Care for adults with COVID-19: living guidelines from the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce.

INTRODUCTION: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce was established in March 2020 to maintain up-to-date recommendations for the treatment of people with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The original guideline (April 2020) has been continuously updated and expanded from nine to 176 recommendations, facilitated by the rapid identification, appraisal, and analysis of clinical trial findings and subsequent review by expert panels. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: In this article, we describe the recommendations for treating non-pregnant adults with COVID-19, as current on 1 August 2022 (version 61.0). The Taskforce has made specific recommendations for adults with severe/critical or mild disease, including definitions of disease severity, recommendations for therapy, COVID-19 prophylaxis, respiratory support, and supportive care. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THE GUIDELINE: The Taskforce currently recommends eight drug treatments for people with COVID-19 who do not require supplemental oxygen (inhaled corticosteroids, casirivimab/imdevimab, molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, regdanvimab, remdesivir, sotrovimab, tixagevimab/cilgavimab) and six for those who require supplemental oxygen (systemic corticosteroids, remdesivir, tocilizumab, sarilumab, baricitinib, casirivimab/imdevimab). Based on evidence of their achieving no or only limited benefit, ten drug treatments or treatment combinations are not recommended; an additional 42 drug treatments should only be used in the context of randomised trials. Additional recommendations include support for the use of continuous positive airway pressure, prone positioning, and endotracheal intubation in patients whose condition is deteriorating, and prophylactic anticoagulation for preventing venous thromboembolism. The latest updates and full recommendations are available at www.covid19evidence.net.au.

Clinical care of children and adolescents with COVID-19: recommendations from the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce.

INTRODUCTION: The epidemiology and clinical manifestations of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are different in children and adolescents compared with adults. Although coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) appears to be less common in children, with milder disease overall, severe complications may occur, including paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome (PIMS-TS). Recognising the distinct needs of this population, the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce formed a Paediatric and Adolescent Care Panel to provide living guidelines for Australian clinicians to manage children and adolescents with COVID-19 and COVID-19 complications. Living guidelines mean that these evidence-based recommendations are updated in near real time to give reliable, contemporaneous advice to Australian clinicians providing paediatric care. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: To date, the Taskforce has made 20 specific recommendations for children and adolescents, including definitions of disease severity, recommendations for therapy, respiratory support, and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for COVID-19 and for the management of PIMS-TS. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THE GUIDELINES: The Taskforce currently recommends corticosteroids as first line treatment for acute COVID-19 in children and adolescents who require oxygen. Tocilizumab could be considered, and remdesivir should not be administered routinely in this population. Non-invasive ventilation or high flow nasal cannulae should be considered in children and adolescents with hypoxaemia or respiratory distress unresponsive to low flow oxygen if appropriate infection control measures can be used. Children and adolescents with PIMS-TS should be managed by a multidisciplinary team. Intravenous immunoglobulin and corticosteroids, with concomitant aspirin and thromboprophylaxis, should be considered for the treatment of PIMS-TS. The latest updates and full recommendations are available at www.covid19evidence.net.au.

Care of older people and people requiring palliative care with COVID-19: guidance from the Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce.

INTRODUCTION: Older people living with frailty and/or cognitive impairment who have coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) experience higher rates of critical illness. There are also people who become critically ill with COVID-19 for whom a decision is made to take a palliative approach to their care. The need for clinical guidance in these two populations resulted in the formation of the Care of Older People and Palliative Care Panel of the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce in June 2020. This specialist panel consists of nursing, medical, pharmacy and allied health experts in geriatrics and palliative care from across Australia. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: The panel was tasked with developing two clinical flow charts for the management of people with COVID-19 who are i) older and living with frailty and/or cognitive impairment, and ii) receiving palliative care for COVID-19 or other underlying illnesses. The flow charts focus on goals of care, communication, medication management, escalation of care, active disease-directed care, and managing symptoms such as delirium, anxiety, agitation, breathlessness or cough. The Taskforce also developed living guideline recommendations for the care of adults with COVID-19, including a commentary to discuss special considerations when caring for older people and those requiring palliative care. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS RESULT OF THE GUIDELINE: The practice points in the flow charts emphasise quality clinical care, with a focus on addressing the most important challenges when caring for older individuals and people with COVID-19 requiring palliative care. The adult recommendations contain additional considerations for the care of older people and those requiring palliative care.

