Zinc for prevention and treatment of the common cold.

BACKGROUND: The common cold is an acute, self-limiting viral respiratory illness. Symptoms include nasal congestion and mucus discharge, sneezing, sore throat, cough, and general malaise. Given the frequency of colds, they are a public health burden and a significant cause of lost work productivity and school absenteeism. There are no established interventions to prevent colds or shorten their duration. However, zinc supplements are commonly recommended and taken for this purpose. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of zinc for the prevention and treatment of the common cold. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and LILACS to 22 May 2023, and searched Web of Science Core Collection and two trials registries to 14 June 2023. We also used reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children or adults that tested any form of zinc against placebo to prevent or treat the common cold or upper respiratory infection (URTI). We excluded zinc interventions in which zinc was combined with other minerals, vitamins, or herbs (e.g. a multivitamin, or mineral supplement containing zinc). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess risks of bias, and GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We independently extracted data. When necessary, we contacted study authors for additional information. We assessed zinc (type and route) with placebo in the prevention and treatment of the common cold. Primary outcomes included the proportion of participants developing colds (for analyses of prevention trials only), duration of cold (measured in days from start to resolution of the cold), adverse events potentially due to zinc supplements (e.g. unpleasant taste, loss of smell, vomiting, stomach cramps, and diarrhoea), and adverse events considered to be potential complications of the common cold (e.g. respiratory bacterial infections). MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 studies (15 prevention, 19 treatment) involving 8526 participants. Twenty-two studies were conducted on adults and 12 studies were conducted on children. Most trials were conducted in the USA (n = 18), followed by India, Indonesia, Iran, and Turkey (two studies each), and Australia, Burkina Faso, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, Tanzania, Thailand, and the UK (one study each). The 15 prevention studies identified the condition as either common cold (n = 8) or URTI (n = 7). However, almost all therapeutic studies (17/19) focused on the common cold. Most studies (17/34) evaluated the effectiveness of zinc administered as lozenges (3 prevention; 14 treatment) in acetate, gluconate, and orotate forms; gluconate lozenges were the most common (9/17). Zinc gluconate was given at doses between 45 and 276 mg/day for between 4.5 and 21 days. Five (5/17) lozenge studies gave acetate lozenges and two (2/17) gave both acetate and gluconate lozenges. One (1/17) lozenge study administered intranasal (gluconate) and lozenge (orotate) zinc in tandem for cold treatment. Of the 17/34 studies that did not use lozenges, 1/17 gave capsules, 3/17 administered dissolved powders, 5/17 gave tablets, 4/17 used syrups, and 4/17 used intranasal administration. Most studies were at unclear or high risk of bias in at least one domain. There may be little or no reduction in the risk of developing a cold with zinc compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.01; I2 = 20%; 9 studies, 1449 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no reduction in the mean number of colds that occur over five to 18 months of follow-up (mean difference (MD) -0.90, 95% CI -1.93 to 0.12; I2 = 96%; 2 studies, 1284 participants; low-certainty evidence). When colds occur, there is probably little or no difference in the duration of colds in days (MD -0.63, 95% CI -1.29 to 0.04; I² = 77%; 3 studies, 740 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and there may be little or no difference in global symptom severity (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.04, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.43; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 101 participants; low-certainty evidence). When zinc is used for cold treatment, there may be a reduction in the mean duration of the cold in days (MD -2.37, 95% CI -4.21 to -0.53; I² = 97%; 8 studies, 972 participants; low-certainty evidence), although it is uncertain whether there is a reduction in the risk of having an ongoing cold at the end of follow-up (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.27; I² = 65%; 5 studies, 357 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or global symptom severity (SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.50; I² = 78%; 2 studies, 261 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and there may be little or no difference in the risk of a change in global symptom severity (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.23; 1 study, 114 participants; low-certainty evidence). Thirty-one studies reported non-serious adverse events (2422 participants). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in the risk of adverse events with zinc used for cold prevention (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.47; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 1517 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or an increase in the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.57; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1563 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is probably an increase in the risk of non-serious adverse events when zinc is used for cold treatment (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.55; I2 = 44%; 2084 participants, 16 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); no treatment study provided information on serious adverse events. No study provided clear information about adverse events considered to be potential complications of the common cold. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that zinc supplementation may have little or no effect on the prevention of colds but may reduce the duration of ongoing colds, with an increase in non-serious adverse events. Overall, there was wide variation in interventions (including concomitant therapy) and outcomes across the studies, as well as incomplete reporting of several domains, which should be considered when making conclusions about the efficacy of zinc for the common cold.

