Test accuracy of rapid diagnostic tests and reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction against virus isolation in cell culture for assessing SARS-CoV-2 infectivity: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

We aimed to assess the performance of Ag-RDT and RT-qPCR with regard to detecting infectious SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures, as their diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) compared to virus isolation remains largely unknown. We searched three databases up to 15 December 2021 for DTA studies. The bivariate model was used to synthesise the estimates. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2/C. Twenty studies (2605 respiratory samples) using cell culture and at least one molecular test were identified. All studies were at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Three comparative DTA studies reported results on Ag-RDT and RT-qPCR against cell culture. Two studies evaluated RT-qPCR against cell culture only. Fifteen studies evaluated Ag-RDT against cell culture as reference standard in RT-qPCR-positive samples. For Ag-RDT, summary sensitivity was 93% (95% CI 78; 98%) and specificity 87% (95% CI 70; 95%). For RT-qPCR, summary sensitivity (continuity-corrected) was 98% (95% CI 95; 99%) and specificity 45% (95% CI 28; 63%). In studies relying on RT-qPCR-positive subsamples (n = 15), the summary sensitivity of Ag-RDT was 93% (95% CI 92; 93%) and specificity 63% (95% CI 63; 63%). Ag-RDT show moderately high sensitivity, detecting most but not all samples demonstrated to be infectious based on virus isolation. Although RT-qPCR exhibits high sensitivity across studies, its low specificity to indicate infectivity raises the question of its general superiority in all clinical settings. Study findings should be interpreted with caution due to the risk of bias, heterogeneity and the imperfect reference standard for infectivity.

Regional anaesthesia for postoperative pain management following laparoscopic, visceral, non-oncological surgery a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain management following laparoscopic, non-oncological visceral surgery in adults is challenging. Regional anaesthesia could be a promising component in multimodal pain management. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with GRADE assessment. Primary outcomes were postoperative acute pain intensity at rest/during movement after 24 h, the number of patients with block-related adverse events and the number of patients with postoperative paralytic ileus. RESULTS: 82 trials were included. Peripheral regional anaesthesia combined with general anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia may result in a slight reduction of pain intensity at rest at 24 h (mean difference (MD) - 0.72 points; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.91 to - 0.54; I2 = 97%; low-certainty evidence), which was not clinically relevant. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect on pain intensity during activity at 24 h (MD -0.8 points; 95%CI - 1.17 to - 0.42; I2 = 99%; very low-certainty evidence) and on the incidence of block-related adverse events. In contrast, neuraxial regional analgesia combined with general anaesthesia (versus general anaesthesia) may reduce postoperative pain intensity at rest in a clinical relevant matter (MD - 1.19 points; 95%CI - 1.99 to - 0.39; I2 = 97%; low-certainty evidence), but the effect is uncertain during activity (MD - 1.13 points; 95%CI - 2.31 to 0.06; I2 = 95%; very low-certainty evidence). There is uncertain evidence, that neuraxial regional analgesia combined with general anaesthesia (versus general anaesthesia) increases the risk for block-related adverse events (relative risk (RR) 5.11; 95%CI 1.13 to 23.03; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis confirms that regional anaesthesia might be an important part of multimodal postoperative analgesia in laparoscopic visceral surgery, e.g. in patients at risk for severe postoperative pain, and with large differences between surgical procedures and settings. Further research is required to evaluate the use of adjuvants and the additional benefit of regional anaesthesia in ERAS programmes. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021258281.

Erector spinae plane block for postoperative pain.

