Heterologous versus homologous COVID-19 booster vaccinations for adults: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: To combat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), booster vaccination strategies are important. However, the optimal administration of booster vaccine platforms remains unclear. Herein, we aimed to assess the benefits and harms of three or four heterologous versus homologous booster regimens. METHODS: From November 3 2022 to December 21, 2023, we searched five databases for randomised clinical trials (RCT). Reviewers screened, extracted data, and assessed bias risks independently with the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 tool. We conducted meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (TSA) on our primary (all-cause mortality; laboratory confirmed symptomatic and severe COVID-19; serious adverse events [SAE]) and secondary outcomes (quality of life [QoL]; adverse events [AE] considered non-serious). We assessed the evidence with the GRADE approach. Subgroup analyses were stratified for trials before and after 2023, three or four boosters, immunocompromised status, follow-up, risk of bias, heterologous booster vaccine platforms, and valency of booster. RESULTS: We included 29 RCTs with 43 comparisons (12,538 participants). Heterologous booster regimens may not reduce the relative risk (RR) of all-cause mortality (11 trials; RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.33 to 2.26; I2 0%; very low certainty evidence); laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 (14 trials; RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.25; I2 0%; very low certainty); or severe COVID-19 (10 trials; RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.33; I2 0%; very low certainty). For safety outcomes, heterologous booster regimens may have no effect on SAE (27 trials; RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.95; I2 0%; very low certainty) but may raise AE considered non-serious (20 trials; RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32; I2 64.4%; very low certainty). No data on QoL was available. Our TSAs showed that the cumulative Z curves did not reach futility for any outcome. CONCLUSIONS: With our current sample sizes, we were not able to infer differences of effects for any outcomes, but heterologous booster regimens seem to cause more non-serious AE. Furthermore, more robust data are instrumental to update this review.

Major mistakes or errors in the use of trial sequential analysis in systematic reviews or meta-analyses - the METSA systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and data synthesis of randomised clinical trials play a crucial role in clinical practice, research, and health policy. Trial sequential analysis can be used in systematic reviews to control type I and type II errors, but methodological errors including lack of protocols and transparency are cause for concern. We assessed the reporting of trial sequential analysis. METHODS: We searched Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2021 for systematic reviews and meta-analysis reports that include a trial sequential analysis. Only studies with at least two randomised clinical trials analysed in a forest plot and a trial sequential analysis were included. Two independent investigators assessed the studies. We evaluated protocolisation, reporting, and interpretation of the analyses, including their effect on any GRADE evaluation of imprecision. RESULTS: We included 270 systematic reviews and 274 meta-analysis reports and extracted data from 624 trial sequential analyses. Only 134/270 (50%) systematic reviews planned the trial sequential analysis in the protocol. For analyses on dichotomous outcomes, the proportion of events in the control group was missing in 181/439 (41%), relative risk reduction in 105/439 (24%), alpha in 30/439 (7%), beta in 128/439 (29%), and heterogeneity in 232/439 (53%). For analyses on continuous outcomes, the minimally relevant difference was missing in 125/185 (68%), variance (or standard deviation) in 144/185 (78%), alpha in 23/185 (12%), beta in 63/185 (34%), and heterogeneity in 105/185 (57%). Graphical illustration of the trial sequential analysis was present in 93% of the analyses, however, the Z-curve was wrongly displayed in 135/624 (22%) and 227/624 (36%) did not include futility boundaries. The overall transparency of all 624 analyses was very poor in 236 (38%) and poor in 173 (28%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of trial sequential analyses are not transparent when preparing or presenting the required parameters, partly due to missing or poorly conducted protocols. This hampers interpretation, reproducibility, and validity. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021273811.

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most prevalent cardiac arrhythmia, disrupts the heart's rhythm through numerous small re-entry circuits in the atrial tissue, leading to irregular atrial contractions. The condition poses significant health risks, including increased stroke risk, heart failure, and reduced quality of life. Given the complexity of AF and its growing incidence globally, exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR) may provide additional benefits for people with AF or those undergoing routine treatment for the condition. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of ExCR compared with non-exercise controls for people who currently have AF or who have been treated for AF. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, PsycINFO Ovid, Web of Science Core Collection Thomson Reuters, CINAHL EBSCO, LILACS BIREME, and two clinical trial registers on 24 March 2024. We imposed no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that investigated ExCR interventions compared with any type of non-exercise control. We included adults 18 years of age or older with any subtype of AF or those who had received treatment for AF. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Five review authors independently screened and extracted data in duplicate. We assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's RoB 1 tool as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We assessed clinical and statistical heterogeneity by visual inspection of the forest plots and by using standard Chi² and I² statistics. We performed meta-analyses using random-effects models for continuous and dichotomised outcomes. We calculated standardised mean differences where different scales were used for the same outcome. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 RCTs involving a total of 2039 participants with AF. All trials were conducted between 2006 and 2024, with a follow-up period ranging from eight weeks to five years. We assessed the certainty of evidence as moderate to very low. Five trials assessed comprehensive ExCR programmes, which included educational or psychological interventions, or both; the remaining 15 trials compared exercise-only cardiac rehabilitation with controls. The overall risk of bias in the included studies was mixed. Details on random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and use of intention-to-treat analysis were typically poorly reported. Evidence from nine trials (n = 1173) suggested little to no difference in mortality between ExCR and non-exercise controls (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.49; I² = 0%; 101 deaths; low-certainty evidence). Based on evidence from 10 trials (n = 825), ExCR may have little to no effect on SAEs (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.67; I² = 0%; 28 events; low-certainty evidence). Evidence from four trials (n = 378) showed that ExCR likely reduced AF recurrence (measured via Holter monitoring) compared to controls (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.88; I² = 2%; moderate-certainty evidence). ExCR may reduce AF symptom severity (mean difference (MD) -1.59, 95% CI -2.98 to -0.20; I² = 61%; n = 600; low-certainty evidence); likely reduces AF symptom burden (MD -1.61, 95% CI -2.76 to -0.45; I² = 0%; n = 317; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce AF episode frequency (MD -1.29, 95% CI -2.50 to -0.07; I² = 75%; n = 368; low-certainty evidence); and likely reduces AF episode duration (MD -0.58, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.03; I² = 0%; n = 317; moderate-certainty evidence), measured via the AF Severity Scale (AFSS) questionnaire. Moderate-certainty evidence from six trials (n = 504) showed that ExCR likely improved the mental component summary measure in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) (MD 2.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 4.11; I² = 2%), but the effect of ExCR on the physical component summary measure was very uncertain (MD 1.75, 95% CI -0.31 to 3.81; I² = 52%; very low-certainty evidence). ExCR also may improve individual components of HRQoL (general health, vitality, emotional role functioning, and mental health) and exercise capacity (peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) and 6-minute walk test) following ExCR. The effects of ExCR on serious adverse events and exercise capacity were consistent across different models of ExCR delivery: centre compared to home-based, exercise dose, exercise only compared to comprehensive programmes, and aerobic training alone compared to aerobic plus resistance programmes. Using univariate meta-regression, there was evidence of significant association between location of trial and length of longest follow-up on exercise capacity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to few randomised participants and typically short-term follow-up, the impact of ExCR on all-cause mortality or serious adverse events for people with AF is uncertain. ExCR likely improves AF-specific measures including reduced AF recurrence, symptom burden, and episode duration, as well as the mental components of HRQoL. ExCR may improve AF symptom severity, episode frequency, and VO2peak. Future high-quality RCTs are needed to assess the benefits of ExCR for people with AF on patient-relevant outcomes including AF symptom severity and burden, AF recurrence, AF-specific quality of life, and clinical events such as mortality, readmissions, and serious adverse events. High-quality trials are needed to investigate how AF subtype and clinical setting (i.e. primary and secondary care) may influence ExCR effectiveness.