Anticoagulants for people hospitalised with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The primary manifestation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is respiratory insufficiency that can also be related to diffuse pulmonary microthrombosis and thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, or arterial thrombosis. People with COVID-19 who develop thromboembolism have a worse prognosis. Anticoagulants such as heparinoids (heparins or pentasaccharides), vitamin K antagonists and direct anticoagulants are used for the prevention and treatment of venous or arterial thromboembolism. Besides their anticoagulant properties, heparinoids have an additional anti-inflammatory potential. However, the benefit of anticoagulants for people with COVID-19 is still under debate. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention in people hospitalised with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and IBECS databases, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and medRxiv preprint database from their inception to 14 April 2021. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified, and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cohort studies that compared prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention for the management of people hospitalised with COVID-19. We excluded studies without a comparator group and with a retrospective design (all previously included studies) as we were able to include better study designs. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and necessity for additional respiratory support. Secondary outcomes were mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, adverse events, length of hospital stay and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used Cochrane RoB 1 to assess the risk of bias for RCTs, ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias for non-randomised studies (NRS) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We meta-analysed data when appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies (16,185 participants) with participants hospitalised with COVID-19, in either intensive care units, hospital wards or emergency departments. Studies were from Brazil (2), Iran (1), Italy (1), and the USA (1), and two involved more than country. The mean age of participants was 55 to 68 years and the follow-up period ranged from 15 to 90 days. The studies assessed the effects of heparinoids, direct anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists, and reported sparse data or did not report some of our outcomes of interest: necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life. Higher-dose versus lower-dose anticoagulants (4 RCTs, 4647 participants) Higher-dose anticoagulants result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16, 4489 participants; 4 RCTs) and increase minor bleeding (RR 3.28, 95% CI 1.75 to 6.14, 1196 participants; 3 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (high-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants probably reduce pulmonary embolism (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70, 4360 participants; 4 RCTs), and slightly increase major bleeding (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.80, 4400 participants; 4 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in deep vein thrombosis (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.03, 3422 participants; 4 RCTs), stroke (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.03, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), major adverse limb events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99, 1176 participants; 2 RCTs), myocardial infarction (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.55, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), atrial fibrillation (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.70, 562 participants; 1 study), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.24, 2789 participants; 2 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether higher-dose anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Anticoagulants versus no treatment (3 prospective NRS, 11,538 participants) Anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence is very uncertain due to two study results being at critical and serious risk of bias (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.74, 8395 participants; 3 NRS; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, stroke, myocardial infarction and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Ongoing studies We found 62 ongoing studies in hospital settings (60 RCTs, 35,470 participants; 2 prospective NRS, 120 participants) in 20 different countries. Thirty-five ongoing studies plan to report mortality and 26 plan to report necessity for additional respiratory support. We expect 58 studies to be completed in December 2021, and four in July 2022. From 60 RCTs, 28 are comparing different doses of anticoagulants, 24 are comparing anticoagulants versus no anticoagulants, seven are comparing different types of anticoagulants, and one did not report detail of the comparator group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When compared to a lower-dose regimen, higher-dose anticoagulants result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality and increase minor bleeding in people hospitalised with COVID-19 up to 30 days. Higher-dose anticoagulants possibly reduce pulmonary embolism, slightly increase major bleeding, may result in little to no difference in hospitalisation time, and may result in little to no difference in deep vein thrombosis, stroke, major adverse limb events, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, or thrombocytopenia.  Compared with no treatment, anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence comes from non-randomised studies and is very uncertain. It is unclear whether anticoagulants have any effect on the remaining outcomes compared to no anticoagulants (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Although we are very confident that new RCTs will not change the effects of different doses of anticoagulants on mortality and minor bleeding, high-quality RCTs are still needed, mainly for the other primary outcome (necessity for additional respiratory support), the comparison with no anticoagulation, when comparing the types of anticoagulants and giving anticoagulants for a prolonged period of time.