BACKGROUND: Acute and chronic postoperative pain are important healthcare problems, which can be treated with a combination of opioids and regional anaesthesia. The erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a new regional anaesthesia technique, which might be able to reduce opioid consumption and related side effects. OBJECTIVES: To compare the analgesic effects and side effect profile of ESPB against no block, placebo block or other regional anaesthetic techniques. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science on 4 January 2021 and updated the search on 3 January 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating adults undergoing surgery with general anaesthesia were included. We included ESPB in comparison with no block, placebo blocks or other regional anaesthesia techniques irrespective of language, publication year, publication status or technique of regional anaesthesia used (ultrasound, landmarks or peripheral nerve stimulator). Quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs, cross-over trials and studies investigating co-interventions in either arm were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed all trials for inclusion and exclusion criteria, and risk of bias (RoB), and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and we used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the primary outcomes. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain at rest at 24 hours and block-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain at rest (2, 48 hours) and during activity (2, 24 and 48 hours after surgery), chronic pain after three and six months, as well as cumulative oral morphine requirements at 2, 24 and 48 hours after surgery and rates of opioid-related side effects. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 69 RCTs in the first search and included these in the systematic review. We included 64 RCTs (3973 participants) in the meta-analysis. The outcome postoperative pain was reported in 38 out of 64 studies; block-related adverse events were reported in 40 out of 64 studies. We assessed RoB as low in 44 (56%), some concerns in 24 (31%) and high in 10 (13%) of the study results. Overall, 57 studies reported one or both primary outcomes. Only one study reported results on chronic pain after surgery. In the updated literature search on 3 January 2022 we found 37 new studies and categorised these as awaiting classification. ESPB compared to no block There is probably a slight but not clinically relevant reduction in pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery in patients treated with ESPB compared to no block (visual analogue scale (VAS), 0 to 10 points) (mean difference (MD) -0.77 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.08 to -0.46; 17 trials, 958 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events between the groups treated with ESPB and those receiving no block (no events in 18 trials reported, 1045 participants, low-certainty evidence). ESPB compared to placebo block ESPB probably has no effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to placebo block (MD -0.14 points, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.00; 8 trials, 499 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events between ESPB and placebo blocks (no events in 10 trials reported; 592 participants; low-certainty evidence). ESPB compared to other regional anaesthetic techniques Paravertebral block (PVB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to PVB (MD 0.23 points, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.52; 7 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is probably no difference in block-related adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.95; 7 trials, 522 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to TAPB (MD -0.16 points, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.14; 3 trials, 160 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.83; 4 trials, 202 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) The effect on postoperative pain could not be assessed because no studies reported this outcome. There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.59; 2 trials, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pectoralis plane block (PECSB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to PECSB (MD 0.24 points, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.58; 2 trials, 98 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect on block-related adverse events could not be assessed. Quadratus lumborum block (QLB) Only one study reported on each of the primary outcomes. Intercostal nerve block (ICNB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to ICNB, but this is uncertain (MD -0.33 points, 95% CI -3.02 to 2.35; 2 trials, 131 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events, but this is uncertain (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.28; 3 trials, 181 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Epidural analgesia (EA) We are uncertain whether ESPB has an effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to EA (MD 1.20 points, 95% CI -2.52 to 4.93; 2 trials, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A risk ratio for block-related adverse events was not estimable because only one study reported this outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ESPB in addition to standard care probably does not improve postoperative pain intensity 24 hours after surgery compared to no block. The number of block-related adverse events following ESPB was low. Further research is required to study the possibility of extending the duration of analgesia. We identified 37 new studies in the updated search and there are three ongoing studies, suggesting possible changes to the effect estimates and the certainty of the evidence in the future.

Peripheral Regional Anesthetic Techniques in Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to investigate postoperative pain outcomes and adverse events after peripheral regional anesthesia (PRA) compared to no regional anesthesia (RA), placebo, or neuraxial anesthesia in children and adults undergoing cardiac surgery. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis with an assessment of the risk of bias (Cochrane RoB 1) and certainty of evidence (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). SETTING: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs). PARTICIPANTS: Adults and children undergoing heart surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Any kind of PRA compared to no RA or placebo or neuraxial anesthesia. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In total, 33 RCTs (2,044 patients) were included-24 of these had a high risk of bias, and 28 were performed in adults. Compared to no RA, PRA may reduce pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery (mean difference [MD] -0.81 points, 95% CI -1.51 to -0.10; I2 = 92%; very low certainty evidence). Peripheral regional anesthesia, compared to placebo, may reduce pain intensity at rest (MD -1.36 points, 95% CI -1.59 to -1.13; I2 = 54%; very low certainty evidence) and during movement (MD -1.00 points, 95% CI -1.34 to -0.67; I² = 72%; very low certainty evidence) 24 hours after surgery. No data after pediatric cardiac surgery could be meta-analyzed due to the low number of included trials. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to no RA or placebo, PRA may reduce pain intensity at rest and during movement. However, these results should be interpreted cautiously because the certainty of evidence is only very low.

