The OPI•AID Zone Tool as a composite outcome for postoperative pain management quality-A protocol for an observational pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Managing postoperative pain while minimizing opioid-related adverse drug events (ORADEs) remains a significant challenge. The OPI•AID Zone Tool is proposed as a novel clinical decision support tool that - both graphically and in a scoring-system - represents the relationship between pain management and the occurrence of ORADEs, aiming to enhance patient outcomes in postoperative care. The OPI•AID Zone Tool places pain score on the x-axis and an ORADE score on the y-axis, and stratifies patients into five zones to reflect the composite impact of pain severity and ORADEs on the quality of postoperative patient care. The study will have two key aims: (1) to explore whether the OPI•AID Zone Tool can function as a composite outcome measure for postoperative pain and ORADEs, and (2) to evaluate the use of the OPI•AID Zone Tool in visual presentations and for evaluation of patients' postoperative pain management quality. METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study will include 200 adults undergoing various surgical procedures in general anesthesia with a subsequent stay in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) at Bispebjerg Hospital, Denmark. Substudy 1 primary outcome: To assess whether a zone score in the OPI•AID Zone Tool is associated with patient-perceived health (EQ VAS), quality of recovery (QoR-PACU), and time to discharge readiness in PACU, and if the zone score has a stronger association than pain and ORADE score in themselves. Substudy 2 primary outcome: To assess how the use of intraoperative non-opioid analgesics impact where patients are placed in the OPI•AID Zone Tool's XY scatterplot right after surgery. To assess if patients who receive more comprehensive non-opioid analgesic basic regimens, generally fall into lower zones. CONCLUSION: The OPI•AID Zone Tool could potentially be a valuable clinical decision-making tool for optimizing postoperative care by simultaneously addressing pain management and the risk of ORADEs. By computing a composite measure of these two critical outcomes, the tool could guide more nuanced and patient-centered analgesic regimens, potentially improving patient satisfaction and operational efficiency in postoperative settings. The tool's applicability will be explored in this observational pilot and followed up in a planned series of studies (opiaid.dk).

Non-opioid analgesic combinations following total hip arthroplasty (RECIPE): a randomised, placebo-controlled, blinded, multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal postoperative analgesia following total hip arthroplasty is recommended, but the optimal combination of drugs remains uncertain. The aim of the RECIPE trial was to investigate the relative benefit and harm of the different combinations of paracetamol, ibuprofen, and the analgesic adjuvant dexamethasone for treatment of postoperative pain following total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: The RECIPE trial was a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial conducted at nine Danish hospitals. Adults scheduled for total hip arthroplasty were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) using a computer-generated list with stratification by site to receive combinations of oral paracetamol 1000 mg every 6 h, oral ibuprofen 400 mg every 6 h, or a single-dose of intravenous dexamethasone 24 mg in the following groups: paracetamol plus ibuprofen, ibuprofen plus dexamethasone, paracetamol plus dexamethasone, and paracetamol plus ibuprofen plus dexamethasone. The primary outcome was 24 h intravenous morphine consumption, analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomly assigned participants who underwent total hip arthroplasty. The predefined minimal important difference was 8 mg. Safety outcomes included serious and non-serious adverse events within 90 days and 24 h. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04123873. FINDINGS: Between March 5, 2020, and Nov 15, 2022, we randomly assigned 1060 participants, of whom 1043 (589 [56%] women and 454 [44%] men) were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. 261 were assigned to paracetamol plus ibuprofen, 262 to ibuprofen plus dexamethasone, 262 to paracetamol plus dexamethasone, and 258 to paracetamol plus ibuprofen plus dexamethasone. Median 24 h morphine consumption was 24 mg (IQR 12-38) in the paracetamol plus ibuprofen group, 20 mg (12-32) in the paracetamol plus dexamethasone group, 16 mg (10-30) in the ibuprofen plus dexamethasone group, and 15 mg (8-26) in the paracetamol plus ibuprofen plus dexamethasone group. The paracetamol plus ibuprofen plus dexamethasone group had a significantly reduced 24 h morphine consumption compared with paracetamol plus ibuprofen (Hodges-Lehmann median difference -6 mg [99% CI -10 to -3]; p<0·0001) and paracetamol plus dexamethasone (-4 mg [-8 to -1]; p=0·0013), however, none of the comparisons showed differences reaching the minimal important threshold of 8 mg. 91 (35%) of 258 participants in the paracetamol plus ibuprofen plus dexamethasone group had one or more adverse events, compared with 99 (38%) of 262 in the ibuprofen plus dexamethasone group, 103 (39%) of 262 in the paracetamol plus dexamethasone group, and 165 (63%) of 261 in the paracetamol plus ibuprofen group. INTERPRETATION: In adults undergoing total hip arthroplasty, a combination of paracetamol, ibuprofen, and dexamethasone had the lowest morphine consumption within 24 h following surgery and the most favourable adverse event profile, with a lower incidence of serious and non-serious adverse events (primarily driven by differences in nausea, vomiting, and dizziness) compared with paracetamol plus ibuprofen. FUNDING: The Novo Nordisk Foundation and Næstved-Slagelse-Ringsted Hospitals' Research Fund.