Furosemide versus placebo for fluid overload in intensive care patients-The randomised GODIF trial second version: Statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: Fluid overload is associated with increased mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The GODIF trial aims to assess the benefits and harms of fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in stable adult patients with moderate to severe fluid overload in the ICU. This article describes the detailed statistical analysis plan for the primary results of the second version of the GODIF trial. METHODS: The GODIF trial is an international, multi-centre, randomised, stratified, blinded, parallel-group, pragmatic clinical trial, allocating 1000 adult ICU patients with moderate to severe fluid overload 1:1 to furosemide versus placebo. The primary outcome is days alive and out of hospital within 90 days post-randomisation. With a power of 90% and an alpha level of 5%, we may reject or detect an improvement of 8%. The primary analyses of all outcomes will be performed in the intention-to-treat population. For the primary outcome, the Kryger Jensen and Lange method will be used to compare the two treatment groups adjusted for stratification variables supplemented with sensitivity analyses in the per-protocol population and with further adjustments for prognostic variables. Secondary outcomes will be analysed with multiple linear regressions, logistic regressions or the Kryger Jensen and Lange method as suitable with adjustment for stratification variables. CONCLUSION: The GODIF trial data will increase the certainty about the effects of fluid removal using furosemide in adult ICU patients with fluid overload. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: EudraCT identifier: 2019-004292-40 and ClinicalTrials.org: NCT04180397.

Ketamine for Critically Ill Patients with Severe Acute Brain Injury: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe acute brain injury have a high risk of a poor clinical outcome due to primary and secondary brain injury. Ketamine reportedly inhibits cortical spreading depolarization, an electrophysiological phenomenon that has been associated with secondary brain injury, making ketamine potentially attractive for patients with severe acute brain injury. The aim of this systematic review is to explore the current literature regarding ketamine for patients with severe acute brain injury. METHODS: We systematically searched international databases for randomized clinical trials comparing ketamine by any regimen versus placebo, no intervention, or any control drug for patients with severe acute brain injury. Two authors independently reviewed and selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and performed analysis using Review Manager and Trial Sequential Analysis. Evidence certainty was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. The primary outcomes were the proportion of participants with an unfavorable functional outcome, the proportion of participants with one or more serious adverse events, and quality of life. RESULTS: We identified five randomized trials comparing ketamine versus sufentanil, fentanyl, other sedatives, or saline (total N = 149 participants). All outcomes were at overall high risk of bias. The proportions of participants with one or more serious adverse events did not differ between ketamine and sufentanil or fentanyl (relative risk 1.45, 95% confidence interval 0.81-2.58; very low certainty). Trial sequential analysis showed that further trials are needed. CONCLUSIONS: The level of evidence regarding the effects of ketamine on functional outcome and serious adverse events in patients with severe acute brain injury is very low. Ketamine may markedly, modestly, or not at all affect these outcomes. Large randomized clinical trials at low risk of bias are needed.

Methylphenidate for children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated psychiatric disorders in childhood. Typically, children and adolescents with ADHD find it difficult to pay attention and they are hyperactive and impulsive. Methylphenidate is the psychostimulant most often prescribed, but the evidence on benefits and harms is uncertain. This is an update of our comprehensive systematic review on benefits and harms published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of methylphenidate for children and adolescents with ADHD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two trials registers up to March 2022. In addition, we checked reference lists and requested published and unpublished data from manufacturers of methylphenidate. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing methylphenidate versus placebo or no intervention in children and adolescents aged 18 years and younger with a diagnosis of ADHD. The search was not limited by publication year or language, but trial inclusion required that 75% or more of participants had a normal intellectual quotient (IQ > 70). We assessed two primary outcomes, ADHD symptoms and serious adverse events, and three secondary outcomes, adverse events considered non-serious, general behaviour, and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment for each trial. Six review authors including two review authors from the original publication participated in the update in 2022. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Data from parallel-group trials and first-period data from cross-over trials formed the basis of our primary analyses. We undertook separate analyses using end-of-last period data from cross-over trials. We used Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA) to control for type I (5%) and type II (20%) errors, and we assessed and downgraded evidence according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 212 trials (16,302 participants randomised); 55 parallel-group trials (8104 participants randomised), and 156 cross-over trials (8033 participants randomised) as well as one trial with a parallel phase (114 participants randomised) and a cross-over phase (165 participants randomised). The mean age of participants was 9.8 years ranging from 3 to 18 years (two trials from 3 to 21 years). The male-female ratio was 3:1. Most trials were carried out in high-income countries, and 86/212 included trials (41%) were funded or partly funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Methylphenidate treatment duration ranged from 1 to 425 days, with a mean duration of 28.8 days. Trials compared methylphenidate with placebo (200 trials) and with no intervention (12 trials). Only 165/212 trials included usable data on one or more outcomes from 14,271 participants. Of the 212 trials, we assessed 191 at high risk of bias and 21 at low risk of bias. If, however, deblinding of methylphenidate due to typical adverse events is considered, then all 212 trials were at high risk of bias. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: methylphenidate versus placebo or no intervention may improve teacher-rated ADHD symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.88 to -0.61; I² = 38%; 21 trials; 1728 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to a mean difference (MD) of -10.58 (95% CI -12.58 to -8.72) on the ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS; range 0 to 72 points). The minimal clinically relevant difference is considered to be a change of 6.6 points on the ADHD-RS. Methylphenidate may not affect serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.67; I² = 0%; 26 trials, 3673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The TSA-adjusted intervention effect was RR 0.91 (CI 0.31 to 2.68). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: methylphenidate may cause more adverse events considered non-serious versus placebo or no intervention (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.37; I² = 72%; 35 trials 5342 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The TSA-adjusted intervention effect was RR 1.22 (CI 1.08 to 1.43). Methylphenidate may improve teacher-rated general behaviour versus placebo (SMD -0.62, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.33; I² = 68%; 7 trials 792 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but may not affect quality of life (SMD 0.40, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.83; I² = 81%; 4 trials, 608 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The majority of our conclusions from the 2015 version of this review still apply. Our updated meta-analyses suggest that methylphenidate versus placebo or no-intervention may improve teacher-rated ADHD symptoms and general behaviour in children and adolescents with ADHD. There may be no effects on serious adverse events and quality of life. Methylphenidate may be associated with an increased risk of adverse events considered non-serious, such as sleep problems and decreased appetite. However, the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes is very low and therefore the true magnitude of effects remain unclear. Due to the frequency of non-serious adverse events associated with methylphenidate, the blinding of participants and outcome assessors is particularly challenging. To accommodate this challenge, an active placebo should be sought and utilised. It may be difficult to find such a drug, but identifying a substance that could mimic the easily recognised adverse effects of methylphenidate would avert the unblinding that detrimentally affects current randomised trials. Future systematic reviews should investigate the subgroups of patients with ADHD that may benefit most and least from methylphenidate. This could be done with individual participant data to investigate predictors and modifiers like age, comorbidity, and ADHD subtypes.