Efficacy and safety of perioperative ketamine for the prevention of chronic postsurgical pain: A meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Assessment of the efficacy and safety of perioperative intravenous ketamine in reducing incidence and severity of chronic postsurgical pain. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: The following data sources were systematically searched: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and EMBASE (till 02/2021). PATIENTS: Adult patients undergoing any surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Perioperative use of intravenous ketamine as an additive analgesic drug compared to placebo, no active control treatment, and other additive drugs. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were number of patients with chronic postsurgical pain after 6 months and ketamine related adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were chronic postsurgical pain incidence after 3 and 12 months, chronic postsurgical neuropathic pain incidence, chronic postsurgical moderate to severe pain incidence, intensity of chronic postsurgical pain at rest, and during movement, oral morphine consumption after 3, 6, and 12 months and incidence of opioid-related adverse effects. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-six RCTs were included with a total of 3572 patients. Ketamine compared to placebo may result in no difference in the number of patients with chronic postsurgical pain after 6 months (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-1.05; I2 = 34%; 16 studies; low-certainty evidence). Ketamine may reduce the incidence of chronic postsurgical neuropathic pain after 3 months in comparison to placebo (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.99, I2 = 31%, seven trials, low-certainty evidence). Ketamine compared to placebo may increase the risk for postoperative nystagmus (RR 9.04, 95% CI 1.15-70.90, I2 30%, two trials, low-certainty evidence) and postoperative visual disturbances (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.05-4.99, I2 10%, seven trials, low-certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: There is low-certainty evidence that perioperative ketamine has no effect on chronic postsurgical pain in adult patients. Low-certainty evidence suggests that ketamine compared to placebo may reduce incidence of chronic postsurgical neuropathic pain after 3 months. Questions like ideal dosing, treatment duration and more patient-related outcome measures remain unanswered, which warrants further studies. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: Prospero CRD42021223625, 07.01.2021.

Efficacy and safety of molnupiravir for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The role of molnupiravir for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review until 1 November 2022 searching for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving COVID-19 patients comparing molnupiravir [±standard of care (SoC)] versus SoC and/or placebo. Data were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses. Certainty of evidence was assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach. RESULTS: Nine RCTs were identified, eight investigated outpatients (29 254 participants) and one inpatients (304 participants). Compared with placebo/SoC, molnupiravir does not reduce mortality [risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% CI 0.07-1.02, high-certainty evidence] and probably does not reduce the risk for 'hospitalization or death' (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.55-1.20, moderate-certainty evidence) by Day 28 in COVID-19 outpatients. We are uncertain whether molnupiravir increases symptom resolution by Day 14 (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02-1.41, very-low-certainty evidence) but it may make no difference by Day 28 (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92-1.19, low-certainty evidence). In inpatients, molnupiravir may increase mortality by Day 28 compared with placebo (RR 3.78, 95% CI 0.50-28.82, low-certainty evidence). There is little to no difference in serious adverse and adverse events during the study period in COVID-19 inpatients/outpatients treated with molnupiravir compared with placebo/SoC (moderate- to high-certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: In a predominantly immunized population of COVID-19 outpatients, molnupiravir has no effect on mortality, probably none on 'hospitalization or death' and effects on symptom resolution are uncertain. Molnupiravir was safe during the study period in outpatients although a potential increase in inpatient mortality requires careful monitoring in ongoing clinical research. Our analysis does not support routine use of molnupiravir for COVID-19 treatment in immunocompetent individuals.

Model selection for component network meta-analysis in connected and disconnected networks: a simulation study.

BACKGROUND: Network meta-analysis (NMA) allows estimating and ranking the effects of several interventions for a clinical condition. Component network meta-analysis (CNMA) is an extension of NMA which considers the individual components of multicomponent interventions. CNMA allows to "reconnect" a disconnected network with common components in subnetworks. An additive CNMA assumes that component effects are additive. This assumption can be relaxed by including interaction terms in the CNMA. METHODS: We evaluate a forward model selection strategy for component network meta-analysis to relax the additivity assumption that can be used in connected or disconnected networks. In addition, we describe a procedure to create disconnected networks in order to evaluate the properties of the model selection in connected and disconnected networks. We apply the methods to simulated data and a Cochrane review on interventions for postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia. Model performance is compared using average mean squared errors and coverage probabilities. RESULTS: CNMA models provide good performance for connected networks and can be an alternative to standard NMA if additivity holds. For disconnected networks, we recommend to use additive CNMA only if strong clinical arguments for additivity exist. CONCLUSIONS: CNMA methods are feasible for connected networks but questionable for disconnected networks.

