A rapid research needs appraisal methodology to identify evidence gaps to inform clinical research priorities in response to outbreaks-results from the Lassa fever pilot.

BACKGROUND: Infectious disease epidemics are a constant threat, and while we can strengthen preparedness in advance, inevitably, we will sometimes be caught unaware by novel outbreaks. To address the challenge of rapidly identifying clinical research priorities in those circumstances, we developed and piloted a protocol for carrying out a systematic, rapid research needs appraisal (RRNA) of existing evidence within 5 days in response to outbreaks globally, with the aim to inform clinical research prioritization. METHODS: The protocol was derived from rapid review methodologies and optimized through effective use of pre-defined templates and global time zones. It was piloted using a Lassa fever (LF) outbreak scenario. Databases were searched from 1969 to July 2017. Systematic reviewers based in Canada, the UK, and the Philippines screened and extracted data using a systematic review software. The pilot was evaluated through internal analysis and by comparing the research priorities identified from the data, with those identified by an external LF expert panel. RESULTS: The RRNA pilot was completed within 5 days. To accommodate the high number of articles identified, data extraction was prioritized by study design and year, and the clinical research prioritization done post-day 5. Of 118 potentially eligible articles, 52 met the data extraction criteria, of which 46 were extracted within the 5-day time frame. The RRNA team identified 19 clinical research priorities; the expert panel independently identified 21, of which 11 priorities overlapped. Each method identified a unique set of priorities, showing that combining both methods for clinical research prioritization is more robust than using either method alone. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study shows that it is feasible to carry out a systematic RRNA within 5 days in response to a (re-) emerging outbreak to identify gaps in existing evidence, as long as sufficient resources are identified, and reviewers are experienced and trained in advance. Use of an online systematic review software and global time zones effectively optimized resources. Another 3 to 5 days are recommended for review of the extracted data and to formulate clinical research priorities. The RRNA can be used for a "Disease X" scenario and should optimally be combined with an expert panel to ensure breadth and depth of coverage of clinical research priorities.

Global health trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise.

BACKGROUND: Methodological research into the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trials is essential to optimise the process. UK specialists in the field have established a set of top priorities in aid of this research. These priorities, however, may not be reflected in the needs of similar research in low- to middle-income countries (LMICs) with different healthcare provision, resources and research infrastructure. The aim of the study was to identify the top priorities for methodological research in LMICs to inform further research and ultimately to improve clinical trials in these regions. METHODS: An online, two-round survey was conducted from December 2016 to April 2017 amongst researchers and methodologists working on trials in LMICs. The first round required participants to suggest between three and six topics which they felt were priorities for trial methodological research in LMICs. The second round invited participants to grade the importance of a compulsory list of topics suggested by four or more individuals, and an optional list of the remaining topics. FINDINGS: Rounds 1 and 2 were completed by 412 and 314 participants, respectively. A wide spread of years of experience, discipline, current country of residence, origin of trials training and area of involvement in trials was reported. The topics deemed most important for methodological research were: choosing appropriate outcomes to measure and training of research staff. CONCLUSION: By presenting these top priorities we have the foundations of a global health trials methodological research agenda which we hope will foster future research in specific areas in order to increase and improve trials in LMICs.