Minimal important difference in postoperative morphine consumption after hip and knee arthroplasty using nausea, vomiting, sedation and dizziness as anchors.

BACKGROUND: Morphine-sparing effects are often used to evaluate non-opioid analgesic interventions. The exact effect that would warrant the implementation of these interventions in clinical practice (a minimally important difference) remains unclear. We aimed to determine this with anchor-based methods. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of three studies investigating pain management after hip or knee arthroplasty (PANSAID [NCT02571361], DEX-2-TKA [NCT03506789] and Pain Map [NCT02340052]). The overall population was median aged 70, median ASA 2, 54% female. We examined the correlation between 0 and 24 h postoperative iv morphine equivalent consumption and the severity of nausea, vomiting, sedation and dizziness. The anchor was different severity degrees of these opioid-related adverse events. The primary outcome was the difference in morphine consumption between patients experiencing no versus only mild events. Secondary outcomes included the difference in morphine consumption between patients with mild versus moderate and moderate versus severe events. We used Hodges-Lehmann median differences, exact Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests and quantile regression. RESULTS: The difference in iv morphine consumption was 6 mg (95% confidence interval: 4-8) between patients with no versus only mild events, 5 mg (2-8) between patients with mild versus moderate events and 0 mg (-4 to 4) between patients with moderate versus severe events. CONCLUSIONS: In populations comparable to this post-hoc analysis (orthopaedic surgery, median age 70 and ASA 2), we suggest a minimally important difference of 5 mg for 0-24 h postoperative iv morphine consumption.

Effect of exercise on functional capacity and body weight for people with hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or cardiovascular disease: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease affect the activities of daily living at varying degree. While the effects of aerobic exercise on functional capacity are well-documented, the extent of change for different types of exercise in these chronic conditions remains unexplored. Additionally, there is conflicting evidence regarding the role of exercise in reducing body weight. METHODS: We conducted systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis and searched various databases from inception to July 2020. We included randomised clinical trials adding any form of trialist defined exercise to usual care versus usual care in people with either hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and/or cardiovascular disease irrespective of setting, publication status, year, and language. The outcomes assessed were i) functional capacity assessed through different scales separately i.e., Maximal Oxygen Uptake (VO2max), 6-min walk test (6MWT), 10-m walk test (10MWT), and ii) body weight. RESULTS: We included 950 studies out of which 444 trials randomising 20,098 participants reported on various functional outcomes (355 trials) and body weight (169 trials). The median follow-up was 3 months (Interquartile ranges (IQR): 2.25 to 6). Exercise added to the usual care, improved VO2max (Mean Difference (MD):2.72 ml/kg/min; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 2.38 to 3.06; p < 0.01; I2 = 96%), 6MWT (MD: 42.5 m; 95%CI 34.95 to 50.06; p < 0.01; I2 = 96%), and 10MWT (MD: 0.06 m/s; 95%CI 0.03 to 0.10; p < 0.01; I2 = 93%). Dynamic aerobic and resistance exercise showed a consistent improvement across various functional outcomes, whereas body-mind therapies (MD: 3.23 ml/kg/min; 95%CI 1.97 to 4.49, p < 0.01) seemed especially beneficial for VO2max and inspiratory muscle training (MD: 59.32 m; 95%CI 33.84 to 84.80; p < 0.01) for 6MWT. Exercise yielded significant reduction in body weight for people with hypertension (MD: -1.45 kg; 95%CI -2.47 to -0.43; p < 0.01), and type 2 diabetes (MD: -1.53 kg; 95%CI -2.19 to -0.87; p < 0.01) but not for cardiovascular disease with most pronounced for combined exercise (MD: -1.73 kg; 95%CI -3.08 to -0.39; p < 0.05). The very low certainty of evidence warrants cautious interpretations of the results. CONCLUSION: Exercise seemed to improve functional capacity for people with hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and/or cardiovascular disease but the effectiveness seems to vary with different forms of exercise. The potentially superior improvement in VO2max and 6MWT by body-mind therapies and inspiratory muscle training calls for further exploration. Additionally, prescribing exercise for the sole purpose of losing weight may be a potential strategy for people with hypertension and type 2 diabetes. The extent of improvement in functional capacity and body weight reduction differed with different exercise regimens hence personalised exercise prescriptions tailored to individual needs may be of importance. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019142313.