Prophylactic anticoagulants for people hospitalised with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a serious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The primary manifestation is respiratory insufficiency that can also be related to diffuse pulmonary microthrombosis in people with COVID-19. This disease also causes thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis, arterial thrombosis, catheter thrombosis, and disseminated intravascular coagulopathy. Recent studies have indicated a worse prognosis for people with COVID-19 who developed thromboembolism. Anticoagulants are medications used in the prevention and treatment of venous or arterial thromboembolic events. Several drugs are used in the prophylaxis and treatment of thromboembolic events, such as heparinoids (heparins or pentasaccharides), vitamin K antagonists and direct anticoagulants. Besides their anticoagulant properties, heparinoids have an additional anti-inflammatory potential, that may affect the clinical evolution of people with COVID-19. Some practical guidelines address the use of anticoagulants for thromboprophylaxis in people with COVID-19, however, the benefit of anticoagulants for people with COVID-19 is still under debate. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention, on mortality and the need for respiratory support in people hospitalised with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and IBECS databases, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and medRxiv preprint database from their inception to 20 June 2020. We also checked reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cohort studies that compared prophylactic anticoagulants (heparin, vitamin K antagonists, direct anticoagulants, and pentasaccharides) versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention for the management of people hospitalised with COVID-19. We excluded studies without a comparator group. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and need for additional respiratory support. Secondary outcomes were mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, adverse events, length of hospital stay and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias for non-randomised studies (NRS) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We reported results narratively. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no RCTs or quasi-RCTs that met the inclusion criteria. We included seven retrospective NRS (5929 participants), three of which were available as preprints. Studies were conducted in China, Italy, Spain and the USA. All of the studies included people hospitalised with COVID-19, in either intensive care units, hospital wards or emergency departments. The mean age of participants (reported in 6 studies) ranged from 59 to 72 years. Only three included studies reported the follow-up period, which varied from 8 to 35 days. The studies did not report on most of our outcomes of interest: need for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, DVT, pulmonary embolism, adverse events, and quality of life. Anticoagulants (all types) versus no treatment (6 retrospective NRS, 5685 participants) One study reported a reduction in all-cause mortality (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.66; 2075 participants). One study reported a reduction in mortality only in a subgroup of 395 people who required mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.89). Three studies reported no differences in mortality (adjusted OR 1.64, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.92; 449 participants; unadjusted OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.76 to 3.64; 154 participants and adjusted risk ratio (RR) 1.15, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.57; 192 participants). One study reported zero events in both intervention groups (42 participants). The overall risk of bias for all-cause mortality was critical and the certainty of the evidence was very low. One NRS reported bleeding events in 3% of the intervention group and 1.9% of the control group (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.71; 2773 participants; low-certainty evidence). Therapeutic-dose anticoagulants versus prophylactic-dose anticoagulants (1 retrospective NRS, 244 participants) The study reported a reduction in all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.46) and a lower absolute rate of death in the therapeutic group (34.2% versus 53%). The overall risk of bias for all-cause mortality was serious and the certainty of the evidence was low. The study also reported bleeding events in 31.7% of the intervention group and 20.5% of the control group (OR 1.8, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.37; low-certainty evidence). Ongoing studies We found 22 ongoing studies in hospital settings (20 RCTs, 14,730 participants; 2 NRS, 997 participants) in 10 different countries (Australia (1), Brazil (1), Canada (2), China (3), France (2), Germany (1), Italy (4), Switzerland (1), UK (1) and USA (6)). Twelve ongoing studies plan to report mortality and six plan to report additional respiratory support. Thirteen studies are expected to be completed in December 2020 (6959 participants), eight in July 2021 (8512 participants), and one in December 2021 (256 participants). Four of the studies plan to include 1000 participants or more. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the risks and benefits of prophylactic anticoagulants for people hospitalised with COVID-19. Since there are 22 ongoing studies that plan to evaluate more than 15,000 participants in this setting, we will add more robust evidence to this review in future updates.

Clinical care of pregnant and postpartum women with COVID-19: Living recommendations from the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce.