Guideline No. 448: Prevention of Rh D Alloimmunization.

OBJECTIVE: This guideline provides recommendations for the prevention of Rh D alloimmunization (isoimmunization) in pregnancy, including parental testing, routine postpartum and antepartum prophylaxis, and other clinical indications for prophylaxis. Prevention of red cell alloimmunization in pregnancy with atypical antigens (other than the D antigen), for which immunoprophylaxis is not currently available, is not addressed in this guideline. TARGET POPULATION: All Rh D-negative pregnant individuals at risk for Rh D alloimmunization due to potential exposure to a paternally derived fetal Rh D antigen. OUTCOMES: Routine postpartum and antepartum Rh D immunoprophylaxis reduces the risk of Rh D alloimmunization at 6 months postpartum and in a subsequent pregnancy. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: This guideline details the population of pregnant individuals who may benefit from Rho(D) immune globulin (RhIG) immunoprophylaxis. Thus, those for whom the intervention is not required may avoid adverse effects, while those who are at risk of alloimmunization may mitigate this risk for themselves and/or their fetus. EVIDENCE: For recommendations regarding use of RhIG, Medline and Medline in Process via Ovid and Embase Classic + Embase via Ovid were searched using both the trials and observational studies search strategies with study design filters. For trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects via Ovid were also searched. All databases were searched from January 2000 to November 26, 2019. Studies published before 2000 were captured from the grey literature of national obstetrics and gynaecology specialty societies, luminary specialty journals, and bibliographic searching. A formal process for the systematic review was undertaken for this update, as described in the systematic review manuscript published separately. VALIDATION METHODS: The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the SOGC's modified GRADE approach. See Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations of strong and conditional [weak] recommendations). INTENDED AUDIENCE: The intended users of this guideline include prenatal care providers such as obstetricians, midwives, family physicians, emergency room physicians, and residents, as well as registered nurses and nurse practitioners. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: An updated Canadian guideline for prevention of Rh D alloimmunization addresses D variants, cffDNA for fetal Rh type, and updates recommendations on timing of RhIG administration. SUMMARY STATEMENTS: RECOMMENDATIONS.

Canadian Association of Radiologists Head and Neck Imaging Referral Guideline.

The Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) Head and Neck Expert Panel consists of radiologists, a laryngologist and laryngeal surgeon, a patient advisor, and an epidemiologist/guideline methodologist. After developing a list of 11 clinical/diagnostic scenarios, a systematic rapid scoping review was undertaken to identify systematically produced referral guidelines that provide recommendations for one or more of these clinical/diagnostic scenarios. Recommendations from 17 guidelines and contextualization criteria in the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) for guidelines framework were used to develop 26 recommendation statements across the 11 scenarios. This guideline presents the methods of development and the referral recommendations for sinus disease, tinnitus, thyroid and parathyroid disease, neck mass of unknown origin, acute sialadenitis, chronic salivary conditions, and temporomandibular joint dysfunction.

Canadian Association of Radiologists Gastrointestinal Imaging Referral Guideline.

The Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) Gastrointestinal Expert Panel consists of radiologists, a gastroenterologist, a general surgeon, a family physician, a patient advisor, and an epidemiologist/guideline methodologist. After developing a list of 20 clinical/diagnostic scenarios, a systematic rapid scoping review was undertaken to identify systematically produced referral guidelines that provide recommendations for one or more of these clinical/diagnostic scenarios. Recommendations from 58 guidelines and contextualization criteria in the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) for guidelines framework were used to develop 85 recommendation statements specific to the adult population across the 20 scenarios. This guideline presents the methods of development and the referral recommendations for dysphagia/dyspepsia, acute nonlocalized abdominal pain, chronic abdominal pain, inflammatory bowel disease, acute gastrointestinal bleeding, chronic gastrointestinal bleeding/anemia, abnormal liver biopsy, pancreatitis, anorectal diseases, diarrhea, fecal incontinence, and foreign body ingestion.

Canadian Association of Radiologists Cardiovascular Imaging Referral Guideline.

The Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) Cardiovascular Expert Panel is made up of physicians from the disciplines of radiology, cardiology, and emergency medicine, a patient advisor, and an epidemiologist/guideline methodologist. After developing a list of 30 clinical/diagnostic scenarios, a rapid scoping review was undertaken to identify systematically produced referral guidelines that provide recommendations for one or more of these clinical/diagnostic scenarios. Recommendations from 48 guidelines and contextualization criteria in the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) for guidelines framework were used to develop 125 recommendation statements across the 30 scenarios (27 unique scenarios as 2 scenarios point to the CAR Thoracic Diagnostic Imaging Referral Guideline and the acute pericarditis subscenario is included under 2 main scenarios). This guideline presents the methods of development and the referral recommendations for acute chest pain syndromes, chronic chest pain, cardiovascular screening and risk stratification, pericardial syndromes, intracardiac/pericardial mass, suspected valvular disease cardiomyopathy, aorta, venous thrombosis, and peripheral vascular disease.

Canadian Association of Radiologists Thoracic Imaging Referral Guideline.

The Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) Thoracic Expert Panel consists of radiologists, respirologists, emergency and family physicians, a patient advisor, and an epidemiologist/guideline methodologist. After developing a list of 24 clinical/diagnostic scenarios, a rapid scoping review was undertaken to identify systematically produced referral guidelines that provide recommendations for one or more of these clinical/diagnostic scenarios. Recommendations from 30 guidelines and contextualization criteria in the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) for guidelines framework were used to develop 48 recommendation statements across the 24 scenarios. This guideline presents the methods of development and the referral recommendations for screening/asymptomatic individuals, non-specific chest pain, hospital admission for non-thoracic conditions, long-term care admission, routine pre-operative imaging, post-interventional chest procedure, upper respiratory tract infection, acute exacerbation of asthma, acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, suspect pneumonia, pneumonia follow-up, immunosuppressed patient with respiratory symptoms/febrile neutropenia, chronic cough, suspected pneumothorax (non-traumatic), clinically suspected pleural effusion, hemoptysis, chronic dyspnea of non-cardiovascular origin, suspected interstitial lung disease, incidental lung nodule, suspected mediastinal lesion, suspected mediastinal lymphadenopathy, and elevated diaphragm on chest radiograph.

Canadian Association of Radiologists Trauma Diagnostic Imaging Referral Guideline.

The Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) Trauma Expert Panel consists of adult and pediatric emergency and trauma radiologists, emergency physicians, a family physician, a patient advisor, and an epidemiologist/guideline methodologist. After developing a list of 21 clinical/diagnostic scenarios, a systematic rapid scoping review was undertaken to identify systematically produced referral guidelines that provide recommendations for 1 or more of these clinical/diagnostic scenarios. Recommendations from 49 guidelines and contextualization criteria in the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) for guidelines framework were used to develop 50 recommendation statements across the 21 scenarios related to the evaluation of traumatic injuries. This guideline presents the methods of development and the recommendations for head, face, neck, spine, hip/pelvis, arms, legs, superficial soft tissue injury foreign body, chest, abdomen, and non-accidental trauma.

Canadian Association of Radiologists Breast Disease Imaging Referral Guideline.

The Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) Breast Disease Expert Panel consists of breast imaging radiologists, a high-risk breast clinician, a patient advisor, and an epidemiologist/guideline methodologist. After developing a list of 20 clinical/diagnostic scenarios, a systematic rapid scoping review was undertaken to identify systematically produced referral guidelines that provide recommendations for one or more of these clinical/diagnostic scenarios. Recommendations from 30 guidelines and contextualization criteria in the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) for guidelines framework were used to develop 69 recommendation statements across the 20 scenarios. This guideline presents the methods of development and the recommendations for referring asymptomatic individuals, symptomatic patients, and other scenarios requiring imaging of the breast.

Canadian Association of Radiologists Obstetrics and Gynecology Diagnostic Imaging Referral Guideline.

The Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) Obstetrics and Gynecology Expert Panel consists of radiologists specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, obstetrics and gynecology physicians, a patient advisor, and an epidemiologist/guideline methodologist. After developing a list of 12 clinical/diagnostic scenarios, a systematic rapid scoping review was undertaken to identify systematically produced referral guidelines that provide recommendations for one or more of these clinical/diagnostic scenarios. Recommendations from 46 guidelines and contextualization criteria in the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) for guidelines framework were used to develop 68 recommendation statements across the 12 scenarios related to the evaluation of obstetrics and gynecology clinical and diagnostic scenarios. This guideline presents the methods of development and the imaging recommendations for a variety of obstetrical and gynecological conditions including pregnancy assessment, recurrent first trimester pregnancy loss, post-partum indications, disorders of menstruation, localization of intra-uterine contraceptive device, infertility assessment, assessment of adnexal mass, pelvic pain of presumed gynecological origin, and pelvic floor evaluation.