The predictive value of highly malignant EEG patterns after cardiac arrest: evaluation of the ERC-ESICM recommendations.

PURPOSE: The 2021 guidelines endorsed by the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) recommend using highly malignant electroencephalogram (EEG) patterns (HMEP; suppression or burst-suppression) at > 24 h after cardiac arrest (CA) in combination with at least one other concordant predictor to prognosticate poor neurological outcome. We evaluated the prognostic accuracy of HMEP in a large multicentre cohort and investigated the added value of absent EEG reactivity. METHODS: This is a pre-planned prognostic substudy of the Targeted Temperature Management trial 2. The presence of HMEP and background reactivity to external stimuli on EEG recorded > 24 h after CA was prospectively reported. Poor outcome was measured at 6 months and defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 4-6. Prognostication was multimodal, and withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy (WLST) was not allowed before 96 h after CA. RESULTS: 845 patients at 59 sites were included. Of these, 579 (69%) had poor outcome, including 304 (36%) with WLST due to poor neurological prognosis. EEG was recorded at a median of 71 h (interquartile range [IQR] 52-93) after CA. HMEP at > 24 h from CA had 50% [95% confidence interval [CI] 46-54] sensitivity and 93% [90-96] specificity to predict poor outcome. Specificity was similar (93%) in 541 patients without WLST. When HMEP were unreactive, specificity improved to 97% [94-99] (p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: The specificity of the ERC-ESICM-recommended EEG patterns for predicting poor outcome after CA exceeds 90% but is lower than in previous studies, suggesting that large-scale implementation may reduce their accuracy. Combining HMEP with an unreactive EEG background significantly improved specificity. As in other prognostication studies, a self-fulfilling prophecy bias may have contributed to observed results.

Intravenous MELAtonin for prevention of Postoperative Agitation and Emergence Delirium in children (MELA-PAED): A protocol and statistical analysis plan for a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Emergence agitation and delirium in children remain a common clinical challenge in the post-anesthetic care unit. Preoperative oral melatonin has been suggested as an effective preventive drug with a favorable safety profile. The oral bioavailability of melatonin, however, is low. Therefore, the MELA-PAED trial aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of intraoperative intravenous melatonin for the prevention of emergence agitation in pediatric surgical patients. METHODS: MELA-PAED is a randomized, double-blind, parallel two-arm, multi-center, superiority trial comparing intravenous melatonin with placebo. Four hundred participants aged 1-6 years will be randomized 1:1 to either the intervention or placebo. The intervention consists of intravenous melatonin 0.15 mg/kg administered approximately 30 min before the end of surgery. Participants will be monitored in the post-anesthetic care unit (PACU), and the Post Hospitalization Behavior Questionnaire for Ambulatory Surgery (PHBQ-AS) will be performed on days 1, 7, and 14 after the intervention. Serious Adverse Events (SAE) will be assessed up to 30 days after the intervention. RESULTS: The primary outcome is the incidence of emergence agitation, assessed dichotomously as any Watcha score >2 during the participant's stay in the post-anesthetic care unit. Secondary outcomes are opioid consumption in the post-anesthetic care unit and adverse events. Exploratory outcomes include SAEs, postoperative pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and time to awakening, to first oral intake, and to discharge readiness. CONCLUSION: The MELA-PAED trial investigates the efficacy of intravenous intraoperative melatonin for the prevention of emergence agitation in pediatric surgical patients. Results may provide further knowledge concerning the use of melatonin in pediatric perioperative care.

Detailed statistical analysis plan for a secondary Bayesian analysis of the SafeBoosC-III trial: a multinational, randomised clinical trial assessing treatment guided by cerebral oximetry monitoring versus usual care in extremely preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Extremely preterm infants have a high mortality and morbidity. Here, we present a statistical analysis plan for secondary Bayesian analyses of the pragmatic, sufficiently powered multinational, trial-SafeBoosC III-evaluating the benefits and harms of cerebral oximetry monitoring plus a treatment guideline versus usual care for such infants. METHODS: The SafeBoosC-III trial is an investigator-initiated, open-label, randomised, multinational, pragmatic, phase III clinical trial with a parallel-group design. The trial randomised 1601 infants, and the frequentist analyses were published in April 2023. The primary outcome is a dichotomous composite outcome of death or severe brain injury. The exploratory outcomes are major neonatal morbidities associated with neurodevelopmental impairment later in life: (1) bronchopulmonary dysplasia; (2) retinopathy of prematurity; (3) late-onset sepsis; (4) necrotising enterocolitis; and (5) number of major neonatal morbidities (count of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, retinopathy of prematurity, and severe brain injury). The primary Bayesian analyses will use non-informed priors including all plausible effects. The models will use a Hamiltonian Monte Carlo sampler with 1 chain, a sampling of 10,000, and at least 25,000 iterations for the burn-in period. In Bayesian statistics, such analyses are referred to as 'posteriors' and will be presented as point estimates with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs), encompassing the most probable results based on the data, model, and priors selected. The results will be presented as probability of any benefit or any harm, Bayes factor, and the probability of clinical important benefit or harm. Two statisticians will analyse the blinded data independently following this protocol. DISCUSSION: This statistical analysis plan presents a secondary Bayesian analysis of the SafeBoosC-III trial. The analysis and the final manuscript will be carried out and written after we publicise the primary frequentist trial report. Thus, we can interpret the findings from both the frequentists and Bayesian perspective. This approach should provide a better foundation for interpreting of our findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.org, NCT03770741. Registered on 10 December 2018.