To date, 18 living recommendations for the clinical care of pregnant and postpartum women with COVID-19 have been issued by the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce. This includes recommendations on mode of birth, delayed umbilical cord clamping, skin-to-skin contact, breastfeeding, rooming-in, antenatal corticosteroids, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, disease-modifying treatments (including dexamethasone, remdesivir and hydroxychloroquine), venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and advanced respiratory support interventions (prone positioning and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). Through continuous evidence surveillance, these living recommendations are updated in near real-time to ensure clinicians in Australia have reliable, evidence-based guidelines for clinical decision-making. Please visit https://covid19evidence.net.au/ for the latest recommendation updates.

Social skills training for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children aged 5 to 18 years.

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children is associated with hyperactivity and impulsivity, attention problems, and difficulties with social interactions. Pharmacological treatment may alleviate the symptoms of ADHD but this rarely solves difficulties with social interactions. Children with ADHD may benefit from interventions designed to improve their social skills. We examined the benefits and harms of social skills training on social skills, emotional competencies, general behaviour, ADHD symptoms, performance in school of children with ADHD, and adverse events. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of social skills training in children and adolescents with ADHD. SEARCH METHODS: In July 2018, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 4 other databases and two trials registers.We also searched online conference abstracts, and contacted experts in the field for information about unpublished or ongoing randomised clinical trials. We did not limit our searches by language, year of publication, or type or status of publication, and we sought translation of the relevant sections of non-English language articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials investigating social skills training versus either no intervention or waiting-list control, with or without pharmacological treatment of both comparison groups of children and adolescents with ADHD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted the review in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention. We performed the analyses using Review Manager 5 software and Trial Sequential Analysis. We assessed bias according to domains for systematic errors. We assessed the certainty of the evidence with the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 randomised clinical trials described in 45 reports. The trials included a total of 2690 participants aged between five and 17 years. In 17 trials, participants were also diagnosed with various comorbidities.The social skills interventions were described as: 1) social skills training, 2) cognitive behavioural therapy, 3) multimodal behavioural/psychosocial therapy, 4) child life and attention skills treatment, 5) life skills training, 6) the "challenging horizon programme", 7) verbal self-instruction, 8) meta-cognitive training, 9) behavioural therapy, 10) behavioural and social skills treatment, and 11) psychosocial treatment. The control interventions were no intervention or waiting list.The duration of the interventions ranged from five weeks to two years. We considered the content of the social skills interventions to be comparable and based on a cognitive-behavioural model. Most of the trials compared child social skills training or parent training combined with medication versus medication alone. Some of the experimental interventions also included teacher consultations.More than half of the trials were at high risk of bias for generation of the allocation sequence and allocation concealment. No trial reported on blinding of participants and personnel. Most of the trials did not report on differences between groups in medication for comorbid disorders. We used all eligible trials in the meta-analyses, but downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low or very low.We found no clinically relevant treatment effect of social skills interventions on the primary outcome measures: teacher-rated social skills at end of treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.22; 11 trials, 1271 participants; I2 = 0%; P = 0.05); teacher-rated emotional competencies at end of treatment (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.72 to 0.68; two trials, 129 participants; I2 = 74%; P = 0.96); or on teacher-rated general behaviour (SMD -0.06 (negative value better), 95% CI -0.19 to 0.06; eight trials, 1002 participants; I2 = 0%; P = 0.33). The effect on the primary outcome, teacher-rated social skills at end of treatment, corresponds to a MD of 1.22 points on the social skills rating system (SSRS) scale (95% CI 0.09 to 2.36). The minimal clinical relevant difference (10%) on the SSRS is 10.0 points (range 0 to 102 points on SSRS).We found evidence in favour of social skills training on teacher-rated core ADHD symptoms at end of treatment for all eligible trials (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.05; 14 trials, 1379 participants; I2= 69%; P = 0.02), but the finding is questionable due to lack of support from sensitivity analyses, high risk of bias, lack of clinical significance, high heterogeneity, and low certainty.The studies did not report any serious or non-serious adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The review suggests that there is little evidence to support or refute social skills training for children and adolescents with ADHD. We may need more trials that are at low risk of bias and a sufficient number of participants to determine the efficacy of social skills training versus no training for ADHD. The evidence base regarding adolescents is especially weak.