Interventions affecting the nitric oxide pathway versus placebo or no therapy for fetal growth restriction in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Fetal growth restriction (FGR) is a condition of poor growth of the fetus in utero. One of the causes of FGR is placental insufficiency. Severe early-onset FGR at < 32 weeks of gestation occurs in an estimated 0.4% of pregnancies. This extreme phenotype is associated with a high risk of fetal death, neonatal mortality, and neonatal morbidity. Currently, there is no causal treatment, and management is focused on indicated preterm birth to prevent fetal death. Interest has risen in interventions that aim to improve placental function by administration of pharmacological agents affecting the nitric oxide pathway causing vasodilatation. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review and aggregate data meta-analysis is to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of interventions affecting the nitric oxide pathway compared with placebo, no therapy, or different drugs affecting this pathway against each other, in pregnant women with severe early-onset FGR. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (16 July 2022), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all randomised controlled comparisons of interventions affecting the nitric oxide pathway compared with placebo, no therapy, or another drug affecting this pathway in pregnant women with severe early-onset FGR of placental origin, for inclusion in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth methods for data collection and analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of eight studies (679 women) in this review, all of which contributed to the data and analysis. The identified studies report on five different comparisons: sildenafil compared with placebo or no therapy, tadalafil compared with placebo or no therapy, L-arginine compared with placebo or no therapy, nitroglycerin compared with placebo or no therapy and sildenafil compared with nitroglycerin. The risk of bias of included studies was judged as low or unclear. In two studies the intervention was not blinded. The certainty of evidence for our primary outcomes was judged as moderate for the intervention sildenafil and low for tadalafil and nitroglycerine (due to low number of participants and low number of events). For the intervention L-arginine, our primary outcomes were not reported. Sildenafil citrate compared to placebo or no therapy (5 studies, 516 women) Five studies (Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the Netherlands, the UK and Brazil) involving 516 pregnant women with FGR were included. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as moderate. Compared with placebo or no therapy, sildenafil probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.27, 5 studies, 516 women); may reduce fetal mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.12, 5 studies, 516 women), and increase neonatal mortality (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.33, 5 studies, 397 women), although the results are uncertain for fetal and neonatal mortality as 95% confidence intervals are wide crossing the line of no effect. Tadalafil compared with placebo or no therapy (1 study, 87 women) One study (Japan) involving 87 pregnant women with FGR was included. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as low. Compared with placebo or no therapy, tadalafil may have little or no effect on all-cause mortality (risk ratio 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.60, one study, 87 women); fetal mortality (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.96, one study, 87 women); and neonatal mortality (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.70, one study, 83 women). L-Arginine compared with placebo or no therapy (1 study, 43 women) One study (France) involving 43 pregnant women with FGR was included. This study did not assess our primary outcomes. Nitroglycerin compared to placebo or no therapy (1 studies, 23 women) One study (Brazil) involving 23 pregnant women with FGR was included. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as low. The effect on the primary outcomes is not estimable due to no events in women participating in both groups. Sildenafil citrate compared to nitroglycerin (1 study, 23 women) One study (Brazil) involving 23 pregnant women with FGR was included. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as low. The effect on the primary outcomes is not estimable due to no events in women participating in both groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Interventions affecting the nitric oxide pathway probably do not seem to influence all-cause (fetal and neonatal) mortality in pregnant women carrying a baby with FGR, although more evidence is needed. The certainty of this evidence is moderate for sildenafil and low for tadalafil and nitroglycerin. For sildenafil a fair amount of data are available from randomised clinical trials, but with low numbers of participants. Therefore, the certainty of evidence is moderate. For the other interventions investigated in this review there are insufficient data, meaning we do not know whether these interventions improve perinatal and maternal outcomes in pregnant women with FGR.

Goal-directed fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in intensive care patients with fluid overload: A randomised, blinded trial (GODIF trial-First version).

BACKGROUND: Salt and water accumulation leading to fluid overload is associated with increased mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, but diuretics' effects on patient outcomes are uncertain. In this first version of the GODIF trial, we aimed to assess the effects of goal-directed fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in adult ICU patients with fluid overload. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, randomised, stratified, parallel-group, blinded, placebo-controlled trial in clinically stable, adult ICU patients with at least 5% fluid overload. Participants were randomised to furosemide versus placebo infusion aiming at achieving neutral cumulative fluid balance as soon as possible. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital at 90 days. RESULTS: The trial was terminated after the enrolment of 41 of 1000 participants because clinicians had difficulties using cumulative fluid balance as the only estimate of fluid status (32% of participants had their initially registered cumulative fluid balance adjusted and 29% experienced one or more protocol violations). The baseline cumulative fluid balance was 6956 ml in the furosemide group and 6036 ml in the placebo group; on day three, the cumulative fluid balances were 1927 ml and 5139 ml. The median number of days alive and out of hospital at day 90 was 50 days in the furosemide group versus 45 days in the placebo group (mean difference 1 day, 95% CI -19 to 21, p-value .94). CONCLUSIONS: The use of cumulative fluid balance as the only estimate of fluid status appeared too difficult to use in clinical practice. We were unable to provide precise estimates for any outcomes as only 4.1% of the planned sample size was randomised.