Assessing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infectivity by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The cornerstone of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection is reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) of viral RNA. As a surrogate assay SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection does not necessarily imply infectivity. Only virus isolation in permissive cell culture systems can indicate infectivity. Here, we review the evidence on RT-PCR performance in detecting infectious SARS-CoV-2. We searched for any studies that used RT-PCR and cell culture to determine infectious SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples. We assessed (i) diagnostic accuracy of RT-PCR compared to cell culture as reference test, (ii) performed meta-analysis of positive predictive values (PPV) and (iii) determined the virus isolation probabilities depending on cycle threshold (Ct) or log10 genome copies/ml using logistic regression. We included 55 studies. There is substantial statistical and clinical heterogeneity. Seven studies were included for diagnostic accuracy. Sensitivity ranged from 90% to 99% and specificity from 29% to 92%. In meta-analysis, the PPVs varied across subgroups with different sampling times after symptom onset, with 1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0%-7%) in sampling beyond 10 days and 27% (CI, 19%-36%) to 46% (CI, 33%-60%) in subgroups that also included earlier samples. Estimates of virus isolation probability varied between 6% (CI, 0%-100%) and 50% (CI, 0%-100%) at a Ct value of 30 and between 0% (CI, 0%-22%) and 63% (CI, 0%-100%) at 5 log10 genome copies/ml. Evidence on RT-PCR performance in detecting infectious SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples was limited. Major limitations were heterogeneity and poor reporting. RT-PCR and cell culture protocols need further standardisation.

Erector spinae plane block for postoperative pain.

BACKGROUND: Acute and chronic postoperative pain are important healthcare problems, which can be treated with a combination of opioids and regional anaesthesia. The erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a new regional anaesthesia technique, which might be able to reduce opioid consumption and related side effects. OBJECTIVES: To compare the analgesic effects and side effect profile of ESPB against no block, placebo block or other regional anaesthetic techniques. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science on 4 January 2021 and updated the search on 3 January 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating adults undergoing surgery with general anaesthesia were included. We included ESPB in comparison with no block, placebo blocks or other regional anaesthesia techniques irrespective of language, publication year, publication status or technique of regional anaesthesia used (ultrasound, landmarks or peripheral nerve stimulator). Quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs, cross-over trials and studies investigating co-interventions in either arm were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed all trials for inclusion and exclusion criteria, and risk of bias (RoB), and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and we used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the primary outcomes. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain at rest at 24 hours and block-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain at rest (2, 48 hours) and during activity (2, 24 and 48 hours after surgery), chronic pain after three and six months, as well as cumulative oral morphine requirements at 2, 24 and 48 hours after surgery and rates of opioid-related side effects. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 69 RCTs in the first search and included these in the systematic review. We included 64 RCTs (3973 participants) in the meta-analysis. The outcome postoperative pain was reported in 38 out of 64 studies; block-related adverse events were reported in 40 out of 64 studies. We assessed RoB as low in 44 (56%), some concerns in 24 (31%) and high in 10 (13%) of the study results. Overall, 57 studies reported one or both primary outcomes. Only one study reported results on chronic pain after surgery. In the updated literature search on 3 January 2022 we found 37 new studies and categorised these as awaiting classification. ESPB compared to no block There is probably a slight but not clinically relevant reduction in pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery in patients treated with ESPB compared to no block (visual analogue scale (VAS), 0 to 10 points) (mean difference (MD) -0.77 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.08 to -0.46; 17 trials, 958 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events between the groups treated with ESPB and those receiving no block (no events in 18 trials reported, 1045 participants, low-certainty evidence). ESPB compared to placebo block ESPB probably has no effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to placebo block (MD -0.14 points, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.00; 8 trials, 499 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events between ESPB and placebo blocks (no events in 10 trials reported; 592 participants; low-certainty evidence). ESPB compared to other regional anaesthetic techniques Paravertebral block (PVB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to PVB (MD 0.23 points, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.52; 7 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is probably no difference in block-related adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.95; 7 trials, 522 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to TAPB (MD -0.16 points, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.14; 3 trials, 160 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.83; 4 trials, 202 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) The effect on postoperative pain could not be assessed because no studies reported this outcome. There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.59; 2 trials, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pectoralis plane block (PECSB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to PECSB (MD 0.24 points, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.58; 2 trials, 98 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect on block-related adverse events could not be assessed. Quadratus lumborum block (QLB) Only one study reported on each of the primary outcomes. Intercostal nerve block (ICNB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to ICNB, but this is uncertain (MD -0.33 points, 95% CI -3.02 to 2.35; 2 trials, 131 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events, but this is uncertain (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.28; 3 trials, 181 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Epidural analgesia (EA) We are uncertain whether ESPB has an effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to EA (MD 1.20 points, 95% CI -2.52 to 4.93; 2 trials, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A risk ratio for block-related adverse events was not estimable because only one study reported this outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ESPB in addition to standard care probably does not improve postoperative pain intensity 24 hours after surgery compared to no block. The number of block-related adverse events following ESPB was low. Further research is required to study the possibility of extending the duration of analgesia. We identified 37 new studies in the updated search and there are three ongoing studies, suggesting possible changes to the effect estimates and the certainty of the evidence in the future.

Nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir for preventing and treating COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care (SoC) compared to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 or preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses. To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in-between publication of review updates. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Scopus, and World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 15 May 2023. This is a LSR. We conduct update searches every two months and make them publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We screened all studies for research integrity. Studies were ineligible if they had been retracted, or if they were not prospectively registered including appropriate ethics approval. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology and used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: 1. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19; 2. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, quality of life, (serious) adverse events, and viral clearance; 3. to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in postexposure prophylaxis (PEP); and 4. pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) scenarios: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, and (serious) adverse events. We explored inequity by subgroup analysis for elderly people, socially-disadvantaged people with comorbidities, populations from low-income countries and low- to middle-income countries, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds. MAIN RESULTS: As of 15 May 2023, we included two RCTs with 2510 participants with mild and mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 in outpatient and inpatient settings comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo. All trial participants were without previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at high risk for progression to severe disease. Randomization coincided with the Delta wave for outpatients and Omicron wave for inpatients. Outpatient trial participants and 73% of inpatients were unvaccinated. Symptom onset in outpatients was no more than five days before randomisation and prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 were not allowed. We excluded two studies due to concerns with research integrity. We identified 13 ongoing studies. Three studies are currently awaiting classification. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 in outpatient settings Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC plus placebo may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.68; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence) and admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably has little or no effect on treatment-emergent adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably increases treatment-related adverse events such as dysgeusia and diarrhoea during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement of clinical status, quality of life, or viral clearance. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with moderate to severe COVID-19 in inpatient settings We are uncertain whether nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC reduces all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.86; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or increases viral clearance at seven days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.58; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 14 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement or worsening of clinical status and quality of life. We did not include data for safety outcomes due to insufficient and inconsistent information. Subgroup analyses for equity For outpatients, the outcome 'admission to hospital or death' was investigated for equity regarding age (less than 65 years versus 65 years or greater) and ethnicity. There were no subgroup differences for age or ethnicity. For inpatients, the outcome 'all-cause mortality' was investigated for equity regarding age (65 years or less versus greater than 65 years). There was no difference between subgroups of age. No further equity-related subgroups were reported, and no subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-certainty evidence suggests nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and hospital admission or death in high-risk, unvaccinated COVID-19 outpatients infected with the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence of the safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Very low-certainty evidence exists regarding the effects of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on all-cause mortality and viral clearance in mildly to moderately affected, mostly unvaccinated COVID-19 inpatients infected with the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. Insufficient and inconsistent information prevents the assessment of safety outcomes. No reliable differences in effect size and direction were found regarding equity aspects. There is no available evidence supporting the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. We are continually updating our search and making search results available on the OSF platform.

Antiplatelet agents for the treatment of adults with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause thrombotic events that lead to severe complications or death. Antiplatelet agents, such as acetylsalicylic acid, have been shown to effectively reduce thrombotic events in other diseases: they could influence the course of COVID-19 in general. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of antiplatelets given with standard care compared to no treatment or standard care (with/without placebo) for adults with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to December 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating antiplatelet agents for the treatment of COVID-19 in adults with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, gender or ethnicity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Antiplatelets plus standard care versus standard care (with/without placebo) Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19 We included four studies (17,541 participants) that recruited hospitalised people with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19. A total of 8964 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (either with cyclooxygenase inhibitors or P2Y12 inhibitors) and 8577 participants in the control arm. Most people were older than 50 years and had comorbidities such as hypertension, lung disease or diabetes. The studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income countries prior to wide-scale vaccination programmes. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.05; 3 studies, 17,249 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this means that for every 177 deaths per 1000 people not receiving antiplatelets, there were 168 deaths per 1000 people who did receive the intervention (95% CI 151 to 186 per 1000 people); - probably result in little to no difference in worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to day 28) (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.01; 2 studies, 15,266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in little to no difference in improvement (participants discharged alive up to day 28) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; 2 studies, 15,454 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in a slight reduction of thrombotic events at longest follow-up (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.02; 4 studies, 17,518 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events at longest follow-up (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.57, 95% CI 0.48 to 5.14; 1 study, 1815 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events during study treatment were not reported; - probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events at longest follow-up (Peto OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.19; 4 studies, 17,527 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 We included two RCTs allocating participants, of whom 4209 had confirmed mild COVID-19 and were not hospitalised. A total of 2109 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (treated with acetylsalicylic acid) and 2100 participants in the control arm. No study included people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality at day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.22; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may slightly decrease the incidence of new thrombotic events up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may make little or no difference to the incidence of serious adverse events up to day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.64; 1 study, 3881 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events were not reported. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antiplatelets on the following outcomes (compared to standard care plus placebo): - admission to hospital or death up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10; 2 studies, 4209 participants; very low-certainty evidence); - major bleeding events up to longest follow-up (no event occurred in 328 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life and adverse events during study treatment were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease, we found moderate-certainty evidence that antiplatelets probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, but probably result in a slight reduction in thrombotic events. They probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events. Low-certainty evidence suggests that antiplatelets may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events. In people with confirmed COVID-19 and mild symptoms, we found low-certainty evidence that antiplatelets may result in little to no difference in 45-day mortality and serious adverse events, and may slightly reduce thrombotic events. The effects on the combined outcome admission to hospital or death up to day 45 and major bleeding events are very uncertain. Quality of life was not reported. Included studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income settings using antiplatelets prior to vaccination roll-outs. We identified a lack of evidence concerning quality of life assessments, adverse events and people with asymptomatic infection. The 14 ongoing and three completed, unpublished RCTs that we identified in trial registries address similar settings and research questions as in the current body of evidence. We expect to incorporate the findings of these studies in future versions of this review.