Systematic review of interventions for treating or preventing antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic medication can cause tardive dyskinesia (TD) - late-onset, involuntary, repetitive movements, often involving the face and tongue. TD occurs in > 20% of adults taking antipsychotic medication (first-generation antipsychotics for > 3 months), with this proportion increasing by 5% per year among those who continue to use these drugs. The incidence of TD among those taking newer antipsychotics is not different from the rate in people who have used older-generation drugs in moderate doses. Studies of TD have previously been found to be limited, with no treatment approach shown to be effective. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the clinical effectiveness and safety of treatments for TD by updating past Cochrane reviews with new evidence and improved methods; to undertake public consultation to gauge the importance of the topic for people living with TD/the risk of TD; and to make available all data from relevant trials. DATA SOURCES: All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. REVIEW METHODS: Cochrane review methods, network meta-analysis (NMA). DESIGN: Systematic reviews, patient and public involvement consultation and NMA. SETTING: Any setting, inpatient or outpatient. PARTICIPANTS: For systematic reviews, adults with TD who have been taking a stable antipsychotic drug dose for > 3 months. INTERVENTIONS: Any, with emphasis on those relevant to UK NHS practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Any measure of TD, global assessments and adverse effects/events. RESULTS: We included 112 studies (nine Cochrane reviews). Overall, risk of bias showed little sign of improvement over two decades. Taking the outcome of 'TD symptoms improved to a clinically important extent', we identified two trials investigating reduction of antipsychotic dose [n = 17, risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.04; very low quality]. Switching was investigated twice in trials that could not be combined (switching to risperidone vs. antipsychotic withdrawal: one RCT, n = 42, RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.89; low quality; switching to quetiapine vs. haloperidol: one RCT, n = 45, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.22; low quality). In addition to RCTs, six observational studies compared antipsychotic discontinuation with decreased or increased dosage, and there was no clear evidence that any of these strategies had a beneficial effect on TD symptoms (very low-quality evidence). We evaluated the addition to standard antipsychotic care of several treatments, but not anticholinergic treatments, for which we identified no trials. We found no clear effect of the addition of either benzodiazepines (two RCTs, n = 32, RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.6 to 2.09; very low quality) or vitamin E (six RCTs, n = 264, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.01; low quality). Buspirone as an adjunctive treatment did have some effect in one small study (n = 42, RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.84; low quality), as did hypnosis and relaxation (one RCT, n = 15, RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.94; very low quality). We identified no studies focusing on TD in people with dementia. The NMA model found indirect estimates to be imprecise and failed to produce useful summaries on relative effects of interventions or interpretable results for decision-making. Consultation with people with/at risk of TD highlighted that management of TD remains a concern, and found that people are deeply disappointed at the length of time it has taken researchers to address the issue. LIMITATIONS: Most studies remain small and poorly reported. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians, policy-makers and people with/at risk of TD are little better informed than they were decades ago. Underpowered trials of limited quality repeatedly fail to provide answers. FUTURE WORK: TD reviews have data from current trials extracted, tabulated and traceable to source. The NMA highlights one context in which support for this technique is ill advised. All relevant trials, even if not primarily addressing the issue of TD, should report appropriate binary outcomes on groups of people with this problem. Randomised trials of treatments for people with established TD are indicated. These should be large (> 800 participants), necessitating accrual through accurate local/national registers, including an intervention with acceptable treatments and recording outcomes used in clinical practice. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD4201502045. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Time to all-cause treatment discontinuation of olanzapine compared to other antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This comprehensive review and meta-analysis compared the effectiveness of olanzapine and other antipsychotics in schizophrenia treatment, defining effectiveness as time to all-cause medication discontinuation (primary) and as all-cause treatment discontinuation rates. This study examined randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational non-interventional studies. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES: Schizophrenia studies that compared olanzapine with individual first- (FGAs) and/or second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) were included in the meta-analyses. Hazard ratios (HR), risk ratios (RR), and their associated 95% confidence intervals were extracted for RCTs and observational studies. Sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of sources of funding, dose of olanzapine, and allocation concealment method on final results. RESULTS: There were 60 RCTs (N=33,360) and 27 observational studies (N=202,591) included. On time to all-cause medication discontinuation, olanzapine was significantly better than aripiprazole, quetiapine, risperidone, ziprasidone and perphenazine for RCTs and better than amisulpride, risperidone, haloperidol, and perphenazine for observational studies. There were no significant differences between olanzapine and clozapine in RCTs or observational studies. All-cause discontinuation rates in RCTs were significantly lower for olanzapine compared to all comparators except amisulpride and clozapine. In observational studies, olanzapine was less effective than clozapine. Industry-sponsored studies favored olanzapine when compared to haloperidol and perphenazine; higher dose of olanzapine favored quetiapine and perphenazine when compared to olanzapine; method of allocation concealment did not generally affect the results. CONCLUSION: Using a global measure of medication effectiveness (time to all-cause medication discontinuation), olanzapine appears to be more effective - in both RCTs and observational studies - than most SGAs and FGAs, except for clozapine.