Prompt closure versus gradual weaning of external ventricular drainage for hydrocephalus following aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: Protocol for the DRAIN randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH) is a life-threatening disease caused by rupture of an intracranial aneurysm. A common complication following aSAH is hydrocephalus, for which placement of an external ventricular drain (EVD) is an important first-line treatment. Once the patient is clinically stable, the EVD is either removed or replaced by a ventriculoperitoneal shunt. The optimal strategy for cessation of EVD treatment is, however, unknown. Gradual weaning may increase the risk of EVD-related infection, whereas prompt closure carries a risk of acute hydrocephalus and redundant shunt implantations. We designed a randomised clinical trial comparing the two commonly used strategies for cessation of EVD treatment in patients with aSAH. METHODS: DRAIN is an international multi-centre randomised clinical trial with a parallel group design comparing gradual weaning versus prompt closure of EVD treatment in patients with aSAH. Participants are randomised to either gradual weaning which comprises a multi-step increase of resistance over days, or prompt closure of the EVD. The primary outcome is a composite outcome of VP-shunt implantation, all-cause mortality, or ventriculostomy-related infection. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse events excluding mortality, functional outcome (modified Rankin scale), health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) and Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS). Outcome assessment will be performed 6 months after ictus. Based on the sample size calculation (event proportion 80% in the gradual weaning group, relative risk reduction 20%, type I error 5%, power 80%), 122 patients are needed in each intervention group. Outcome assessment for the primary outcome, statistical analyses and conclusion drawing will be blinded. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03948256.

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.

Family-based cognitive behavioural therapy versus family-based relaxation therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder in children and adolescents: protocol for a randomised clinical trial (the TECTO trial).

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is the recommended first-line treatment for children and adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), but evidence concerning treatment-specific benefits and harms compared with other interventions is limited. Furthermore, high risk-of-bias in most trials prevent firm conclusions regarding the efficacy of CBT. We investigate the benefits and harms of family-based CBT (FCBT) versus family-based psychoeducation and relaxation training (FPRT) in youth with OCD in a trial designed to reduce risk-of-bias. METHODS: This is an investigator-initiated, independently funded, single-centre, parallel group superiority randomised clinical trial (RCT). Outcome assessors, data managers, statisticians, and conclusion drawers are blinded. From child and adolescent mental health services we include patients aged 8-17 years with a primary OCD diagnosis and an entry score of ≥16 on the Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS). We exclude patients with comorbid illness contraindicating trial participation; intelligence quotient < 70; or treatment with CBT, PRT, antidepressant or antipsychotic medication within the last 6 months prior to trial entry. Participants are randomised 1:1 to the experimental intervention (FCBT) versus the control intervention (FPRT) each consisting of 14 75-min sessions. All therapists deliver both interventions. Follow-up assessments occur in week 4, 8 and 16 (end-of-treatment). The primary outcome is OCD symptom severity assessed with CY-BOCS at end-of-trial. Secondary outcomes are quality-of-life and adverse events. Based on sample size estimation, a minimum of 128 participants (64 in each intervention group) are included. DISCUSSION: In our trial design we aim to reduce risk-of-bias, enhance generalisability, and broaden the outcome measures by: 1) conducting an investigator-initiated, independently funded RCT; 2) blinding investigators; 3) investigating a representative sample of OCD patients; 3) using an active control intervention (FPRT) to tease apart general and specific therapy effects; 4) using equal dosing of interventions and therapist supervision in both intervention groups; 5) having therapists perform both interventions decided by randomisation; 6) rating fidelity of both interventions; 7) assessing a broad range of benefits and harms with repeated measures. The primary study limitations are the risk of missing data and the inability to blind participants and therapists to the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT03595098, registered July 23, 2018.

Control interventions in randomised trials among people with mental health disorders.