Postoperative/postdischarge nausea and vomiting: evidence-based prevention and treatment.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Postoperative/postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PONV/PDNV) remains a relevant issue in perioperative care. Especially in outpatient surgery, PONV can prevent discharge or lead to unplanned readmission. RECENT FINDINGS: Evidence on prophylaxis and treatment of PONV is growing, but implementation remains poor. SUMMARY: A liberal, universal PONV management is now endorsed by the guidelines. Specific evidence concerning prevention and (at-home) treatment of PDNV is still scarce.

Nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir for preventing and treating COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. Due to its novelty, there are currently few published study results. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid®) plus standard of care compared to standard of care with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 and for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses. To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in-between publication of review updates. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Scopus, and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 11 July 2022.  This is a LSR. We conduct monthly update searches that are being made publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care with standard of care with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We screened all studies for research integrity. Studies were ineligible if they had been retracted, or if they were not prospectively registered including appropriate ethics approval. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology and used the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: 1. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19; 2. to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, quality of life, (serious) adverse events, and viral clearance; 3. to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP); and 4. pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) scenarios: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, and (serious) adverse events. We explored inequity by subgroup analysis for elderly people, socially-disadvantaged people with comorbidities, populations from LICs and LMICs, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds. MAIN RESULTS: As of 11 July 2022, we included one RCT with 2246 participants in outpatient settings with mild symptomatic COVID-19 comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care with standard of care plus placebo. Trial participants were unvaccinated, without previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, had a symptom onset of no more than five days before randomization, and were at high risk for progression to severe disease. Prohibited prior or concomitant therapies included medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 for clearance and CYP3A4 inducers.  We identified eight ongoing studies. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease For the specific population of unvaccinated, high-risk patients nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.68; 1 study, 2224 participants; estimated absolute effect: 11 deaths per 1000 people receiving placebo compared to 0 deaths per 1000 people receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; low-certainty evidence, and admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27; 1 study, 2224 participants; estimated absolute effect: 61 admissions or deaths per 1000 people receiving placebo compared to eight admissions or deaths per 1000 people receiving nirmatrelvir/ritonavir; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care probably has little or no effect on treatment-emergent adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably increases treatment-related adverse events such as dysgeusia and diarrhoea during the study period compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to standard of care plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No study results were identified for improvement of clinical status, quality of life, and viral clearance.  Subgroup analyses for equity Most study participants were younger than 65 years (87.1% of the : modified intention to treat (mITT1) population with 2085 participants), of white ethnicity (71.5%), and were from UMICs or HICs (92.1% of study centres). Data on comorbidities were insufficient.  The outcome 'admission to hospital or death' was investigated for equity: age (< 65 years versus ≥ 65 years) and ethnicity (Asian versus Black versus White versus others). There was no difference between subgroups of age. The effects favoured treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for the White ethnic group. Estimated effects in the other ethnic groups included the line of no effect (RR = 1). No subgroups were reported for comorbidity status and World Bank country classification by income level. No subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate to severe disease No studies available. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-certainty evidence that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and hospital admission or death based on one trial investigating unvaccinated COVID-19 participants without previous infection that were at high risk and with symptom onset of no more than five days. There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence that nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is safe in people without prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4. Regarding equity aspects, except for ethnicity, no differences in effect size and direction were identified. No evidence is available on nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to treat hospitalized people with COVID-19 and to prevent a SARS-CoV-2 infection. We will continually update our search and make search results available on OSF.

Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and HTA database weekly to identify completed and ongoing trials without language restrictions to 16 December 2021. Additionally, we included trials with > 1000 participants up to April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms.  For this review update, we reappraised eligible trials for research integrity: only RCTs prospectively registered in a trial registry according to WHO guidelines for clinical trial registration were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for outcomes in the following settings and populations: 1) to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, 2) to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19 (outcomes: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, (serious) adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance), and 3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection (outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital, mortality, adverse events and quality of life). MAIN RESULTS: We excluded seven of the 14 trials included in the previous review version; six were not prospectively registered and one was non-randomized. This updated review includes 11 trials with 3409 participants investigating ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo. No trial investigated ivermectin for prevention of infection or compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. Five trials treated participants with moderate COVID-19 (inpatient settings); six treated mild COVID-19 (outpatient settings). Eight trials were double-blind and placebo-controlled, and three were open-label. We assessed around 50% of the trial results as low risk of bias. We identified 31 ongoing trials. In addition, there are 28 potentially eligible trials without publication of results, or with disparities in the reporting of the methods and results, held in 'awaiting classification' until the trial authors clarify questions upon request. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate-to-severe disease We are uncertain whether ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo reduces or increases all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 3 trials, 230 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or clinical worsening, assessed by participants with new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.04; 2 trials, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or serious adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.89; 2 trials, 197 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may have little or no effect on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants discharged alive at day 28 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 trial, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.79; 3 trials, 228 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at 7 days (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.58; 3 trials, 231 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trial investigated quality of life at any time point. Ivermectin for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.25; 6 trials, 2860 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and little or no effect on quality of life, measured with the PROMIS Global-10 scale (physical component mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.98; and mental component MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.08 to 1.08; 1358 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect on clinical worsening, assessed by admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.20 to 6.02; 2 trials, 590 participants; low-certainty evidence); on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants with all initial symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.36; 2 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence); on serious adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.62 to 8.31; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.76; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at day 7 compared to placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48; 2 trials, 331 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for meta-analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For outpatients, there is currently low- to high-certainty evidence that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19. Based on the very low-certainty evidence for inpatients, we are still uncertain whether ivermectin prevents death or clinical worsening or increases serious adverse events, while there is low-certainty evidence that it has no beneficial effect regarding clinical improvement, viral clearance and adverse events. No evidence is available on ivermectin to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this update, certainty of evidence increased through higher quality trials including more participants. According to this review's living approach, we will continually update our search.

Immunity after COVID-19 vaccination in people with higher risk of compromised immune status: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: High efficacy in terms of protection from severe COVID-19 has been demonstrated for several SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. However, patients with compromised immune status develop a weaker and less stable immune response to vaccination. Strong immune response may not always translate into clinical benefit, therefore it is important to synthesise evidence on modified schemes and types of vaccination in these population subgroups for guiding health decisions. As the literature on COVID-19 vaccines continues to expand, we aimed to scope the literature on multiple subgroups to subsequently decide on the most relevant research questions to be answered by systematic reviews. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the availability of existing literature on immune response and long-term clinical outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination, and to map this evidence according to the examined populations, specific vaccines, immunity parameters, and their way of determining relevant long-term outcomes and the availability of mapping between immune reactivity and relevant outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Web of Science Core Collection, and the World Health Organization COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease on 6 December 2021.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that published results on immunity outcomes after vaccination with BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, AZD1222, Ad26.COV2.S, Sputnik V or Sputnik Light, BBIBP-CorV, or CoronaVac on predefined vulnerable subgroups such as people with malignancies, transplant recipients, people undergoing renal replacement therapy, and people with immune disorders, as well as pregnant and breastfeeding women, and children. We included studies if they had at least 100 participants (not considering healthy control groups); we excluded case studies and case series. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently and in duplicate onto an online data extraction form. Data were represented as tables and as online maps to show the frequency of studies for each item. We mapped the data according to study design, country of participant origin, patient comorbidity subgroup, intervention, outcome domains (clinical, safety, immunogenicity), and outcomes.  MAIN RESULTS: Out of 25,452 identified records, 318 studies with a total of more than 5 million participants met our eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Participants were recruited mainly from high-income countries between January 2020 and 31 October 2021 (282/318); the majority of studies included adult participants (297/318).  Haematological malignancies were the most commonly examined comorbidity group (N = 54), followed by solid tumours (N = 47), dialysis (N = 48), kidney transplant (N = 43), and rheumatic diseases (N = 28, 17, and 15 for mixed diseases, multiple sclerosis, and inflammatory bowel disease, respectively). Thirty-one studies included pregnant or breastfeeding women. The most commonly administered vaccine was BNT162b2 (N = 283), followed by mRNA-1273 (N = 153), AZD1222 (N = 66), Ad26.COV2.S (N = 42), BBIBP-CorV (N = 15), CoronaVac (N = 14), and Sputnik V (N = 5; no studies were identified for Sputnik Light). Most studies reported outcomes after regular vaccination scheme.  The majority of studies focused on immunogenicity outcomes, especially seroconversion based on binding antibody measurements and immunoglobulin G (IgG) titres (N = 179 and 175, respectively). Adverse events and serious adverse events were reported in 126 and 54 studies, whilst SARS-CoV-2 infection irrespective of severity was reported in 80 studies. Mortality due to SARS-CoV-2 infection was reported in 36 studies. Please refer to our evidence gap maps for more detailed information. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Up to 6 December 2021, the majority of studies examined data on mRNA vaccines administered as standard vaccination schemes (two doses approximately four to eight weeks apart) that report on immunogenicity parameters or adverse events. Clinical outcomes were less commonly reported, and if so, were often reported as a secondary outcome observed in seroconversion or immunoglobulin titre studies. As informed by this scoping review, two effectiveness reviews (on haematological malignancies and kidney transplant recipients) are currently being conducted.