The effects of cerebral oximetry in mechanically ventilated newborns: a protocol for the SafeBoosC-IIIv randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The SafeBoosC project aims to test the clinical value of non-invasive cerebral oximetry by near-infrared spectroscopy in newborn infants. The purpose is to establish whether cerebral oximetry can be used to save newborn infants' lives and brains or not. Newborns contribute heavily to total childhood mortality and neonatal brain damage is the cause of a large part of handicaps such as cerebral palsy. The objective of the SafeBoosC-IIIv trial is to evaluate the benefits and harms of cerebral oximetry added to usual care versus usual care in mechanically ventilated newborns. METHODS/DESIGN: SafeBoosC-IIIv is an investigator-initiated, multinational, randomised, pragmatic phase-III clinical trial. The inclusion criteria will be newborns with a gestational age more than 28 + 0 weeks, postnatal age less than 28 days, predicted to require mechanical ventilation for at least 24 h, and prior informed consent from the parents or deferred consent or absence of opt-out. The exclusion criteria will be no available cerebral oximeter, suspicion of or confirmed brain injury or disorder, or congenital heart disease likely to require surgery. A total of 3000 participants will be randomised in 60 neonatal intensive care units from 16 countries, in a 1:1 allocation ratio to cerebral oximetry versus usual care. Participants in the cerebral oximetry group will undergo cerebral oximetry monitoring during mechanical ventilation in the neonatal intensive care unit for as long as deemed useful by the treating physician or until 28 days of life. The participants in the cerebral oximetry group will be treated according to the SafeBoosC treatment guideline. Participants in the usual care group will not receive cerebral oximetry and will receive usual care. We use two co-primary outcomes: (1) a composite of death from any cause or moderate to severe neurodevelopmental disability at 2 years of corrected age and (2) the non-verbal cognitive score of the Parent Report of Children's Abilities-Revised (PARCA-R) at 2 years of corrected age. DISCUSSION: There is need for a randomised clinical trial to evaluate cerebral oximetry added to usual care versus usual care in mechanically ventilated newborns. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol is registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT05907317; registered 18 June 2023).

Collaboration for Evidence-based Practice and Research in Anaesthesia (CEPRA): A consortium initiative for perioperative research.

Evidence in perioperative care is insufficient. There is an urgent need for large perioperative research programmes, including pragmatic randomised trials, testing daily clinical treatments and unanswered question, thereby providing solid evidence for effects of interventions given to a large and growing number of patients undergoing surgery and anaesthesia. This may be achieved through large collaborations. Collaboration for Evidence-based Practice and Research in Anaesthesia (CEPRA) is a novel collaborative research network founded to pursue evidence-based answers to major clinical questions in perioperative medicine. The aims of CEPRA are to (1) improve clinical treatment and outcomes and optimise the use of resources for patients undergoing anaesthesia and perioperative care, and (2) disseminate results and inform caretakers, patients and relatives, and policymakers of evidence-based treatments in anaesthesia and perioperative medicine. CEPRA is inclusive in its concept. We aim to extend our collaboration with all relevant clinical collaborators and patient associations and representatives. Although initiated in Denmark, CEPRA seeks to develop an international network infrastructure, for example, with other Nordic countries. The work of CEPRA will follow the highest methodological standards. The organisation aims to structure and optimise any element of the research collaboration to reduce economic costs and harness benefits from well-functioning research infrastructure. This includes successive continuation of trials, harmonisation of outcomes, and alignment of data management systems. This paper presents the initiation and visions of the CEPRA network. CEPRA aims to be inclusive, patient-focused, methodologically sound, and to optimise all aspects of research logistics. This will translate into faster research conduct, reliable results, and accelerated clinical implementation of results, thereby benefiting millions of patients whilst being cost and labour-saving.