BACKGROUND: Control interventions in randomised trials provide a frame of reference for the experimental interventions and enable estimations of causality. In the case of randomised trials assessing patients with mental health disorders, many different control interventions are used, and the choice of control intervention may have considerable impact on the estimated effects of the treatments being evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of typical control interventions in randomised trials with patients with mental health disorders. The difference in effects between control interventions translates directly to the impact a control group has on the estimated effect of an experimental intervention. We aimed primarily to assess the difference in effects between (i) wait-list versus no-treatment, (ii) usual care versus wait-list or no-treatment, and (iii) placebo interventions (all placebo interventions combined or psychological, pharmacological, and physical placebos individually) versus wait-list or no-treatment. Wait-list patients are offered the experimental intervention by the researchers after the trial has been finalised if it offers more benefits than harms, while no-treatment participants are not offered the experimental intervention by the researchers. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2018, we searched MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, CENTRAL, and seven other databases and six trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials assessing patients with a mental health disorder that compared wait-list, usual care, or placebo interventions with wait-list or no-treatment . DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Titles, abstracts, and full texts were reviewed for eligibility. Review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for data from additional published and unpublished trials. A pre-planned decision hierarchy was used to select one benefit and one harm outcome from each trial. For the assessment of benefits, we summarised continuous data as standardised mean differences (SMDs) and dichotomous data as risk ratios (RRs). We used risk differences (RDs) for the assessment of adverse events. We used random-effects models for all statistical analyses. We used subgroup analysis to explore potential causes for heterogeneity (e.g. type of placebo) and sensitivity analyses to explore the robustness of the primary analyses (e.g. fixed-effect model). MAIN RESULTS: We included 96 randomised trials (4200 participants), ranging from 8 to 393 participants in each trial. 83 trials (3614 participants) provided usable data. The trials included 15 different mental health disorders, the most common being anxiety (25 trials), depression (16 trials), and sleep-wake disorders (11 trials). All 96 trials were assessed as high risk of bias partly because of the inability to blind participants and personnel in trials with two control interventions. The quality of evidence was rated low to very low, mostly due to risk of bias, imprecision in estimates, and heterogeneity. Only one trial compared wait-list versus no-treatment directly but the authors were not able to provide us with any usable data on the comparison. Five trials compared usual care versus wait-list or no-treatment and found a SMD -0.33 (95% CI -0.83 to 0.16, I² = 86%, 523 participants) on benefits. The difference between all placebo interventions combined versus wait-list or no-treatment was SMD -0.37 (95% CI -0.49 to -0.25, I² = 41%, 65 trials, 2446 participants) on benefits. There was evidence of some asymmetry in the funnel plot (Egger's test P value of 0.087). Almost all the trials were small. Subgroup analysis found a moderate effect in favour of psychological placebos SMD -0.49 (95% CI -0.64 to -0.30; I² = 53%, 39 trials, 1656 participants). The effect of pharmacological placebos versus wait-list or no-treatment on benefits was SMD -0.14 (95% CI -0.39 to 0.11, 9 trials, 279 participants) and the effect of physical placebos was SMD -0.21 (95% CI -0.35 to -0.08, I² = 0%, 17 trials, 896 participants). We found large variations in effect sizes in the psychological and pharmacological placebo comparisons. For specific mental health disorders, we found significant differences in favour of all placebos for sleep-wake disorders, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorders, but the analyses were imprecise due to sparse data. We found no significant differences in harms for any of the comparisons but the analyses suffered from sparse data. When using a fixed-effect model in a sensitivity analysis on the comparison for usual care versus wait-list and no-treatment, the results were significant with an SMD of -0.46 (95 % CI -0.64 to -0.28). We reported an alternative risk of bias model where we excluded the blinding domains seeing how issues with blinding may be seen as part of the review investigation itself. However, this did not markedly change the overall risk of bias profile as most of the trials still included one or more unclear bias domains. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found marked variations in effects between placebo versus no-treatment and wait-list and between subtypes of placebo with the same comparisons. Almost all the trials were small with considerable methodological and clinical variability in factors such as mental health population, contents of the included control interventions, and outcome domains. All trials were assessed as high risk of bias and the evidence quality was low to very low. When researchers decide to use placebos or usual care control interventions in trials with people with mental health disorders it will often lead to lower estimated effects of the experimental intervention than when using wait-list or no-treatment controls. The choice of a control intervention therefore has considerable impact on how effective a mental health treatment appears to be. Methodological guideline development is needed to reach a consensus on future standards for the design and reporting of control interventions in mental health intervention research.

Goal directed fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in intensive care patients with fluid overload: A trial protocol for a randomised, blinded trial (GODIF trial).

BACKGROUND: Fluid overload is a risk factor for mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Administration of loop diuretics is the predominant treatment of fluid overload, but evidence for its benefit is very uncertain when assessed in a systematic review of randomised clinical trials. The GODIF trial will assess the benefits and harms of goal directed fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in ICU patients with fluid overload. METHODS: An investigator-initiated, international, randomised, stratified, blinded, parallel-group trial allocating 1000 adult ICU patients with fluid overload to infusion of furosemide versus placebo. The goal is to achieve a neutral fluid balance. The primary outcome is days alive and out of hospital 90 days after randomisation. Secondary outcomes are all-cause mortality at day 90 and 1-year after randomisation; days alive at day 90 without life support; number of participants with one or more serious adverse events or reactions; health-related quality of life and cognitive function at 1-year follow-up. A sample size of 1000 participants is required to detect an improvement of 8% in days alive and out of hospital 90 days after randomisation with a power of 90% and a risk of type 1 error of 5%. The conclusion of the trial will be based on the point estimate and 95% confidence interval; dichotomisation will not be used. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT04180397. PERSPECTIVE: The GODIF trial will provide important evidence of possible benefits and harms of fluid removal with furosemide in adult ICU patients with fluid overload.

Tranexamic Acid for Prevention of Hematoma Expansion in Intracerebral Hemorrhage Patients With or Without Spot Sign.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The computed tomography angiography or contrast-enhanced computed tomography based spot sign has been proposed as a biomarker for identifying on-going hematoma expansion in patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage. We investigated, if spot-sign positive participants benefit more from tranexamic acid versus placebo as compared to spot-sign negative participants. METHODS: TICH-2 trial (Tranexamic Acid for Hyperacute Primary Intracerebral Haemorrhage) was a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial recruiting acutely hospitalized participants with intracerebral hemorrhage within 8 hours after symptom onset. Local investigators randomized participants to 2 grams of intravenous tranexamic acid or matching placebo (1:1). All participants underwent computed tomography scan on admission and on day 2 (24±12 hours) after randomization. In this sub group analysis, we included all participants from the main trial population with imaging allowing adjudication of spot sign status. RESULTS: Of the 2325 TICH-2 participants, 254 (10.9%) had imaging allowing for spot-sign adjudication. Of these participants, 64 (25.2%) were spot-sign positive. Median (interquartile range) time from symptom onset to administration of the intervention was 225.0 (169.0 to 310.0) minutes. The adjusted percent difference in absolute day-2 hematoma volume between participants allocated to tranexamic versus placebo was 3.7% (95% CI, -12.8% to 23.4%) for spot-sign positive and 1.7% (95% CI, -8.4% to 12.8%) for spot-sign negative participants (Pheterogenity=0.85). No difference was observed in significant hematoma progression (dichotomous composite outcome) between participants allocated to tranexamic versus placebo among spot-sign positive (odds ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.29 to 2.46]) and negative (odds ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.41 to 1.45]) participants (Pheterogenity=0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Data from the TICH-2 trial do not support that admission spot sign status modifies the treatment effect of tranexamic acid versus placebo in patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage. The results might have been affected by low statistical power as well as treatment delay. Registration: URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com; Unique identifier: ISRCTN93732214.

Central data monitoring in the multicentre randomised SafeBoosC-III trial - a pragmatic approach.