Lower mortality after early supervised pulmonary rehabilitation following COPD-exacerbations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), delivered as a supervised multidisciplinary program including exercise training, is one of the cornerstones in the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect on mortality of a supervised early PR program, initiated during or within 4 weeks after hospitalization with an acute exacerbation of COPD compared with usual post-exacerbation care or no PR program. Secondary outcomes were days in hospital, COPD related readmissions, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), exercise capacity (walking distance), activities of daily living (ADL), fall risk and drop-out rate. METHODS: We identified randomized trials through a systematic search using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cocharne Library and other sources through October 2017. Risk of bias was assessed regarding randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other biases using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. RESULTS: We included 13 randomized trials (801 participants). Our meta-analyses showed a clinically relevant reduction in mortality after early PR (4 trials, 319 patients; RR = 0.58 (95% CI: [0.35 to 0.98])) and at the longest follow-up (3 trials, 127 patients; RR = 0.55 (95% CI: [0.12 to 2.57])). Early PR reduced number of days in hospital by 4.27 days (1 trial, 180 patients; 95% CI: [- 6.85 to - 1.69]) and hospital readmissions (6 trials, 319 patients; RR = 0.47 (95% CI: [0.29 to 0.75])). Moreover, early PR improved HRQoL and walking distance, and did not affect drop-out rate. Several of the trials had unclear risk of bias in regard to the randomization and blinding, for some outcome there was also a lack of power. CONCLUSION: Moderate quality of evidence showed reductions in mortality, number of days in hospital and number of readmissions after early PR in patients hospitalized with a COPD exacerbation. Long-term effects on mortality were not statistically significant, but improvements in HRQoL and exercise capacity appeared to be maintained for at least 12 months. Therefore, we recommend early supervised PR to patients with COPD-related exacerbations. PR should be initiated during hospital admission or within 4 weeks after hospital discharge.

Pain relief that matters to patients: systematic review of empirical studies assessing the minimum clinically important difference in acute pain.

BACKGROUND: The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is used to interpret the clinical relevance of results reported by trials and meta-analyses as well as to plan sample sizes in new studies. However, there is a lack of consensus about the size of MCID in acute pain, which is a core symptom affecting patients across many clinical conditions. METHODS: We identified and systematically reviewed empirical studies of MCID in acute pain. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library, and included prospective studies determining MCID using a patient-reported anchor and a one-dimensional pain scale (e.g. 100 mm visual analogue scale). We summarised results and explored reasons for heterogeneity applying meta-regression, subgroup analyses and individual patient data meta-analyses. RESULTS: We included 37 studies (8479 patients). Thirty-five studies used a mean change approach, i.e. MCID was assessed as the mean difference in pain score among patients who reported a minimum degree of improvement, while seven studies used a threshold approach, i.e. MCID was assessed as the threshold in pain reduction associated with the best accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) for identifying improved patients. Meta-analyses found considerable heterogeneity between studies (absolute MCID: I2 = 93%, relative MCID: I2 = 75%) and results were therefore presented qualitatively, while analyses focused on exploring reasons for heterogeneity. The reported absolute MCID values ranged widely from 8 to 40 mm (standardised to a 100 mm scale) and the relative MCID values from 13% to 85%. From analyses of individual patient data (seven studies, 918 patients), we found baseline pain strongly associated with absolute, but not relative, MCID as patients with higher baseline pain needed larger pain reduction to perceive relief. Subgroup analyses showed that the definition of improved patients (one or several categories improvement or meaningful change) and the design of studies (single or multiple measurements) also influenced MCID values. CONCLUSIONS: The MCID in acute pain varied greatly between studies and was influenced by baseline pain, definitions of improved patients and study design. MCID is context-specific and potentially misguiding if determined, applied or interpreted inappropriately. Explicit and conscientious reflections on the choice of a reference value are required when using MCID to classify research results as clinically important or trivial.