Canadian Association of Radiologists Musculoskeletal System Diagnostic Imaging Referral Guideline.

The Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) Musculoskeletal System Expert Panel consists of musculoskeletal radiologists, a family physician, a sports and exercise medicine physician, emergency medicine physicians, a patient advisor, and an epidemiologist/guideline methodologist. After developing a list of 25 musculoskeletal clinical/diagnostic scenarios, a systematic rapid scoping review was undertaken to identify systematically produced referral guidelines that provide recommendations for 1 or more of these clinical/diagnostic scenarios. Recommendations from 41 guidelines (50 publications) and contextualization criteria in the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) for guidelines framework were used to develop 124 recommendation statements across the 25 scenarios related to the evaluation of the musculoskeletal system. This guideline presents the methods of development and the recommendations for imaging in the context of musculoskeletal pain, infection, tumors, arthropathies, metabolic bone disease, stress injuries, orthopedic hardware, avascular necrosis/bone infarction, and complex regional pain syndrome.

Guidance for using artificial intelligence for title and abstract screening while conducting knowledge syntheses.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are the cornerstone of evidence-based medicine. However, systematic reviews are time consuming and there is growing demand to produce evidence more quickly, while maintaining robust methods. In recent years, artificial intelligence and active-machine learning (AML) have been implemented into several SR software applications. As some of the barriers to adoption of new technologies are the challenges in set-up and how best to use these technologies, we have provided different situations and considerations for knowledge synthesis teams to consider when using artificial intelligence and AML for title and abstract screening. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the implementation and performance of AML across a set of ten historically completed systematic reviews. Based upon the findings from this work and in consideration of the barriers we have encountered and navigated during the past 24 months in using these tools prospectively in our research, we discussed and developed a series of practical recommendations for research teams to consider in seeking to implement AML tools for citation screening into their workflow. RESULTS: We developed a seven-step framework and provide guidance for when and how to integrate artificial intelligence and AML into the title and abstract screening process. Steps include: (1) Consulting with Knowledge user/Expert Panel; (2) Developing the search strategy; (3) Preparing your review team; (4) Preparing your database; (5) Building the initial training set; (6) Ongoing screening; and (7) Truncating screening. During Step 6 and/or 7, you may also choose to optimize your team, by shifting some members to other review stages (e.g., full-text screening, data extraction). CONCLUSION: Artificial intelligence and, more specifically, AML are well-developed tools for title and abstract screening and can be integrated into the screening process in several ways. Regardless of the method chosen, transparent reporting of these methods is critical for future studies evaluating artificial intelligence and AML.

Application of exome sequencing for prenatal diagnosis: a rapid scoping review.

Genetic diagnosis provides important information for prenatal decision-making and management. Promising results from exome sequencing (ES) for genetic diagnosis in fetuses with structural anomalies are emerging. The objective of this scoping review was to identify what is known about the use of ES for genetic testing in prenatal cases with known or suspected genetic disease. A rapid scoping review was conducted over a six-week timeframe of English-language peer-reviewed studies. Search strategies for major databases (e.g., Medline) and gray literature were developed, and peer reviewed by information specialists. Identified studies were categorized and charted using tables and diagrams. Twenty-four publications were included from seven countries published between 2014 and 2019. Most commonly reported outcomes were diagnostic yields, which varied widely from 5% to 57%, and prenatal phenotype. Few studies reported clinical outcomes related to impact, decision-making, and clinical utility. Qualitative studies (n = 6) provided useful insights into patient and health-care provider experiences with ES. Findings suggest prenatal ES is beneficial, but more research is needed to better understand the clinical utility, circumstances for ideal use, feasibility, and costs of offering rapid ES as a routine option for prenatal genetic testing.