BACKGROUND: Data monitoring of clinical trials is a tool aimed at reducing the risks of random errors (e.g. clerical errors) and systematic errors, which include misinterpretation, misunderstandings, and fabrication. Traditional 'good clinical practice data monitoring' with on-site monitors increases trial costs and is time consuming for the local investigators. This paper aims to outline our approach of time-effective central data monitoring for the SafeBoosC-III multicentre randomised clinical trial and present the results from the first three central data monitoring meetings. METHODS: The present approach to central data monitoring was implemented for the SafeBoosC-III trial, a large, pragmatic, multicentre, randomised clinical trial evaluating the benefits and harms of treatment based on cerebral oxygenation monitoring in preterm infants during the first days of life versus monitoring and treatment as usual. We aimed to optimise completeness and quality and to minimise deviations, thereby limiting random and systematic errors. We designed an automated report which was blinded to group allocation, to ease the work of data monitoring. The central data monitoring group first reviewed the data using summary plots only, and thereafter included the results of the multivariate Mahalanobis distance of each centre from the common mean. The decisions of the group were manually added to the reports for dissemination, information, correcting errors, preventing furture errors and documentation. RESULTS: The first three central monitoring meetings identified 156 entries of interest, decided upon contacting the local investigators for 146 of these, which resulted in correction of 53 entries. Multiple systematic errors and protocol violations were identified, one of these included 103/818 randomised participants. Accordingly, the electronic participant record form (ePRF) was improved to reduce ambiguity. DISCUSSION: We present a methodology for central data monitoring to optimise quality control and quality development. The initial results included identification of random errors in data entries leading to correction of the ePRF, systematic protocol violations, and potential protocol adherence issues. Central data monitoring may optimise concurrent data completeness and may help timely detection of data deviations due to misunderstandings or fabricated data.

A screening method to spot biomarkers that may warn of serious events in a chronic disease - illustrated by cardiological CLARICOR trial data.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a crude screening method for detecting biomarkers which frequently exhibit a rise (or fall) in level prior to a serious event (e.g. a stroke) in patients with a chronic disease, signalling that the biomarker may have an alarm-raising or prognostic potential. The subsequent assessment of the marker's clinical utility requires costly, difficult longitudinal studies. Therefore, initial screening of candidate-biomarkers is desirable. METHODS: The method exploits a cohort of patients with biomarkers measured at entry and with recording of first serious event during follow-up. Copying those individual records onto a common timeline where a specific event occurs on the same day (Day 0) for all patients, the baseline biomarker level, when plotted against the patient's entry time on the revised timeline, will have a positive (negative) regression slope if biomarker levels generally rise (decline) the closer one gets to the event. As an example, we study 1,958 placebo-treated patients with stable coronary artery disease followed for nine years in the CLARICOR trial (NCT00121550), examining 11 newer biomarkers. RESULTS: Rising average serum levels of cardiac troponin T and of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide were seen prior to a fatal cardiovascular outcome. C-reactive protein rose prior to non-cardiovascular death. Glomerular filtration rate, seven lipoproteins, and nine newer cardiological biomarkers did not show convincing changes. CONCLUSIONS: For early detection of biomarkers with an alarm-raising potential in chronic diseases, we proposed the described easy procedure. Using only baseline biomarker values and clinical course of participants with coronary heart disease, we identified the same cardiovascular biomarkers as those previously found containing prognostic information using longitudinal or survival analysis.

Vitamin D supplementation for chronic liver diseases in adults.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D deficiency is often reported in people with chronic liver diseases. Improving vitamin D status could therefore be beneficial for people with chronic liver diseases. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin D supplementation in adults with chronic liver diseases. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov  and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and enquired experts and pharmaceutical companies as to additional trials. All searches were up to November 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials that compared vitamin D at any dose, duration, and route of administration versus placebo or no intervention in adults with chronic liver diseases. Vitamin D could have been administered as supplemental vitamin D (vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) or vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol)), or an active form of vitamin D (1α-hydroxyvitamin D (alfacalcidol), 25-hydroxyvitamin D (calcidiol), or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 randomised clinical trials with 1979 adult participants. This review update added 12 trials with 945 participants. We assessed all trials as at high risk of bias. All trials had a parallel-group design. Eleven trials were conducted in high-income countries and 16 trials in middle-income countries. Ten trials included participants with chronic hepatitis C, five trials participants with liver cirrhosis, 11 trials participants with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and one trial liver transplant recipients. All of the included trials reported the baseline vitamin D status of participants. Participants in nine trials had baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels at or above vitamin D adequacy (20 ng/mL), whilst participants in the remaining 18 trials were vitamin D insufficient (less than 20 ng/mL). Twenty-four trials administered vitamin D orally, two trials intramuscularly, and one trial intramuscularly and orally. In all 27 trials, the mean duration of vitamin D supplementation was 6 months, and the mean follow-up of participants from randomisation was 7 months. Twenty trials (1592 participants; 44% women; mean age 48 years) tested vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol); three trials (156 participants; 28% women; mean age 54 years) tested vitamin D2; four trials (291 participants; 60% women; mean age 52 years) tested 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D; and one trial (18 participants; 0% women; mean age 52 years) tested 25-hydroxyvitamin D. One trial did not report the form of vitamin D. Twelve trials used a placebo, whilst the other 15 trials used no intervention in the control group. Fourteen trials appeared to be free of vested interest. Eleven trials did not provide any information on clinical trial support or sponsorship. Two trials were funded by industry. We are very uncertain regarding the effect of vitamin D versus placebo or no intervention on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 1.45; 27 trials; 1979 participants). The mean follow-up was 7 months (range 1 to 18 months). We are very uncertain regarding the effect of vitamin D versus placebo or no intervention on liver-related mortality (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.08 to 34.66; 1 trial; 18 participants) (follow-up: 12 months); serious adverse events such as hypercalcaemia (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 100.8; 1 trial; 76 participants); myocardial infarction (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.08 to 6.81; 2 trials; 86 participants); thyroiditis (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.91; 1 trial; 68 participants); circular haemorrhoidal prolapse (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 65.9; 1 trial; 20 participants); bronchopneumonia (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.02 to 7.32; 1 trial 20 participants); and non-serious adverse events. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes is very low. We found no data on liver-related morbidity such as gastrointestinal bleeding, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatorenal syndrome, ascites, or liver cancer. There were also no data on health-related quality of life. The evidence is also very uncertain regarding the effect of vitamin D versus placebo or no intervention on rapid, early, and sustained virological response in people with chronic hepatitis C. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the high risk of bias and insufficient power of the included trials and the very low certainty of the available evidence, vitamin D supplementation versus placebo or no intervention may increase or reduce all-cause mortality, liver-related mortality, serious adverse events, or non-serious adverse events in adults with chronic liver diseases. There is a lack of data on liver-related morbidity and health-related quality of life. Further evidence on clinically important outcomes analysed in this review is needed.

