 23 included children, and seven included both. Compared with midazolam-opioids, recovery time was shorter with propofol (mean difference 16.3 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.4-24.3 fewer minutes; high certainty), and patient satisfaction was better with ketamine-propofol (mean difference 1.5 points, 95% CI 0.3-2.6 points, high certainty). Regarding AEs, compared with midazolam-opioids, respiratory AEs were less frequent with ketamine (relative risk [RR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.96; high certainty), gastrointestinal AEs were more common with ketamine-midazolam (RR 3.08, 95% CI 1.15-8.27; high certainty), and neurological AEs were more common with ketamine-propofol (RR 3.68, 95% CI 1.08-12.53; high certainty). CONCLUSION: When considering procedural sedation and analgesia in the ED and ICU, compared with midazolam-opioids, sedation recovery time is shorter with propofol, patient satisfaction is better with ketamine-propofol, and respiratory adverse events are less common with ketamine.

A novel framework for incorporating patient values and preferences in making guideline recommendations: guideline panel surveys.

OBJECTIVE: Universally acknowledged standards for trustworthy guidelines include the necessity to ground recommendations in patient values and preferences. When information is limited-which is typically the case-guideline panels often find it difficult to explicitly integrate patient values and preferences into their recommendations. Our objective was to develop and evaluate a framework for systematically navigating guideline panels in incorporating patient values and preferences in making recommendations. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In the context of developing a guideline for colorectal cancer screening, we generated an initial framework for creating panel surveys to elicit guideline panelists' views of patient values and preferences and to inform panel discussions on recommendations. With further applications in guidelines of diverse topic areas, we dynamically refined the framework through iterative discussions and consensus. RESULTS: The finial framework consists of five steps for creating and implementing panel surveys. The surveys can serve three objectives following from the quantitative information regarding patient values and preferences that guideline panels usually require. An accompanying video provides detailed instructions of the survey. CONCLUSION: The framework for creating and implementing panel surveys offers explicit guidance for guideline panels considering transparently and systematically incorporating patient values and preferences into guideline recommendations.

Benefits and harms of drug treatment for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the benefits and harms of drug treatments for adults with type 2 diabetes, adding non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (including finerenone) and tirzepatide (a dual glucose dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist) to previously existing treatment options. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central up to 14 October 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Eligible randomised controlled trials compared drugs of interest in adults with type 2 diabetes. Eligible trials had a follow-up of 24 weeks or longer. Trials systematically comparing combinations of more than one drug treatment class with no drug, subgroup analyses of randomised controlled trials, and non-English language studies were deemed ineligible. Certainty of evidence was assessed following the GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation) approach. RESULTS: The analysis identified 816 trials with 471 038 patients, together evaluating 13 different drug classes; all subsequent estimates refer to the comparison with standard treatments. Sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors (odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.94; high certainty) and GLP-1 receptor agonists (0.88, 0.82 to 0.93; high certainty) reduce all cause death; non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, so far tested only with finerenone in patients with chronic kidney disease, probably reduce mortality (0.89, 0.79 to 1.00; moderate certainty); other drugs may not. The study confirmed the benefits of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in reducing cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, admission to hospital for heart failure, and end stage kidney disease. Finerenone probably reduces admissions to hospital for heart failure and end stage kidney disease, and possibly cardiovascular death. Only GLP-1 receptor agonists reduce non-fatal stroke; SGLT-2 inhibitors are superior to other drugs in reducing end stage kidney disease. GLP-1 receptor agonists and probably SGLT-2 inhibitors and tirzepatide improve quality of life. Reported harms were largely specific to drug class (eg, genital infections with SGLT-2 inhibitors, severe gastrointestinal adverse events with tirzepatide and GLP-1 receptor agonists, hyperkalaemia leading to admission to hospital with finerenone). Tirzepatide probably results in the largest reduction in body weight (mean difference -8.57 kg; moderate certainty). Basal insulin (mean difference 2.15 kg; moderate certainty) and thiazolidinediones (mean difference 2.81 kg; moderate certainty) probably result in the largest increases in body weight. Absolute benefits of SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and finerenone vary in people with type 2 diabetes, depending on baseline risks for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes (https://matchit.magicevidence.org/230125dist-diabetes). CONCLUSIONS: This network meta-analysis extends knowledge beyond confirming the substantial benefits with the use of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in reducing adverse cardiovascular and kidney outcomes and death by adding information on finerenone and tirzepatide. These findings highlight the need for continuous assessment of scientific progress to introduce cutting edge updates in clinical practice guidelines for people with type 2 diabetes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022325948.