Cannabinoids versus placebo for pain: A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of cannabinoids in participants with pain. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis, Trial Sequential Analysis, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, and BIOSIS. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Published and unpublished randomised clinical trials comparing cannabinoids versus placebo in participants with any type of pain. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All-cause mortality, pain, adverse events, quality of life, cannabinoid dependence, psychosis, and quality of sleep. RESULTS: We included 65 randomised placebo-controlled clinical trials enrolling 7017 participants. Fifty-nine of the trials and all outcome results were at high risk of bias. Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis showed no evidence of a difference between cannabinoids versus placebo on all-cause mortality (RR 1.20; 98% CI 0.85 to 1.67; P = 0.22). Meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analysis showed that cannabinoids neither reduced acute pain (mean difference numerical rating scale (NRS) 0.52; 98% CI -0.40 to 1.43; P = 0.19) or cancer pain (mean difference NRS -0.13; 98% CI -0.33 to 0.06; P = 0.1) nor improved quality of life (mean difference -1.38; 98% CI -11.81 to 9.04; P = 0.33). Meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analysis showed that cannabinoids reduced chronic pain (mean difference NRS -0.43; 98% CI -0.72 to -0.15; P = 0.0004) and improved quality of sleep (mean difference -0.42; 95% CI -0.65 to -0.20; P = 0.0003). However, both effect sizes were below our predefined minimal important differences. Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis indicated that cannabinoids increased the risk of non-serious adverse events (RR 1.20; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.25; P < 0.001) but not serious adverse events (RR 1.18; 98% CI 0.95 to 1.45; P = 0.07). None of the included trials reported on cannabinoid dependence or psychosis. CONCLUSIONS: Cannabinoids reduced chronic pain and improved quality of sleep, but the effect sizes are of questionable importance. Cannabinoids had no effects on acute pain or cancer pain and increased the risks of non-serious adverse events. The harmful effects of cannabinoids for pain seem to outweigh the potential benefits.

Detailed statistical analysis plan for the neurological complications in endoscopic versus open radial artery harvest (NEO) randomised clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Coronary artery bypass grafting can be conducted using the radial artery as a bypass graft. However, it remains unclear which harvesting method is superior, i.e. endoscopic or open radial artery, and which site for proximal anastomosis of the radial artery has the greatest benefits? METHODS: The NEO Trial is a single site randomised clinical trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. The first comparison assesses endoscopic versus open radial artery harvest with a primary outcome of hand function and secondary outcomes of neurological deficits through clinical exams and neurophysiological studies. The primary outcome is postoperatively hand function at three months. We anticipate a mean difference of 3 points with a standard deviation of 8 points, a power of 90%, and a type I error of 5%, resulting in a required sample size of 300 participants randomised 1:1. Secondary outcomes are neurological deficits (based on nerve conduction measurements, algometry test and von Frey hair test), clinical neurological examination of cutaneous sensibility, and registration of complications in the donor arm (haematoma formation, wound dehiscence, and/or infection). The second comparison assesses two different proximal anastomotic sites, i.e. aorto-radial anastomosis versus mammario-radial anastomosis. The primary outcome is a composite of cerebrovascular events and the secondary outcome is graft patency evaluation by multi-slice computer tomography-scan. These outcomes will be assessed at 1 year postoperatively, and the results of this comparison will be exploratory only. Both comparisons will be analysed using intention-to-treat and intervention groups will be compared using linear regression, logistic regression, or Mann-Whitney U test depending on data type. Two independent statisticians will follow the present plan and conduct the analyses which will hereafter be fused into a final analysis based on consensus. CONCLUSION: This detailed analysis plan will increase the validity of the NEO trial results by predefining the statistical analysis in detail. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01848886 . Registered 25 February 2013. Danish Ethics committee number: H-3-2012-116. Danish Data Protection Agency: 2007-58-0015/jr. n:30-0838.

Deep brain stimulation for neurological disorders: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation has been used since the 1980s for neurological disorders and the USA and Europe have now approved it for Parkinson's disease, essential tremor, dystonia, and epilepsy. Previous reviews have assessed the effects of deep brain stimulation on different neurological disorders. These reviews all had methodological limitations. METHODS: This is a protocol for a systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessment. We will include published and unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing deep brain stimulation versus no intervention, usual care, sham stimulation, medical treatment, or resective surgery for Parkinson's disease, essential tremor, dystonia, or epilepsy. The effects of deep brain stimulation will be analysed separately for each of the different diagnoses. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality, disease-specific symptoms, and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be quality of life, depressive symptoms, executive functioning, level of functioning, and non-serious adverse events. Data will be analysed using fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analysis. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2, an eight-step procedure to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). DISCUSSION: Deep brain stimulation is increasingly being used for different neurological diseases, and the effects are unclear based on previous evidence. There is a need for a comprehensive systematic review of the current evidence. This review will provide the necessary background for weighing the benefits against the harms when assessing deep brain stimulation as intervention for individual neurological disorders. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 306,556.