Nonnucleoside Reverse-transcriptase Inhibitor- vs Ritonavir-boosted Protease Inhibitor-based Regimens for Initial Treatment of HIV Infection: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggest that nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) cause faster virologic suppression, while ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors (PI/r) recover more CD4 cells. However, individual trials have not been powered to compare clinical outcomes. METHODS: We searched databases to identify randomized trials that compared NNRTI- vs PI/r-based initial therapy. A metaanalysis calculated risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs), as appropriate. Primary outcome was death or progression to AIDS. Secondary outcomes were death, progression to AIDS, and treatment discontinuation. We calculated RR of virologic suppression and MD for an increase in CD4 cells at week 48. RESULTS: We included 29 trials with 9047 participants. Death or progression to AIDS occurred in 226 participants in the NNRTI arm and in 221 in the PI/r arm (RR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, .87-1.22; 12 trials; n = 3825), death in 205 participants in the NNRTI arm vs 198 in the PI/r arm (1.04; 0.86-1.25; 22 trials; n = 8311), and progression to AIDS in 140 participants in the NNRTI arm vs 144 in the PI/r arm (1.00; 0.80-1.25; 13 trials; n = 4740). Overall treatment discontinuation (1.12; 0.93-1.35; 24 trials; n = 8249) and from toxicity (1.21; 0.87-1.68; 21 trials; n = 6195) were comparable, but discontinuation due to virologic failure was more common with NNRTI (1.58; 0.91-2.74; 17 trials; n = 5371). At week 48, there was no difference between NNRTI and PI/r in virologic suppression (RR, 1.03; 0.98-1.09) or CD4(+) recovery (MD, -4.7 cells; -14.2 to 4.8). CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in clinical and viro-immunologic outcomes between NNRTI- and PI/r-based therapy.

Toric Intraocular Lenses in the Correction of Astigmatism During Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

TOPIC: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the benefit and harms associated with implantation of toric intraocular lenses (IOLs) during cataract surgery. Outcomes were postoperative uncorrected distance visual acuity (UCDVA) and distance spectacle independence. Harms were evaluated as surgical complications and residual astigmatism. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Postoperative astigmatism is an important cause of suboptimal UCDVA and need for distance spectacles. Toric IOLs may correct for preexisting corneal astigmatism at the time of surgery. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search in the Embase, PubMed, and CENTRAL databases within the Cochrane Library. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) if they compared toric with non-toric IOL implantation (± relaxing incision) in patients with regular corneal astigmatism and age-related cataracts. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We assessed the quality of evidence across studies using the GRADE profiler software (available at: www.gradeworkinggroup.org). RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs with 707 eyes randomized to toric IOLs and 706 eyes randomized to non-toric IOLs; 225 eyes had a relaxing incision. We found high-quality evidence that UCDVA was better in the toric IOL group (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution [logMAR] mean difference, -0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.10 to -0.04) and provided greater spectacle independence (risk ratio [RR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36-0.71) and moderate quality evidence that toric IOL implantation was not associated with an increased risk of complications (RR, 1.73; 95% CI, 0.60-5.04). Residual astigmatism was lower in the toric IOL group than in the non-toric IOL plus relaxing incision group (mean difference, 0.37 diopter [D]; 95% CI, -0.55 to -0.19). CONCLUSIONS: We found that toric IOLs provided better UCDVA, greater spectacle independence, and lower amounts of residual astigmatism than non-toric IOLs even when relaxing incisions were used.

Post-cataract prevention of inflammation and macular edema by steroid and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory eye drops: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Favorable outcome after cataract surgery depends on proper control of the inflammatory response induced by cataract surgery. Pseudophakic cystoid macular edema is an important cause of visual decline after uncomplicated cataract surgery. DESIGN: We compared the efficacy of topical steroids with topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in controlling inflammation and preventing pseudophakic cystoid macular edema (PCME) after uncomplicated cataract surgery. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing uncomplicated surgery for age-related cataract. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search in Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases to identify randomized trials published from 1996 onward comparing topical steroids with topical NSAIDs in controlling inflammation and preventing PCME in patients undergoing phacoemulsification with posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation for age-related cataract. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperative inflammation and pseudophakic cystoid macular edema. RESULTS: Fifteen randomized trials were identified. Postoperative inflammation was less in patients randomized to NSAIDs. The prevalence of PCME was significantly higher in the steroid group than in the NSAID group: 3.8% versus 25.3% of patients, risk ratio 5.35 (95% confidence interval, 2.94-9.76). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of adverse events in the 2 treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: We found low to moderate quality of evidence that topical NSAIDs are more effective in controlling postoperative inflammation after cataract surgery. We found high-quality evidence that topical NSAIDs are more effective than topical steroids in preventing PCME. The use of topical NSAIDs was not associated with an increased events. We recommend using topical NSAIDs to prevent inflammation and PCME after routine cataract surgery.