Deworming drugs for soil-transmitted intestinal worms in children: effects on nutritional indicators, haemoglobin and school performance.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends treating all school children at regular intervals with deworming drugs in areas where helminth infection is common. The WHO state this will improve nutritional status, haemoglobin, and cognition and thus will improve health, intellect, and school attendance. Consequently, it is claimed that school performance will improve, child mortality will decline, and economic productivity will increase. Given the important health and societal benefits attributed to this intervention, we sought to determine whether they are based on reliable evidence. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the effects of giving deworming drugs to children to treat soil-transmitted intestinal worms (nematode geohelminths) on weight, haemoglobin, and cognition; and the evidence of impact on physical well being, school attendance, school performance, and mortality. SEARCH METHODS: In February 2012, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, mRCT, and reference lists, and registers of ongoing and completed trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing deworming drugs for geohelminth worms with placebo or no treatment in children aged 16 years or less, reporting on weight, haemoglobin, and formal test of intellectual development. In cluster-RCTs treating communities or schools, we also sought data on school attendance, school performance, and mortality. We included trials that included health education with deworming. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two authors independently assessed the trials, evaluated risk of bias, and extracted data. Continuous data were analysed using the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where data were missing, we contacted trial authors. We used GRADE to assess evidence quality, and this is reflected in the wording we used: high quality ("deworming improves...."); moderate quality ("deworming probably improves..."); low quality ("deworming may improve...."); and very low quality ("we don't know if deworming improves...."). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 42 trials, including eight cluster trials, that met the inclusion criteria. Excluding one trial where data are awaited, the 41 trials include 65,168 participants.Screening then treatingFor children known to be infected with worms (by screening), a single dose of deworming drugs may increase weight (0.58 kg, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.76, three trials, 139 participants; low quality evidence) and may increase haemoglobin (0.37 g/dL, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.64, two trials, 108 participants; low quality evidence), but we do not know if there is an effect on cognitive functioning (two trials, very low quality evidence).Single dose deworming for all childrenIn trials treating all children, a single dose of deworming drugs gave mixed effects on weight, with no effects evident in seven trials, but large effects in two (nine trials, 3058 participants, very low quality evidence). The two trials with a positive effect were from the same very high prevalence setting and may not be easily generalised elsewhere. Single dose deworming probably made little or no effect on haemoglobin (mean difference (MD) 0.06 g/dL, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.17, three trials, 1005 participants; moderate evidence), and may have little or no effect on cognition (two trials, low quality evidence).Mulitple dose deworming for all childrenOver the first year of follow up, multiple doses of deworming drugs given to all children may have little or no effect on weight (MD 0.06 kg, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.30; seven trials, 2460 participants; low quality evidence); haemoglobin, (mean 0.01 g/dL lower; 95% CI 0.14 lower to 0.13 higher; four trials, 807 participants; low quality evidence); cognition (three trials, 30,571 participants, low quality evidence); or school attendance (4% higher attendance; 95% CI -6 to 14; two trials, 30,243 participants; low quality evidence);For time periods beyond a year, there were five trials with weight measures. One cluster-RCT of 3712 children in a low prevalence area showed a large effect (average gain of 0.98 kg), whilst the other four trials did not show an effect, including a cluster-RCT of 27,995 children in a moderate prevalence area (five trials, 37,306 participants; low quality evidence). For height, we are uncertain whether there is an effect of deworming (-0.26 cm; 95% CI -0.84 to 0.31, three trials, 6652 participants; very low quality evidence). Deworming may have little or no effect on haemoglobin (0.00 g/dL, 95%CI -0.08 to 0.08, two trials, 1365 participants, low quality evidence); cognition (two trials, 3720 participants; moderate quality evidence). For school attendance, we are uncertain if there is an effect (mean attendance 5% higher, 95% CI -0.5 to 10.5, approximately 20,000 participants, very low quality evidence).Stratified analysis to seek subgroup effects into low, medium and high helminth endemicity areas did not demonstrate any pattern of effect. In a sensitivity analysis that only included trials with adequate allocation concealment, we detected no significant effects for any primary outcomes.One million children were randomized in a deworming trial from India with mortality as the primary outcome. This was completed in 2005 but the authors have not published the results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Screening children for intestinal helminths and then treating infected children appears promising, but the evidence base is small. Routine deworming drugs given to school children has been more extensively investigated, and has not shown benefit on weight in most studies, except for substantial weight changes in three trials conducted 15 years ago or more. Two of these trials were carried out in the same high prevalence setting. For haemoglobin and cognition, community deworming seems to have little or no effect, and the evidence in relation to school attendance, and school performance is generally poor, with no obvious or consistent effect. Our interpretation of this data is that it is probably misleading to justify contemporary deworming programmes based on evidence of consistent benefit on nutrition, haemoglobin, school attendance or school performance as there is simply insufficient reliable information to know whether this is so.