Comparative benefits and harms of individual opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Most systematic reviews of opioids for chronic pain have pooled treatment effects across individual opioids under the assumption they provide similar benefits and harms. We examined the comparative effects of individual opioids for chronic non-cancer pain through a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to March 2021 for studies that enrolled patients with chronic non-cancer pain, randomised them to receive different opioids, or opioids vs placebo, and followed them for at least 4 weeks. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We identified 82 eligible trials (22 619 participants) that evaluated 14 opioids. Compared with placebo, several opioids showed superiority to others for analgesia and improvement in physical function; however, when restricted to pooled-effect estimates supported by moderate certainty evidence, no differences between opioids were evident. Among opioids with moderate certainty evidence, all increased the risk of gastrointestinal adverse events compared with placebo, although no opioids were more harmful than others. Low to very low certainty evidence suggests that extended-release vs immediate-release opioids may provide similar benefits for pain relief and physical functioning, and gastrointestinal harms. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the pooling of effect estimates across different types and formulations of opioids to inform effectiveness for chronic non-cancer pain.

Adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir when used for COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: To summarise specific adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We searched 32 databases through 27 October 2020. We included randomised trials comparing any of the drugs of interest to placebo or standard care, or against each other. We conducted fixed-effects pairwise meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation approach. RESULTS: We included 16 randomised trials which enrolled 8152 patients. For most interventions and outcomes the certainty of the evidence was very low to low except for gastrointestinal adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine, which was moderate certainty. Compared with standard care or placebo, low certainty evidence suggests that remdesivir may not have an important effect on acute kidney injury (risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 27 fewer to 21 more) or cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI 12 fewer to 19 more). Low certainty evidence suggests that hydroxychloroquine may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity (RD 10 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 more to 30 more) and cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 33 more per 1000, 95% CI 18 fewer to 84 more), whereas moderate certainty evidence suggests hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea (RD 106 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 175 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 62 more per 1000, 95% CI 23 more to 110 more) compared with standard care or placebo. Low certainty evidence suggests lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea (RD 168 more per 1000, 95% CI 58 more to 330 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 160 more per 1000, 95% CI 100 more to 210 more) compared with standard care or placebo. DISCUSSION: Hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting and may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity and cognitive dysfunction/delirium. Lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting. Remdesivir may have no important effect on risk of acute kidney injury or cognitive dysfunction/delirium. These findings provide important information to support the development of evidence-based management strategies for patients with COVID-19.

Medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the role of medical cannabis or cannabinoids for people living with chronic pain due to cancer or non-cancer causes? CURRENT PRACTICE: Chronic pain is common and distressing and associated with considerable socioeconomic burden globally. Medical cannabis is increasingly used to manage chronic pain, particularly in jurisdictions that have enacted policies to reduce use of opioids; however, existing guideline recommendations are inconsistent, and cannabis remains illegal for therapeutic use in many countries. RECOMMENDATION: The guideline expert panel issued a weak recommendation to offer a trial of non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids, in addition to standard care and management (if not sufficient), for people living with chronic cancer or non-cancer pain. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: An international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel applied an individual patient perspective. THE EVIDENCE: This recommendation is informed by a linked series of four systematic reviews summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms, as well as patient values and preferences, regarding medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: The recommendation is weak because of the close balance between benefits and harms of medical cannabis for chronic pain. It reflects a high value placed on small to very small improvements in self reported pain intensity, physical functioning, and sleep quality, and willingness to accept a small to modest risk of mostly self limited and transient harms. Shared decision making is required to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and personal context. Further research is warranted and may alter this recommendation.

Prophylaxis against covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

UPDATES: This is the second version (first update) of the living systematic review, replacing the previous version (available as a data supplement). When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity. OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). DATA SOURCES: World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 4 March 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised trials in which people at risk of covid-19 were allocated to prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, we conducted random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included studies using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: The second iteration of this living NMA includes 32 randomised trials which enrolled 25 147 participants and addressed 21 different prophylactic drugs; adding 21 trials (66%), 18 162 participants (75%) and 16 (76%) prophylactic drugs. Of the 16 prophylactic drugs analysed, none provided convincing evidence of a reduction in the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. For admission to hospital and mortality outcomes, no prophylactic drug proved different than standard care or placebo. Hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C combined with zinc probably increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation­risk difference for hydroxychloroquine (RD) 6 more per 1000 (95% credible interval (CrI) 2 more to 10 more); for vitamin C combined with zinc, RD 69 more per 1000 (47 more to 90 more), moderate certainty evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Much of the evidence remains very low certainty and we therefore anticipate future studies evaluating drugs for prophylaxis may change the results for SARS-CoV-2 infection, admission to hospital and mortality outcomes. Both hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C combined with zinc probably increase adverse effects. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement. FUNDING: This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR-IRSC:0579001321).