A critical appraisal of the evidence for using cardiotocography plus ECG ST interval analysis for fetal surveillance in labor. Part II: the meta-analyses.

We appraised the methodology, execution and quality of the five published meta-analyses that are based on the five randomized controlled trials which compared cardiotocography (CTG)+ST analysis to cardiotocography. The meta-analyses contained errors, either created de novo in handling of original data or from a failure to recognize essential differences among the randomized controlled trials, particularly in their inclusion criteria and outcome parameters. No meta-analysis contained complete and relevant data from all five randomized controlled trials. We believe that one randomized controlled trial excluded in two of the meta-analyses should have been included, whereas one randomized controlled trial that was included in all meta-analyses, should have been excluded. After correction of the uncovered errors and exclusion of the randomized controlled trial that we deemed inappropriate, our new meta-analysis showed that CTG+ST monitoring significantly reduces the fetal scalp blood sampling usage (risk ratio 0.64; 95% confidence interval 0.47-0.88), total operative delivery rate (0.93; 0.88-0.99) and metabolic acidosis rate (0.61; 0.41-0.91).

A critical appraisal of the evidence for using cardiotocography plus ECG ST interval analysis for fetal surveillance in labor. Part I: the randomized controlled trials.

We reappraised the five randomized controlled trials that compared cardiotocography plus ECG ST interval analysis (CTG+ST) vs. cardiotocography. The numbers enrolled ranged from 5681 (Dutch randomized controlled trial) to 799 (French randomized controlled trial). The Swedish randomized controlled trial (n = 5049) was the only trial adequately powered to show a difference in metabolic acidosis, and the Plymouth randomized controlled trial (n = 2434) was only powered to show a difference in operative delivery for fetal distress. There were considerable differences in study design: the French randomized controlled trial used different inclusion criteria, and the Finnish randomized controlled trial (n = 1483) used a different metabolic acidosis definition. In the CTG+ST study arms, the larger Plymouth, Swedish and Dutch trials showed lower operative delivery and metabolic acidosis rates, whereas the smaller Finnish and French trials showed minor differences in operative delivery and higher metabolic acidosis rates. We conclude that the differences in outcomes are likely due to the considerable differences in study design and size. This will enhance heterogeneity effects in any subsequent meta-analysis.

Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale outcomes: a systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are commonly done without blinded outcome assessors despite the risk of bias. We wanted to evaluate the effect of nonblinded outcome assessment on estimated effects in randomized clinical trials with outcomes that involved subjective measurement scales. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessment of the same measurement scale outcome. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, HighWire Press and Google Scholar for relevant studies. Two investigators agreed on the inclusion of trials and the outcome scale. For each trial, we calculated the difference in effect size (i.e., standardized mean difference between nonblinded and blinded assessments). A difference in effect size of less than 0 suggested that nonblinded assessors generated more optimistic estimates of effect. We pooled the differences in effect size using inverse variance random-effects meta-analysis and used metaregression to identify potential reasons for variation. RESULTS: We included 24 trials in our review. The main meta-analysis included 16 trials (involving 2854 patients) with subjective outcomes. The estimated treatment effect was more beneficial when based on nonblinded assessors (pooled difference in effect size -0.23 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.40 to -0.06]). In relative terms, nonblinded assessors exaggerated the pooled effect size by 68% (95% CI 14% to 230%). Heterogeneity was moderate (I(2) = 46%, p = 0.02) and unexplained by metaregression. INTERPRETATION: We provide empirical evidence for observer bias in randomized clinical trials with subjective measurement scale outcomes. A failure to blind assessors of outcomes in such trials results in a high risk of substantial bias.