Deworming drugs for soil-transmitted intestinal worms in children: effects on nutritional indicators, haemoglobin and school performance.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends treating all school children at regular intervals with deworming drugs in areas where helminth infection is common. The WHO state this will improve nutritional status, haemoglobin, and cognition and thus will improve health, intellect, and school attendance. Consequently, it is claimed that school performance will improve, child mortality will decline, and economic productivity will increase. Given the important health and societal benefits attributed to this intervention, we sought to determine whether they are based on reliable evidence. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the effects of giving deworming drugs to children to treat soil-transmitted intestinal worms (nematode geohelminths) on weight, haemoglobin, and cognition; and the evidence of impact on physical well being, school attendance, school performance, and mortality. SEARCH METHODS: In February 2012, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, mRCT, and reference lists, and registers of ongoing and completed trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing deworming drugs for geohelminth worms with placebo or no treatment in children aged 16 years or less, reporting on weight, haemoglobin, and formal test of intellectual development. In cluster-RCTs treating communities or schools, we also sought data on school attendance, school performance, and mortality. We included trials that included health education with deworming. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two authors independently assessed the trials, evaluated risk of bias, and extracted data. Continuous data were analysed using the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where data were missing, we contacted trial authors. We used GRADE to assess evidence quality, and this is reflected in the wording we used: high quality ("deworming improves...."); moderate quality ("deworming probably improves..."); low quality ("deworming may improve...."); and very low quality ("we don't know if deworming improves...."). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 42 trials, including eight cluster trials, that met the inclusion criteria. Excluding one trial where data are awaited, the 41 trials include 65,168 participants.For programmes that treat only children detected as infected (by screening), a single dose of deworming drugs probably increased weight (0.58 kg, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.76, three trials, 139 participants; moderate quality evidence) and may have increased haemoglobin (0.37 g/dL, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.64, two trials, 108 participants; low quality evidence), but we do not know if there is an effect on cognitive functioning (two trials, very low quality evidence).For a single dose of deworming drugs given to all children in endemic areas, there were mixed effects on weight, with no effects evident in seven trials, but large effects in two. Overall our analysis indicated that we are uncertain whether there was an effect on weight (nine trials, 3058 participants; very low quality evidence). For haemoglobin, deworming made little or no difference (0.02 g/dL, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.09, four trials, 1992 participants; low quality evidence), and we don't know if it improves cognition (one trial, very low quality evidence).For multiple doses of deworming drugs with follow up for up to one year given to all children in endemic areas, we are uncertain if there is an effect on weight (0.06 kg, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.30; seven trials, 2460 participants; very low quality evidence); cognition (three trials, very low quality evidence); or school attendance (4% higher attendance; 95% CI -6 to 14; two trials, 75 clusters and 143 individually randomized participants, very low quality evidence). For haemoglobin, the intervention may have little or no effect (mean 0.01 g/dL lower; 95% CI 0.14 lower to 0.13 higher; four trials, 807 participants; low quality evidence).For multiple doses of deworming drugs with follow up beyond one year given to all children in endemic areas there were five trials with weight measures. One cluster-RCT of 3712 children in a low prevalence area showed a large effect (average gain of 0.98kg), whilst the other four trials did not show an effect, including a cluster-RCT of 27,995 children in a moderate prevalence area. Overall, we are uncertain if there is an effect for weight (five trials, 302 clusters and 1045 individually randomized participants; very low quality evidence). For other outcomes, we are uncertain whether deworming affects height (-0.26 cm; 95%CI -0.84 to 0.31, three trials, 1219 participants); haemoglobin (0.02 g/dL, 95%CI 0.3 to 0.27, two trials, 1365 participants); cognition (two trials), or school attendance (mean attendance 5% higher, 95% CI -0.5 to 10.5, one trial, 50 clusters).Stratified analysis to seek subgroup effects into low, medium and high helminth endemicity areas did not demonstrate any pattern of effect. We did not detect any significant effects for any primary outcomes in a sensitivity analysis only including trials with adequate allocation concealment.One million children were randomized in a deworming trial from India with mortality as the primary outcome. This was completed in 2005 but the authors have not published the results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Screening children for intestinal helminths and then treating infected children appears promising, but the evidence base is small. Routine deworming drugs given to school children has been more extensively investigated, and has not shown benefit on weight in most studies, except for substantial weight changes in three trials conducted 15 years ago or more. Two of these trials were carried out in the same high prevalence setting. For haemoglobin, community deworming seems to have little or no effect, and the evidence in relation to cognition, school attendance, and school performance is generally poor, with no obvious or consistent effect. Our interpretation of this data is that it is probably misleading to justify contemporary deworming programmes based on evidence of consistent benefit on nutrition, haemoglobin, school attendance or school performance as there is simply insufficient reliable information to know whether this is so.