Risk of serious adverse events associated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in orthopaedic surgery. A protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain is a common condition following orthopaedic surgeries and causes prolonged hospitalisation, delayed rehabilitation and hamper the quality of life. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are effective analgesics and anti-inflammatory mediators in the treatment of postoperative pain. The association of NSAIDs with serious adverse events may however keep some clinicians and clinical decision makers from using NSAIDs perioperatively. The evidence regarding the risks of serious adverse events following perioperative use of NSAIDs in orthopaedic surgery is sparse and needs to be assessed in a systematic review. This is a protocol for a systematic review that aims to identify the risks of serious adverse events from perioperative use of NSAIDs in orthopaedic patients. METHODS: Our methodology is based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols and the eight-step assessment procedure suggested by Jakobsen and colleagues. We wish to assess if NSAIDs versus placebo, usual care or no intervention, will influence the risks of serious adverse events in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery. We will include all randomised trials assessing the use of NSAIDs perioperatively. To identify trials we will search the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica database, Cochrane Central Register, Science Citation Index Expanded on Web of Science and BIOSIS. Two authors will screen the literature and extract data. We will use the 'Risk of Bias 2 tool' to assess trials. Extracted data will be analysed using RStudio and Trial Sequential Analysis. We will create a 'Summary of Findings' table in which we will present our primary and secondary outcomes. We will assess the quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). DISCUSSION: This systematic review can potentially aid clinicians and clinical decision makers in the use of NSAIDs for treatment of postoperative pain following orthopaedic surgeries.

Effect of dexamethasone on intraoperative remifentanil dose in total knee arthroplasty surgery under general anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: The effects of glucocorticoids may include both genomic and rapid nongenomic effects. The potential rapid analgesic effect during surgery has not previously been investigated. We aimed to explore the effect of dexamethasone on intraoperative infusion rate of remifentanil in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgery under general anaesthesia. METHODS: In this post hoc subgroup analysis, we included patients randomised in the DEX-2-TKA trial, who were operated under total intravenous anaesthesia with remifentanil and propofol. Trial medication, intravenous dexamethasone 24 mg or placebo, was administered immediately after anaesthesia onset. The primary outcome was the median weight-corrected infusion rate of remifentanil during surgery. Secondary outcomes included median weight-corrected infusion rate of propofol, median intraoperative bispectral index and time spent in the post-anaesthesia care unit. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were included in the analysis of the primary outcome. A significantly higher remifentanil infusion rate was observed in the dexamethasone group compared with the placebo group, p = .02. None of the secondary outcomes resulted in statistically significant differences between groups. CONCLUSION: This explorative post hoc analysis of the randomised DEX-2-TKA trail showed that patients undergoing TKA surgery under general anaesthesia and who received dexamethasone seemed to have a higher remifentanil infusion rate compared with patients who received placebo. The clinical implications of the potentially increased remifentanil infusion rate need to be validated and explored further. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05002361 (12 August 2021).

Cerebral near-infrared spectroscopy monitoring (NIRS) in children and adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cerebral oxygenation monitoring utilising near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) is increasingly used to guide interventions in clinical care. The objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis is to evaluate the effects of clinical care with access to cerebral NIRS monitoring in children and adults versus care without. METHODS: This review conforms to PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020202986). Methods are outlined in our protocol (doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01660-2). RESULTS: Twenty-five randomised clinical trials were included (2606 participants). All trials were at a high risk of bias. Two trials assessed the effects of NIRS during neonatal intensive care, 13 during cardiac surgery, 9 during non-cardiac surgery and 1 during neurocritical care. Meta-analyses showed no significant difference for all-cause mortality (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.51-1.10; 1489 participants; I2 = 0; 11 trials; very low certainty of evidence); moderate or severe, persistent cognitive or neurological deficit (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.42-1.32; 1135 participants; I2 = 39.6; 9 trials; very low certainty of evidence); and serious adverse events (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.67-1.01; 2132 participants; I2 = 68.4; 17 trials; very low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSION: The evidence on the effects of clinical care with access to cerebral NIRS monitoring is very uncertain. IMPACT: The evidence of the effects of cerebral NIRS versus no NIRS monitoring are very uncertain for mortality, neuroprotection, and serious adverse events. Additional trials to obtain sufficient information size, focusing on lowering bias risk, are required. The first attempt to systematically review randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of cerebral NIRS monitoring by pooling data across various clinical settings. Despite pooling data across clinical settings, study interpretation was not substantially impacted by heterogeneity. We have insufficient evidence to support or reject the clinical use of cerebral NIRS monitoring.