The Australian living guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19: What worked, what didn't and why, a mixed methods process evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is producing living, evidence-based, national guidelines for treatment of people with COVID-19 which are updated each week. To continually improve the process and outputs of the Taskforce, and inform future living guideline development, we undertook a concurrent process evaluation examining Taskforce activities and experience of team members and stakeholders during the first 5 months of the project. METHODS: The mixed-methods process evaluation consisted of activity and progress audits, an online survey of all Taskforce participants; and semi-structured interviews with key contributors. Data were collected through five, prospective 4-weekly timepoints (beginning first week of May 2020) and three, fortnightly retrospective timepoints (March 23, April 6 and 20). We collected and analysed quantitative and qualitative data. RESULTS: An updated version of the guidelines was successfully published every week during the process evaluation. The Taskforce formed in March 2020, with a nominal start date of March 23. The first version of the guideline was published two weeks later and included 10 recommendations. By August 24, in the final round of the process evaluation, the team of 11 staff, working with seven guideline panels and over 200 health decision-makers, had developed 66 recommendations addressing 58 topics. The Taskforce website had received over 200,000 page views. Satisfaction with the work of the Taskforce remained very high (>90% extremely or somewhat satisfied) throughout. Several key strengths, challenges and methods questions for the work of the Taskforce were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In just over 5 months of activity, the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce published 20 weekly updates to the evidence-based national treatment guidelines for COVID-19. This process evaluation identified several factors that enabled this achievement (e.g. an extant skill base in evidence review and convening), along with challenges that needed to be overcome (e.g. managing workloads, structure and governance) and methods questions (pace of updating, and thresholds for inclusion of evidence) which may be useful considerations for other living guidelines projects. An impact evaluation is also being conducted separately to examine awareness, acceptance and use of the guidelines.

Awareness, value and use of the Australian living guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19: an impact evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is developing living, evidence-based, national guidelines for treatment of people with COVID-19. These living guidelines are updated each week. We undertook an impact evaluation to understand the extent to which health professionals providing treatment to people with COVID 19 were aware of, valued and used the guidelines, and the factors that enabled or hampered this. METHODS: A mixed methods approach was used for the evaluation. Surveys were conducted to collect both quantitative and qualitative data and were supplemented with qualitative interviews. Australian healthcare practitioners potentially providing care to individuals with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were invited to participate. Data were collected on guideline awareness, relevance, ease of use, trustworthiness, value, importance of updating, use, and strengths and opportunities for improvement. RESULTS: A total of 287 people completed the surveys and 10 interviews were conducted during November 2020. Awareness of the work of the Taskforce was high and the vast majority of respondents reported that the guidelines were very or extremely relevant, easy to use, trustworthy and valuable. More than 50% of respondents had used the guidelines to support their own clinical decision-making; and 30% were aware of other examples of the guidelines being used. Qualitative data revealed that amongst an overwhelming morass of evidence and opinions during the COVID-19 pandemic, the guidelines have been a reliable, united source of evidence-based advice; participants felt the guidelines built confidence and provided reassurance in clinical decision-making. Opportunities to improve awareness and accessibility to the guidelines were also explored. CONCLUSIONS: As of June 2021, the guidelines have been published and updated more than 40 times, include more than 140 recommendations and are being used to inform clinical decisions. The findings of this impact evaluation will be used to improve processes and outputs of the Taskforce and guidelines project, and to inform future living guideline projects.

Efficacy and Safety of Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids Supplementation in the Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.

Based on epidemiological and animal studies, the rationale for using polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) as a treatment for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) seems promising. Here, the objective was to systematically identify and critically assess the evidence from clinical trials. The primary outcome was ADHD core symptoms. The secondary outcomes were behavioral difficulties, quality of life, and side effects. We performed a systematic search in Medline, Embase, Cinahl, PsycInfo, and the Cochrane Library up to June 2020. The overall certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). We identified 31 relevant randomized controlled trials including 1755 patients. The results showed no effect on ADHD core symptoms rated by parents (k = 23; SMD: -0.17; 95% CI: -0.32, -0.02) or teachers (k = 10; SMD: -0.06; 95% CI: -0.31, 0.19). There was no effect on behavioral difficulties, rated by parents (k = 7; SMD: -0.02; 95% CI: -0.17, 0.14) or teachers (k = 5; SMD: -0.04; 95% CI: -0.35, 0.26). There was no effect on quality of life (SMD: 0.01; 95% CI: -0.29, 0.31). PUFA did not increase the occurrence of side effects. For now, there seems to be no benefit of PUFA in ADHD treatment; however, the certainty of evidence is questionable, and thus no conclusive guidance can be made. The protocol is registered in PROSPERO ID: CRD42020158453.