Interventions for altering blood pressure in people with acute subarachnoid haemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Subarachnoid haemorrhage has an incidence of up to nine per 100,000 person-years. It carries a mortality of 30% to 45% and leaves 20% dependent in activities of daily living. The major causes of death or disability after the haemorrhage are delayed cerebral ischaemia and rebleeding. Interventions aimed at lowering blood pressure may reduce the risk of rebleeding, while the induction of hypertension may reduce the risk of delayed cerebral ischaemia. Despite the fact that medical alteration of blood pressure has been clinical practice for more than three decades, no previous systematic reviews have assessed the beneficial and harmful effects of altering blood pressure (induced hypertension or lowered blood pressure) in people with acute subarachnoid haemorrhage. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of altering arterial blood pressure (induced hypertension or lowered blood pressure) in people with acute subarachnoid haemorrhage. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following from inception to 8 September 2020 (Chinese databases to 27 January 2019): Cochrane Stroke Group Trials register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; five other databases, and five trial registries. We screened reference lists of review articles and relevant randomised clinical trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of inducing hypertension or lowering blood pressure in people with acute subarachnoid haemorrhage. We included trials irrespective of publication type, status, date, and language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included trials to control for the risk of systematic errors. We performed trial sequential analysis to control for the risks of random errors. We also applied GRADE. Our primary outcomes were death from all causes and death or dependency. Our secondary outcomes were serious adverse events, quality of life, rebleeding, delayed cerebral ischaemia, and hydrocephalus. We assessed all outcomes closest to three months' follow-up (primary point of interest) and maximum follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials: two trials randomising 61 participants to induced hypertension versus no intervention, and one trial randomising 224 participants to lowered blood pressure versus placebo. All trials were at high risk of bias. The certainty of the evidence was very low for all outcomes. Induced hypertension versus control Two trials randomised participants to induced hypertension versus no intervention. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between induced hypertension versus no intervention on death from all causes (risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 4.42; P = 0.38; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 61 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Trial sequential analyses showed that we had insufficient information to confirm or reject our predefined relative risk reduction of 20% or more. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between induced hypertension versus no intervention on death or dependency (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.13; P = 0.33; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 61 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Trial sequential analyses showed that we had insufficient information to confirm or reject our predefined relative risk reduction of 20% or more. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between induced hypertension and control on serious adverse events (RR 2.24, 95% CI 1.01 to 4.99; P = 0.05; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 61 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Trial sequential analysis showed that we had insufficient information to confirm or reject our predefined relative risk reduction of 20% or more. One trial (41 participants) reported quality of life using the Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale. The induced hypertension group had a median of 47 points (interquartile range 35 to 55) and the no-intervention group had a median of 49 points (interquartile range 35 to 55). The certainty of evidence was very low. One trial (41 participants) reported rebleeding. Fisher's exact test (P = 1.0) showed no evidence of a difference between induced hypertension and no intervention on rebleeding. The certainty of evidence was very low. Trial sequential analysis showed that we had insufficient information to confirm or reject our predefined relative risk reduction of 20% or more. One trial (20 participants) reported delayed cerebral ischaemia. Fisher's exact test (P = 1.0) showed no evidence of a difference between induced hypertension and no intervention on delayed cerebral ischaemia. The certainty of the evidence was very low. Trial sequential analysis showed that we had insufficient information to confirm or reject our predefined relative risk reduction of 20% or more. None of the trials randomising participants to induced hypertension versus no intervention reported on hydrocephalus. No subgroup analyses could be conducted for trials randomising participants to induced hypertension versus no intervention. Lowered blood pressure versus control One trial randomised 224 participants to lowered blood pressure versus placebo. The trial only reported on death from all causes. Fisher's exact test (P = 0.058) showed no evidence of a difference between lowered blood pressure versus placebo on death from all causes. The certainty of evidence was very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current evidence, there is a lack of information needed to confirm or reject minimally important intervention effects on patient-important outcomes for both induced hypertension and lowered blood pressure. There is an urgent need for trials assessing the effects of altering blood pressure in people with acute subarachnoid haemorrhage. Such trials should use the SPIRIT statement for their design and the CONSORT statement for their reporting. Moreover, such trials should use methods allowing for blinded altering of blood pressure and report on patient-important outcomes such as mortality, rebleeding, delayed cerebral ischaemia, quality of life, hydrocephalus, and serious adverse events.