A living WHO guideline on drugs to prevent covid-19.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the role of drugs in preventing covid-19? WHY DOES THIS MATTER?: There is widespread interest in whether drug interventions can be used for the prevention of covid-19, but there is uncertainty about which drugs, if any, are effective. The first version of this living guideline focuses on the evidence for hydroxychloroquine. Subsequent updates will cover other drugs being investigated for their role in the prevention of covid-19. RECOMMENDATION: The guideline development panel made a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine for individuals who do not have covid-19 (high certainty). HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development panel of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. UNDERSTANDING THE NEW RECOMMENDATION: The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (6 trials and 6059 participants) found that hydroxychloroquine had a small or no effect on mortality and admission to hospital (high certainty evidence). There was a small or no effect on laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (moderate certainty evidence) but probably increased adverse events leading to discontinuation (moderate certainty evidence). The panel judged that almost all people would not consider this drug worthwhile. In addition, the panel decided that contextual factors such as resources, feasibility, acceptability, and equity for countries and healthcare systems were unlikely to alter the recommendation. The panel considers that this drug is no longer a research priority and that resources should rather be oriented to evaluate other more promising drugs to prevent covid-19. UPDATES: This is a living guideline. New recommendations will be published in this article and signposted by update notices to this guideline. READERS NOTE: This is the first version of the living guideline for drugs to prevent covid-19. It complements the WHO living guideline on drugs to treat covid-19. When citing this article, please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.

Minimal important difference estimates for patient-reported outcomes: A systematic survey.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to develop an inventory summarizing all anchor-based minimal important difference (MID) estimates for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) available in the medical literature. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Instruments Database internal library (January 1989-October 2018). We included primary studies empirically calculating an anchor-based MID estimate for any PROM in adults and adolescents. Pairs of reviewers independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, and evaluated the credibility of the MIDs. RESULTS: We identified 585 eligible studies, the majority conducted in Europe (n = 211) and North America (n = 179), reporting 5,324 MID estimates for 526 distinct PROMs. Investigators conducted their studies in the context of patients receiving surgical (n = 105, 18%), pharmacological (n = 85, 15%), rehabilitation (n = 65, 11%), or a combination of interventions (n = 194, 33%). Of all MID estimates, 59% (n = 3,131) used a global rating of change anchor. Major credibility limitations included weak correlation (n = 1,246, 23%) or no information regarding the correlation (n = 3,498, 66%) between the PROM and anchor and imprecision in the MID estimate (n = 2,513, 47%). CONCLUSION: A large number of MIDs for assisting in the interpretation of PROMs exist. The MID inventory will facilitate the use of MID estimates to inform the interpretation of the magnitude of treatment effects in clinical research and guideline development.

Establishing thresholds for important benefits considering the harms of screening interventions.

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Standards for clinical practice guidelines require explicit statements regarding how values and preferences influence recommendations. However, no cancer screening guideline has addressed the key question of what magnitude of benefit people require to undergo screening, given its harms and burdens. This article describes the development of a new method for guideline developers to address this key question in the absence of high-quality evidence from published literature. SUMMARY OF METHOD: The new method was developed and applied in the context of a recent BMJ Rapid Recommendation clinical practice guideline for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. First, we presented the guideline panel with harms and burdens (derived from a systematic review) associated with the CRC screening tests under consideration. Second, each panel member completed surveys documenting their views of expected benefits on CRC incidence and mortality that people would require to accept the harms and burdens of screening. Third, the panel discussed results of the surveys and agreed on thresholds for benefits at which the majority of people would choose screening. During these three steps, the panel had no access to the actual benefits of the screening tests. In step four, the panel was presented with screening test benefits derived from a systematic review of clinical trials and microsimulation modelling. The thresholds derived through steps one to three were applied to these benefits, and directly informed the panel's recommendations. CONCLUSION: We present the development and application of a new, four-step method enabling incorporation of explicit and transparent judgements of values and preferences in a screening guideline. Guideline panels should establish their view regarding the magnitude of required benefit, given burdens and harms, before they review screening benefits and make their recommendations accordingly. Making informed screening decisions requires transparency in values and preferences judgements that our new method greatly facilitates.