Assessing how information is packaged in rapid reviews for policy-makers and other stakeholders: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Rapid reviews (RRs) are useful products to healthcare policy-makers and other stakeholders, who require timely evidence. Therefore, it is important to assess how well RRs convey useful information in a format that is easy to understand so that decision-makers can make best use of evidence to inform policy and practice. METHODS: We assessed a diverse sample of 103 RRs against the BRIDGE criteria, originally developed for communicating clearly to support healthcare policy-making. We modified the criteria to increase assessability and to align with RRs. We identified RRs from key database searches and through searching organisations known to produce RRs. We assessed each RR on 26 factors (e.g. organisation of information, lay language use). Results were descriptively analysed. Further, we explored differences between RRs published in journals and those published elsewhere. RESULTS: Certain criteria were well covered across the RRs (e.g. all aimed to synthesise research evidence and all provided references of included studies). Further, most RRs provided detail on the problem or issue (96%; n = 99) and described methods to conduct the RR (91%; n = 94), while several addressed political or health systems contexts (61%; n = 63). Many RRs targeted policy-makers and key stakeholders as the intended audience (66%; n = 68), yet only 32% (n = 33) involved their tacit knowledge, while fewer (27%; n = 28) directly involved them reviewing the content of the RR. Only six RRs involved patient partners in the process. Only 23% (n = 24) of RRs were prepared in a format considered to make information easy to absorb (i.e. graded entry) and 25% (n = 26) provided specific key messages. Readability assessment indicated that the text of key RR sections would be hard to understand for an average reader (i.e. would require post-secondary education) and would take 42 (± 36) minutes to read. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, conformity of the RRs with the modified BRIDGE criteria was modest. By assessing RRs against these criteria, we now understand possible ways in which they could be improved to better meet the information needs of healthcare decision-makers and their potential for innovation as an information-packaging mechanism. The utility and validity of these items should be further explored. PROTOCOL AVAILABILITY: The protocol, published on the Open Science Framework, is available at: osf.io/68tj7.

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.

Care plans for women pregnant using assisted reproductive technologies: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Between 1 and 5% of children in industrialized countries are conceived through Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART). As infertility and the use of ART may be associated with adverse perinatal outcomes, care plans specific to these pregnancies are needed. We conducted a systematic review to examine the existing care plans specific to women pregnant following Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART). METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched by a senior information specialist. The population of interest included women becoming pregnant with ART (e.g., Intra-Uterine Insemination, In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI), and surrogacy). All proposed care plans were sought that pertained to any aspect of care during pregnancy and delivery. Only Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) addressing the recommendations and plans for the care of ART pregnant women were included. The search was restricted to the publication dates 2007 to June 12, 2017 when the search was run. The search was not restricted by language, however only English and French language guidelines were considered for inclusion. RESULTS: After screening 2078 citations, a total of ten CPGs were included. The following key clinical messages were prevalent: (1) although there was no supporting evidence, antenatal care for ART pregnancies should be provided by specialist with knowledge in obstetrics; (2) high-order multiple pregnancies are the greatest risk of ART and selective reduction options should be discussed; (3) there is some evidence of increased risk of congenital abnormalities and prenatal genetic and anatomic screening is recommended, especially in IVF-ICSI pregnancies; (4) due to a lack of or conflicting evidence, treatment of venous thromboembolism, antithrombotic therapy, treatment for hypothyroidism, and women with positive thyroid antibodies is recommended to be the same as in spontaneous pregnancies; and lastly (5) since an increased level of distress is a recognized feature in these pregnancies, psychosocial care and counselling should be considered. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of CPGs specific to ART pregnancies. While we identified a small number of recommendations for ART pregnancies, specific interventions and models of care aiming at decreasing adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes following ART should be developed, implemented, and evaluated.