Antibiotics for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease is the leading cause of mortality worldwide with approximately 7.4 million deaths each year. People with established coronary heart disease have a high risk of subsequent cardiovascular events including myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death. Antibiotics might prevent such outcomes due to their antibacterial, antiinflammatory, and antioxidative effects. However, a randomised clinical trial and several observational studies have suggested that antibiotics may increase the risk of cardiovascular events and mortality. Furthermore, several non-Cochrane Reviews, that are now outdated, have assessed the effects of antibiotics for coronary heart disease and have shown conflicting results. No previous systematic review using Cochrane methodology has assessed the effects of antibiotics for coronary heart disease. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the benefits and harms of antibiotics compared with placebo or no intervention for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, SCI-EXPANDED, and BIOSIS in December 2019 in order to identify relevant trials. Additionally, we searched TRIP, Google Scholar, and nine trial registries in December 2019. We also contacted 11 pharmaceutical companies and searched the reference lists of included trials, previous systematic reviews, and other types of reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of antibiotics versus placebo or no intervention for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in adult participants (≥18 years). Trials were included irrespective of setting, blinding, publication status, publication year, language, and reporting of our outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted data. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse event according to the International Conference on Harmonization - Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP), and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and sudden cardiac death. Our primary time point of interest was at maximum follow-up. Additionally, we extracted outcome data at 24±6 months follow-up. We assessed the risks of systematic errors using Cochrane 'Rosk of bias' tool. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes. We calculated absolute risk reduction (ARR) or increase (ARI) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) if the outcome result showed a beneficial or harmful effect, respectively. The certainty of the body of evidence was assessed by GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 38 trials randomising a total of 26,638 participants (mean age 61.6 years), with 23/38 trials reporting data on 26,078 participants that could be meta-analysed. Three trials were at low risk of bias and the 35 remaining trials were at high risk of bias. Trials assessing the effects of macrolides (28 trials; 22,059 participants) and quinolones (two trials; 4162 participants) contributed with the vast majority of the data. Meta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed that antibiotics versus placebo or no intervention seemed to increase the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.13; P = 0.07; I2 = 0%; ARI 0.48%; NNTH 208; 25,774 participants; 20 trials; high certainty of evidence), stroke (RR 1.14; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.29; P = 0.04; I2 = 0%; ARI 0.73%; NNTH 138; 14,774 participants; 9 trials; high certainty of evidence), and probably also cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.25; P = 0.11; I2= 0%; 4674 participants; 2 trials; moderate certainty of evidence). Little to no difference was observed when assessing the risk of myocardial infarction (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.03; P = 0.23; I2 = 0%; 25,523 participants; 17 trials; high certainty of evidence). No evidence of a difference was observed when assessing sudden cardiac death (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.31; P = 0.41; I2 = 0%; 4520 participants; 2 trials; moderate certainty of evidence). Meta-analyses at 24±6 months follow-up showed that antibiotics versus placebo or no intervention increased the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.48; P = 0.007; I2 = 0%; ARI 1.26%; NNTH 79 (95% CI 335 to 42); 9517 participants; 6 trials; high certainty of evidence), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.50; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.91; P = 0.001; I2 = 0%; ARI 1.12%; NNTH 89 (95% CI 261 to 49); 9044 participants; 5 trials; high certainty of evidence), and probably also sudden cardiac death (RR 1.77; 95% CI 1.28 to 2.44; P = 0.0005; I2 = 0%; ARI 1.9%; NNTH 53 (95% CI 145 to 28); 4520 participants; 2 trials; moderate certainty of evidence). No evidence of a difference was observed when assessing the risk of myocardial infarction (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.11; P = 0.53; I2 = 43%; 9457 participants; 5 trials; moderate certainty of evidence) and stroke (RR 1.17; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.52; P = 0.24; I2 = 0%; 9457 participants; 5 trials; high certainty of evidence). Meta-analyses of trials at low risk of bias differed from the overall analyses when assessing cardiovascular mortality at maximum follow-up. For all other outcomes, meta-analyses of trials at low risk of bias did not differ from the overall analyses. None of the trials specifically assessed serious adverse event according to ICH-GCP. No data were found on quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our present review indicates that antibiotics (macrolides or quinolones) for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease seem harmful when assessing the risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke at maximum follow-up and all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and sudden cardiac death at 24±6 months follow-up. Current evidence does, therefore, not support the clinical use of macrolides and quinolones for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Future trials on the safety of macrolides or quinolones for the secondary prevention in patients with coronary heart disease do not seem ethical. In general, randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of antibiotics, especially macrolides and quinolones, need longer follow-up so that late-occurring adverse events can also be assessed.

Beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the number one cause of death globally. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 7.4 million people died from ischaemic heart disease in 2012, constituting 15% of all deaths. Beta-blockers are recommended and are often used in patients with heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. However, it is currently unclear whether beta-blockers should be used in patients without heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. Previous meta-analyses on the topic have shown conflicting results. No previous systematic review using Cochrane methods has assessed the effects of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of beta-blockers compared with placebo or no treatment in patients without heart failure and with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) greater than 40% in the non-acute phase after myocardial infarction. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index - Expanded, BIOSIS Citation Index, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency, Food and Drug Administration, Turning Research Into Practice, Google Scholar, and SciSearch from their inception to February 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials assessing effects of beta-blockers versus control (placebo or no treatment) in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction, irrespective of publication type and status, date, and language. We excluded trials randomising participants with diagnosed heart failure at the time of randomisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed our published protocol, with a few changes made, and methodological recommendations provided by Cochrane and Jakobsen and colleagues. Two review authors independently extracted data. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and major cardiovascular events (composite of cardiovascular mortality and non-fatal myocardial reinfarction). Our secondary outcomes were quality of life, angina, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction during follow-up. We assessed all outcomes at maximum follow-up. We systematically assessed risks of bias using seven bias domains and we assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 trials randomising a total of 22,423 participants (mean age 56.9 years). All trials and outcomes were at high risk of bias. In all, 24 of 25 trials included a mixed group of participants with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST myocardial infarction, and no trials provided separate results for each type of infarction. One trial included participants with only ST-elevation myocardial infarction. All trials except one included participants younger than 75 years of age. Methods used to exclude heart failure were various and were likely insufficient. A total of 21 trials used placebo, and four trials used no intervention, as the comparator. All patients received usual care; 24 of 25 trials were from the pre-reperfusion era (published from 1974 to 1999), and only one trial was from the reperfusion era (published in 2018). The certainty of evidence was moderate to low for all outcomes. Our meta-analyses show that beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention probably reduce the risks of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 97.5% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.90; I² = 15%; 22,085 participants, 21 trials; moderate-certainty evidence) and myocardial reinfarction (RR 0.76, 98% CI 0.69 to 0.88; I² = 0%; 19,606 participants, 19 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Our meta-analyses show that beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention may reduce the risks of major cardiovascular events (RR 0.72, 97.5% CI 0.69 to 0.84; 14,994 participants, 15 trials; low-certainty evidence) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.73, 98% CI 0.68 to 0.85; I² = 47%; 21,763 participants, 19 trials; low-certainty evidence). Hence, evidence seems to suggest that beta-blockers versus placebo or no treatment may result in a minimum reduction of 10% in RR for risks of all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction. However, beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention may not affect the risk of angina (RR 1.04, 98% CI 0.93 to 1.13; I² = 0%; 7115 participants, 5 trials; low-certainty evidence). No trials provided data on serious adverse events according to good clinical practice from the International Committee for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH-GCP), nor on quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Beta-blockers probably reduce the risks of all-cause mortality and myocardial reinfarction in patients younger than 75 years of age without heart failure following acute myocardial infarction. Beta-blockers may further reduce the risks of major cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality compared with placebo or no intervention in patients younger than 75 years of age without heart failure following acute myocardial infarction. These effects could, however, be driven by patients with unrecognised heart failure. The effects of beta-blockers on serious adverse events, angina, and quality of life are unclear due to sparse data or no data at all. All trials and outcomes were at high risk of bias, and incomplete outcome data bias alone could account for the effect seen when major cardiovascular events, angina, and myocardial infarction are assessed. The evidence in this review is of moderate to low certainty, and the true result may depart substantially from the results presented here. Future trials should particularly focus on patients 75 years of age and older, and on assessment of serious adverse events according to ICH-GCP and quality of life. Newer randomised clinical trials at low risk of bias and at low risk of random errors are needed if the benefits and harms of beta-blockers in contemporary patients without heart failure following acute myocardial infarction are to be assessed properly. Such trials ought to be designed according to the SPIRIT statement and reported according to the CONSORT statement.