How do cancer screening guidelines trade off benefits versus harms and burdens of screening? A systematic survey.

OBJECTIVES: Cancer screening guidelines differ in their recommendations for or against screening. To be able to provide explicit recommendations, guidelines need to specify thresholds for the magnitude of benefits of screening, given its harms and burdens. We evaluated how current cancer screening guidelines address the relative importance of benefits versus harms and burdens of screening. DATA SOURCE: We searched the Guidelines International Network, International Guideline Library, ECRI Institute and Medline. Two pairs of reviewers independently performed guideline selection and data abstraction. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included all cancer screening guidelines published in English between January 2014 and April 2019. RESULTS: Of 68 eligible guidelines, 25 included a statement regarding the trade-off between screening benefits versus harms and burdens (14 guidelines), or a statement of direction of the net effect (defined as benefits minus harms or burdens) (13 guidelines). None of these 25 guidelines defined how large a screening benefit should be to recommend screening, given its harms and burdens. 11 guidelines performed an economic evaluation of screening. Of these, six identified a key benefit outcome; two specified a cost-effectiveness threshold for recommending a screening option. Eight guidelines commented on people's values and preferences regarding the trade-off between benefits versus harms and burdens. CONCLUSIONS: Current cancer screening guidelines fail to specify the values and preferences underlying their recommendations. No guidelines provide a threshold at which they believe the benefits of screening outweigh its harms and burdens. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019138590.

Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 3 December 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 1 December 2021 were included in the analysis. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance. RESULTS: 463 trials enrolling 166 581 patients were included; 267 (57.7%) trials and 89 814 (53.9%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 265 (57.2%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, three drugs reduced mortality in patients with mostly severe disease with at least moderate certainty: systemic corticosteroids (risk difference 23 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 40 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), interleukin-6 receptor antagonists when given with corticosteroids (23 fewer per 1000, 36 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), and Janus kinase inhibitors (44 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 20 fewer, high certainty). Compared with standard care, two drugs probably reduce hospital admission in patients with non-severe disease: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (36 fewer per 1000, 41 fewer to 26 fewer, moderate certainty) and molnupiravir (19 fewer per 1000, 29 fewer to 5 fewer, moderate certainty). Remdesivir may reduce hospital admission (29 fewer per 1000, 40 fewer to 6 fewer, low certainty). Only molnupiravir had at least moderate quality evidence of a reduction in time to symptom resolution (3.3 days fewer, 4.8 fewer to 1.6 fewer, moderate certainty); several others showed a possible benefit. Several drugs may increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation; hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of mechanical ventilation (moderate certainty). CONCLUSION: Corticosteroids, interleukin-6 receptor antagonists, and Janus kinase inhibitors probably reduce mortality and confer other important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir probably reduce admission to hospital in patients with non-severe covid-19. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fifth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.

Remdesivir for severe covid-19: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the role of remdesivir in the treatment of severe covid-19? This guideline was triggered by the ACTT-1 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine on 22 May 2020. CURRENT PRACTICE: Remdesivir has received worldwide attention as a potentially effective treatment for severe covid-19. After rapid market approval in the US, remdesivir is already being used in clinical practice. RECOMMENDATIONS: The guideline panel makes a weak recommendation for the use of remdesivir in severe covid-19 while recommending continuation of active enrolment of patients into ongoing randomised controlled trials examining remdesivir. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: An international panel of patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The recommendations are based on a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis. The panel considered an individual patient perspective and allowed contextual factors (such as resources) to be taken into account for countries and healthcare systems. THE EVIDENCE: The linked systematic review (published 31 Jul 2020) identified two randomised trials with 1300 participants, showing low certainty evidence that remdesivir may be effective in reducing time to clinical improvement and may decrease mortality in patients with severe covid-19. Remdesivir probably has no important effect on need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Remdesivir may have little or no effect on hospital length of stay. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: Most patients with severe covid-19 would likely choose treatment with remdesivir given the potential reduction in time to clinical improvement. However, given the low certainty evidence for critical outcomes and the fact that different perspectives, values, and preferences may alter decisions regarding remdesivir, the panel issued a weak recommendation with strong support for continued recruitment in randomised trials.