Participants with mild, moderate, or severe pain following total hip arthroplasty. A sub-study of the PANSAID trial on paracetamol and ibuprofen for postoperative pain treatment.

OBJECTIVES: In this sub-study of the 'Paracetamol and Ibuprofen in Combination' (PANSAID) trial, in which participants were randomised to one of four different non-opioids analgesic regimen consisting of paracetamol, ibuprofen, or a combination of the two after planned primary total hip arthroplasty, our aims were to investigate the distribution of participants' pain (mild, moderate or severe), integrate opioid use and pain to a single score (Silverman Integrated Approach (SIA)-score), and identify preoperative risk factors for severe pain. METHODS: We calculated the proportions of participants with mild (VAS 0-30 mm), moderate (VAS 31-60 mm) or severe (VAS 61-100 mm) pain and the SIA-scores (a sum of rank-based percentage differences from the mean rank in pain scores and opioid use, ranging from -200 to 200%). Using logistic regression with backwards elimination, we investigated the association between severe pain and easily obtainable preoperative patient characteristics. RESULTS: Among 556 participants from the modified intention-to-treat population, 33% (95% CI: 26-42) (Group Paracetamol + Ibuprofen (PCM + IBU)), 28% (95% CI: 21-37) (Group Paracetamol (PCM)), 23% (95% CI: 17-31) (Group Ibuprofen (IBU)), and 19% (95% CI: 13-27) (Group Half Strength-Paracetamol + Ibuprofen (HS-PCM + IBU)) experienced mild pain 6 h postoperatively during mobilisation. Median SIA-scores during mobilisation were: Group PCM + IBU: -48% (IQR: -112 to 31), Group PCM: 40% (IQR: -31 to 97), Group IBU: -5% (IQR: -57 to 67), and Group HS-PCM + IBU: 6% (IQR: -70 to 74) (overall difference: p=0.0001). Use of analgesics before surgery was the only covariate associated with severe pain (non-opioid: OR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.29-0.82, weak opioid 0.56, 95% CI: 0.28-1.16, reference no analgesics before surgery, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Only one third of participants using paracetamol and ibuprofen experienced mild pain after total hip arthroplasty and even fewer experienced mild pain using each drug alone as basic non-opioid analgesic treatment. We were not able, in any clinically relevant way, to predict severe postoperative pain. A more extensive postoperative pain regimen than paracetamol, ibuprofen and opioids may be needed for a large proportion of patients having total hip arthroplasty. SIA-scores integrate pain scores and opioid use for the individual patient and may add valuable information in acute pain research.

The clinical effects of cerebral near-infrared spectroscopy monitoring (NIRS) versus no monitoring: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple clinical conditions are associated with cerebral hypoxia/ischaemia and thereby an increased risk of hypoxic-ischaemic brain injury. Cerebral near-infrared spectroscopy monitoring (NIRS) is a tool to monitor brain oxygenation and perfusion, and the clinical uptake of NIRS has expanded over recent years. Specifically, NIRS is used in the neonatal, paediatric, and adult perioperative and intensive care settings. However, the available literature suggests that clinical benefits and harms of cerebral NIRS monitoring are uncertain. As rates of clinically significant hypoxic-ischaemic brain injuries are typically low, it is difficult for randomised clinical trials to capture a sufficiently large number of events to evaluate the clinical effect of cerebral NIRS monitoring, when focusing on specific clinical settings. The aim of this systematic review will be to evaluate the benefits and harms of clinical care with access to cerebral NIRS monitoring versus clinical care without cerebral NIRS monitoring in children and adults across all clinical settings. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. We will only include randomised clinical trials. The primary outcomes are all-cause mortality, moderate or severe persistent cognitive or neurological deficit, and proportion of participants with one or more serious adverse events. We will search CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Science Citation Index Expanded from their inception and onwards. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and extract data. The risk of bias will be appraised using the Cochrane risk of bias tool version 2.0. If feasible, we will conduct both random-effects meta-analysis and fixed-effect meta-analysis of outcome data. Additional analysis will be conducted to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity (e.g. risk of bias, clinical setting). DISCUSSION: As we include trials across multiple clinical settings, there is an increased probability of reaching a sufficient information size. However, heterogeneity between the included trials may impair our ability to interpret results to specific clinical settings. In this situation, we may have to depend on subgroup analyses with inherent increased risks of type I and II errors. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020202986 . This systematic review protocol has been submitted for registration in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero) on the 12th of October 2020 and published on the 12th of November 2020 (registration ID CRD42020202986 ).