Potential benefits and harms of offering ultrasound surveillance to men aged 65 years and older with a subaneurysmal (2.5-2.9 cm) infrarenal aorta.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to perform a rapid evidence summary to determine the prevalence of subaneurysmal aortic aneurysms, growth rates, and risk factors that modulate growth in average-risk men aged 65 years and older. Secondary objectives were to evaluate benefits and harms of lifelong ultrasound (US) surveillance and treatment outcomes for any large aneurysms that develop in the screened population. METHODS: We searched multiple databases (eg, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, and the Cochrane Library) on February 16, 2016. Using a liberal accelerated method, two reviewers screened titles and abstracts for relevance and subsequently screened full-text studies. General study characteristics (eg, country, study design, number of participants) and data (eg, number of men with subaneurysmal aortas, quality of life [QoL], mortality) were extracted. One reviewer performed data extraction and risk of bias assessments, and a second reviewer verified 100% of studies. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: The search identified 37 relevant studies ranging in size from 3 to 52,690 participants. Prevalence of subaneurysmal aortas ranged from 1.14% to 8.53%, and 55% to 88% of these men progressed to a 3.0-cm aneurysm by 5 years of follow-up. Risk factors for growth included the infrarenal aortic diameter at age 65 years, having a subaneurysmal aorta at age 65 years, and current smoking. The 36-Item Short Form Health Survey was the most commonly used tool to measure QoL, and QoL was typically lower in people with abdominal aortic aneurysm. Anxiety and depression levels did not differ significantly between comparison groups in any studies. Four studies reported on the number of men whose aorta was subaneurysmal on initial US who went on to surgery. Overall, 10% (57/547) of men initially measuring in the subaneurysmal range progressed to abdominal aortic aneurysm >5.4 cm and received elective surgery; 1% (6/547) received emergency surgery because of a ruptured aorta. Among those who did, mortality rates were much lower for elective (9.5%) vs emergency surgery (50%). Risk of bias was usually low for studies measuring prevalence and moderate and high for studies measuring psychological harms of screening and harms and benefits of surgery. Overall, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework as guidance, the quality of the evidence was generally very low. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the limited evidence and the low quality of the existing evidence, it is not possible to determine confidently whether men with abdominal aortas measuring 2.5 to 2.9 cm should be observed in a lifelong US surveillance program.

A systematic review of adverse events of rifapentine and isoniazid compared to other treatments for latent tuberculosis infection.

PURPOSE: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a common cause of death globally. A regimen of 12 doses of isoniazid (INH) and rifapentine given once weekly (INH/RPT-3) has recently been recommended by the World Health Organization for the treatment of latent TB infection (LTBI). We aimed to determine whether the INH/RPT-3 regimen had similar or lesser rates of adverse events compared to other LTBI regimens, namely INH for 9 months, INH for 6 months, rifampin for 3 to 4 months, and rifampin plus INH for 3 to 4 months. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, PubMed, ICTRP, clinicaltrials.gov, and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health's Gray Matters Light for randomized, postmarketing, and comparative nonrandomized studies of patients with confirmed LTBI that reported the frequency of at least 1 adverse event of relevance for a regimen of interest. The search included studies published until March 2017. The frequencies of adverse events were extracted and are presented descriptively. RESULTS: Data from 23 randomized and 55 nonrandomized studies were included. Although inconsistent event reporting and high heterogeneity limited comparisons, the adverse event profile of INH/RPT-3 appeared generally favorable. Flu-like reactions were reported with an increased frequency and hepatotoxicity with a lower frequency than standard treatment. CONCLUSIONS: While INH/RPT-3 had an overall low frequency of adverse events compared to INH monotherapy, reporting of adverse events for many regimens was limited meaning results should be interpreted cautiously. Future studies of LTBI treatment would benefit from more complete collection and reporting of adverse events and more consistent definitions of hepatotoxicity.

Efficacy and completion rates of rifapentine and isoniazid (3HP) compared to other treatment regimens for latent tuberculosis infection: a systematic review with network meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to examine the efficacy and completion rates of treatments for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI). While a previous review found newer, short-duration regimens to be effective, several included studies did not confirm LTBI, and analyses did not account for variable follow-up or assess completion. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, PubMed, and additional sources to identify RCTs in patients with confirmed LTBI that involved a regimen of interest and reported on efficacy or completion. Regimens of interest included isoniazid (INH) with rifapentine once weekly for 12 weeks (INH/RPT-3), 6 and 9 months of daily INH (INH-6; INH-9), 3-4 months daily INH plus rifampicin (INH/RFMP 3-4), and 4 months daily rifampicin alone (RFMP-4). NMAs were performed to compare regimens for both endpoints. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs (n = 44,149) and 14 RCTs (n = 44,128) were included in analyses of efficacy and completion. Studies were published between 1968 and 2015, and there was diversity in patient age and comorbidities. All regimens of interest except INH-9 showed significant benefits in preventing active TB compared to placebo. Comparisons between active regimens did not reveal significant differences. While definitions of regimen completion varied across studies, regimens of 3-4 months were associated with a greater likelihood of adequate completion. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the active regimens showed an ability to reduce the risk of active TB relative to no treatment, however important differences between active regimens were not found. Shorter rifamycin-based regimens may offer comparable benefits to longer INH regimens. Regimens of 3-4 months duration are more likely to be completed than longer regimens.