Individual opioids, and long- versus short-acting opioids, for chronic noncancer pain: Protocol for a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are frequently prescribed for the management of patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Previous meta-analyses of efficacy and harms have combined treatment effects across all opioids; however, specific opioids, pharmacokinetic properties (ie, long acting vs short acting), or the type of formulation (ie, immediate vs extended release) may be a source of heterogeneity for pooled effects. METHODS: We will conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials evaluating opioids for CNCP. We will acquire eligible studies through systematic searches of EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Eligible studies will have randomly allocated adult CNCP patients to an oral or transdermal opioid versus another type of opioid (or formulation) or placebo, and follow patients for ≥ 4 weeks. We will collect outcome data for pain intensity, physical function, nausea, vomiting, and constipation. Pairs of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, abstract data from eligible trials and assess risk of bias using a modified Cochrane tool. We will assess coherence of our networks through both a global test, and by comparing direct and indirect evidence for each comparison with node-splitting. RESULTS: Using a frequentist approach, we will conduct random effects multiple treatment meta-analysis to establish treatment effects of individual opioids for each outcome. The certainty of evidence for pooled treatment effects will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We will categorize interventions from most to least effective based on the effect estimates obtained from NMAs and their associated certainty of evidence, as follows: superior to both placebo and alternatives; superior to placebo, but inferior to alternatives; and no better than placebo. CONCLUSION: This NMA will determine the relative effectiveness and adverse effects of individual opioids among patients with CNCP. Our results will help inform the appropriateness of assuming similar beneficial and adverse effects of varying opioid formulations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This systematic review is registered with Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, an international prospective register of systematic reviews (registration no.: CRD42018110331), available at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=110331.

Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: Recent 15-year updates of sigmoidoscopy screening trials provide new evidence on the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Prompted by the new evidence, we asked: "Does colorectal cancer screening make an important difference to health outcomes in individuals initiating screening at age 50 to 79? And which screening option is best?" CURRENT PRACTICE: Numerous guidelines recommend screening, but vary on recommended test, age and screening frequency. This guideline looks at the evidence and makes recommendations on screening for four screening options: faecal immunochemical test (FIT) every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy. RECOMMENDATIONS: These recommendations apply to adults aged 50-79 years with no prior screening, no symptoms of colorectal cancer, and a life expectancy of at least 15 years. For individuals with an estimated 15-year colorectal cancer risk below 3%, we suggest no screening (weak recommendation). For individuals with an estimated 15-year risk above 3%, we suggest screening with one of the four screening options: FIT every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy (weak recommendation). With our guidance we publish the linked research, a graphic of the absolute harms and benefits, a clear description of how we reached our value judgments, and linked decision aids. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, content experts and methodologists produced these recommendations using GRADE and in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines. A linked systematic review of colorectal cancer screening trials and microsimulation modelling were performed to inform the panel of 15-year screening benefits and harms. The panel also reviewed each screening option's practical issues and burdens. Based on their own experience, the panel estimated the magnitude of benefit typical members of the population would value to opt for screening and used the benefit thresholds to inform their recommendations. THE EVIDENCE: Overall there was substantial uncertainty (low certainty evidence) regarding the 15-year benefits, burdens and harms of screening. Best estimates suggested that all four screening options resulted in similar colorectal cancer mortality reductions. FIT every two years may have little or no effect on cancer incidence over 15 years, while FIT every year, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy may reduce cancer incidence, although for FIT the incidence reduction is small compared with sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Screening related serious gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse events are rare. The magnitude of the benefits is dependent on the individual risk, while harms and burdens are less strongly associated with cancer risk. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: Based on benefits, harms, and burdens of screening, the panel inferred that most informed individuals with a 15-year risk of colorectal cancer of 3% or higher are likely to choose screening, and most individuals with a risk of below 3% are likely to decline screening. Given varying values and preferences, optimal care will require shared decision making.

Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria: 2019 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) is a common finding in many populations, including healthy women and persons with underlying urologic abnormalities. The 2005 guideline from the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommended that ASB should be screened for and treated only in pregnant women or in an individual prior to undergoing invasive urologic procedures. Treatment was not recommended for healthy women; older women or men; or persons with diabetes, indwelling catheters, or spinal cord injury. The guideline did not address children and some adult populations, including patients with neutropenia, solid organ transplants, and nonurologic surgery. In the years since the publication of the guideline, further information relevant to ASB has become available. In addition, antimicrobial treatment of ASB has been recognized as an important contributor to inappropriate antimicrobial use, which promotes emergence of antimicrobial resistance. The current guideline updates the recommendations of the 2005 guideline, includes new recommendations for populations not previously addressed, and, where relevant, addresses the interpretation of nonlocalizing clinical symptoms in populations with a high prevalence of ASB.

Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria: 2019 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) is a common finding in many populations, including healthy women and persons with underlying urologic abnormalities. The 2005 guideline from the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommended that ASB should be screened for and treated only in pregnant women or in an individual prior to undergoing invasive urologic procedures. Treatment was not recommended for healthy women; older women or men; or persons with diabetes, indwelling catheters, or spinal cord injury. The guideline did not address children and some adult populations, including patients with neutropenia, solid organ transplants, and nonurologic surgery. In the years since the publication of the guideline, further information relevant to ASB has become available. In addition, antimicrobial treatment of ASB has been recognized as an important contributor to inappropriate antimicrobial use, which promotes emergence of antimicrobial resistance. The current guideline updates the recommendations of the 2005 guideline, includes new recommendations for populations not previously addressed, and, where relevant, addresses the interpretation of nonlocalizing clinical symptoms in populations with a high prevalence of ASB.

Minimal important differences for improvement in shoulder condition patient-reported outcomes: a systematic review to inform a BMJ Rapid Recommendation.

OBJECTIVES: To identify credible anchor-based minimal important differences (MIDs) for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) relevant to a BMJ Rapid Recommendations addressing subacromial decompression surgery for shoulder pain. DESIGN: Systematic review. OUTCOME MEASURES: Estimates of anchor-based MIDs, and their credibility, for PROMs judged by the parallel BMJ Rapid Recommendations panel as important for informing their recommendation (pain, function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL)). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO up to August 2018. STUDY SELECTION AND REVIEW METHODS: We included original studies of any intervention for shoulder conditions reporting estimates of anchor-based MIDs for relevant PROMs. Two reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible studies according to predefined selection criteria. Six reviewers, working in pairs, independently extracted data from eligible studies using a predesigned, standardised, pilot-tested extraction form and independently assessed the credibility of included studies using an MID credibility tool. RESULTS: We identified 22 studies involving 5562 patients that reported 74 empirically estimated anchor-based MIDs for 10 candidate instruments to assess shoulder pain, function and HRQoL. We identified MIDs of high credibility for pain and function outcomes and of low credibility for HRQoL. We offered median estimates for the systematic review team who applied these MIDs in Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence summaries and in their interpretations of results in the linked systematic review addressing the effectiveness of surgery for shoulder pain. CONCLUSIONS: Our review provides anchor-based MID estimates, as well as a rating of their credibility, for PROMs for patients with shoulder conditions. The MID estimates inform the interpretation for a linked systematic review and guideline addressing subacromial decompression surgery for shoulder pain, and could also prove useful for authors addressing other interventions for shoulder problems. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018106531.

Subacromial decompression surgery for adults with shoulder pain: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: Do adults with atraumatic shoulder pain for more than 3 months diagnosed as subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS), also labelled as rotator cuff disease, benefit from subacromial decompression surgery? This guideline builds on to two recent high quality trials of shoulder surgery. CURRENT PRACTICE: SAPS is the common diagnosis for shoulder pain with several first line treatment options, including analgesia, exercises, and injections. Surgeons frequently perform arthroscopic subacromial decompression for prolonged symptoms, with guidelines providing conflicting recommendations. RECOMMENDATION: The guideline panel makes a strong recommendation against surgery. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines and the GRADE system. The recommendation is based on two linked systematic reviews on (a) the benefits and harms of subacromial decompression surgery and (b) the minimally important differences for patient reported outcome measures. Recommendations are made actionable for clinicians and their patients through visual overviews. These provide the relative and absolute benefits and harms of surgery in multilayered evidence summaries and decision aids available in MAGIC (www.magicapp.org) to support shared decisions and adaptation. THE EVIDENCE: Surgery did not provide important improvements in pain, function, or quality of life compared with placebo surgery or other options. Frozen shoulder may be more common with surgery. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: The panel concluded that almost all informed patients would choose to avoid surgery because there is no benefit but there are harms and it is burdensome. Subacromial decompression surgery should not be offered to patients with SAPS. However, there is substantial uncertainty in what alternative treatment is best.