Interventions for treatment of COVID-19: Second edition of a living systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project).

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a rapidly spreading disease that has caused extensive burden to individuals, families, countries, and the world. Effective treatments of COVID-19 are urgently needed. This is the second edition of a living systematic review of randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of all treatment interventions for participants in all age groups with COVID-19. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We planned to conduct aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Our systematic review was based on PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines, and our eight-step procedure for better validation of clinical significance of meta-analysis results. We performed both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. According to the number of outcome comparisons, we adjusted our threshold for significance to p = 0.033. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished trials until November 2, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial methodology. We included 82 randomized clinical trials enrolling a total of 40,249 participants. 81 out of 82 trials were at overall high risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference between corticosteroids versus control on all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 23.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), on serious adverse events (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; p = 0.04; I2 = 39.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), and on mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.33; p = 0.49; I2 = 55.3%; two trials; very low certainty). The fixed-effect meta-analyses showed indications of beneficial effects. Trial sequential analyses showed that the required information size for all three analyses was not reached. Meta-analysis (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07; p = 0.31; I2 = 0%; four trials; moderate certainty) and trial sequential analysis (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that remdesivir versus control reduced the risk of death by 20%. Meta-analysis (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 38.9%; four trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of difference between remdesivir versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of remdesivir on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.87; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of intravenous immunoglobulin versus control on all-cause mortality, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.14; p = 0.12; I2 = 77.4%; five trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of a difference between tocilizumab versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.96; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; three trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab versus control on mechanical ventilation, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm of reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.69; p < 0.00; I2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of bromhexine versus standard care on non-serious adverse events, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that hydroxychloroquine versus control reduced the risk of death and serious adverse events by 20%. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that lopinavir-ritonavir versus control reduced the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation by 20%. All remaining outcome comparisons showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Nine single trials showed statistically significant results on our outcomes, but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Due to lack of data, it was not relevant to perform network meta-analysis or possible to perform individual patient data meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists. Very low certainty evidence indicates that corticosteroids might reduce the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation; that remdesivir might reduce the risk of serious adverse events; that intravenous immunoglobin might reduce the risk of death and serious adverse events; that tocilizumab might reduce the risk of serious adverse events and mechanical ventilation; and that bromhexine might reduce the risk of non-serious adverse events. More trials with low risks of bias and random errors are urgently needed. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of COVID-19. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020178787.

Considerations on the strengths and limitations of using disease-related mortality as an outcome in clinical research.

Disease-related mortality (eg, cardiovascular mortality or breast-cancer mortality) is often used as an outcome in randomised clinical trials and systematic reviews. The rationale why disease-related mortality might be used in addition to, or instead of, all-cause mortality seems to be that disease-related mortality may more readily detect the experimental intervention effects. Disease-related mortality is theoretically what most interventions aim at influencing; disease-related intervention effects are not 'diluted' by events unrelated to the disease that may be occurring in both the experimental group and the control group (eg, traffic accidents). Intervention-effect estimates are indeed theoretically diluted and affected if events unrelated to the disease or the trial interventions are occurring. Although sounding attractive, we will in the present paper consider the several methodological limitations of using disease-related mortality instead of all-cause mortality as an outcome. When mortality is a relevant outcome, we recommend using all-cause mortality as a primary outcome and disease-specific mortality as a secondary or exploratory outcome depending on power.

Beneficial and harmful effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Current guidelines recommend angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) (sacubitril/valsartan) as a replacement for angiotensin-converting-enzymeinhibitor (ACE-I) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who remain symptomatic despite optimal medical therapy. The effects of ARNIs have not previously been assessed in a systematic review. We searched for relevant trials until October 2019 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, BIOSIS, CNKI, VIP, WanFang and CBM. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. We systematically assessed the risks of random errors and systematic errors. PROSPERO registration: CRD42019129336. 48 trials randomising 19 086 participants were included. The ARNI assessed in all trials was sacubitril/valsartan. ACE-I or ARB were used as control interventions. Trials randomising HFrEF participants (27 trials) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) participants (four trials) were analysed separately. In HFrEF participants, meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analyses showed evidence of a beneficial effect of sacubitril/valsartan when assessing all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR), 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.94) and serious adverse events (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.93); and the results did not differ between the guideline recommended target population and HFrEF participants in general. We found no evidence of an effect of sacubitril/valsartan in HFpEF participants. Sacubitril/valsartan compared with either ACE-I or ARB seems to have a beneficial effect in patients with HFrEF. Our results indicate that sacubitril/valsartan might be beneficial in a wider population of patients with heart failure than the guideline recommended target population. Sacubitril/valsartan does not seem to show evidence of a difference compared with valsartan in patients with HFpEF.