[Update on PONV-What is new in prophylaxis and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting? : Summary of recent consensus recommendations and Cochrane reviews on prophylaxis and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting]. / Update PONV ­ Was gibt es Neues bei der Prophylaxe und Therapie von postoperativer Übelkeit und postoperativem Erbrechen? : Zusammenfassung rezenter Konsensusempfehlungen sowie Cochrane-Reviews zu Prophylaxe und Therapie postoperativer Übelkeit und postoperativen Erbrechens.

The prophylaxis and treatment of postoperative pain to enhance patient comfort has been a primary goal of anesthesiologists for the last decades; however, avoiding postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is, from a patient's perspective, a highly relevant and equally important goal of anesthesia. Recent consensus-based guidelines suggest the assessment of risk factors including female gender, postoperative opioid administration, non-smoking status, a history of PONV or motion sickness, young patient age, longer duration of anesthesia, volatile anesthetics and the type of surgery and reducing the patient's baseline risk (e.g. through the use of regional anesthesia and administration of non-opioid analgesics as part of a multimodal approach). In general, a liberal PONV prophylaxis is encouraged for adult patients and children, which should also be administered when no risk assessment is made. The basis for every adult patient should be a standard prophylaxis with two antiemetics, such as dexamethasone in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. In patients at high risk, this should be supplemented by a third and potentially a fourth antiemetic prophylaxis with a different mechanism of action. A recently published comprehensive Cochrane meta-analysis comparing available antiemetic prophylaxes reported the highest effectiveness to prevent PONV for the NK1 receptor antagonist aprepitant (relative risk, RR 0.26), followed by ramosetron (RR 0.44), granisetron (RR 0.45), dexamethasone (RR 0.51) and ondansetron (RR 0.55), thereby revising the dogma that every antiemetic is equally effective. Adverse events of antiemetics were generally rare and reported in less than half of the included studies, yielding a low quality of evidence for these end points. In general, combinations of different antiemetics were more effective than single prophylaxes. In children above 3 years of age, the same principles should be applied as in adults. For these patients, there is a high degree of evidence for the combination of dexamethasone and 5­HT3 receptor antagonists. When PONV occurs, the consensus guidelines suggest that antiemetics from a class different than given as prophylaxis should be administered. To decrease the incidence of PONV and increase the quality of care, the importance of the implementation of institutional-level guidelines and protocols as well as assessment of PONV prophylaxis and PONV incidence is highly recommended.

Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Ivermectin, an antiparasitic agent used to treat parasitic infestations, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in the early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on efficacy and safety of ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin compared to no treatment, standard of care, placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), medRxiv, and Research Square, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 26 May 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to no treatment, standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity, treated in inpatient or outpatient settings, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms.  We excluded studies comparing ivermectin to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. The primary analysis excluded studies with high risk of bias. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes 1. to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, adverse events, quality of life, duration of hospitalization, and viral clearance; 2. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, admission to hospital, adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance; (3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, adverse events, mortality, admission to hospital, and quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: We found 14 studies with 1678 participants investigating ivermectin compared to no treatment, placebo, or standard of care. No study compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. There were nine studies treating participants with moderate COVID-19 in inpatient settings and four treating mild COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings. One study investigated ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Eight studies had an open-label design, six were double-blind and placebo-controlled. Of the 41 study results contributed by included studies, about one third were at overall high risk of bias.  Ivermectin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies.  We identified 31 ongoing and 18 studies awaiting classification until publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies. Ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care for inpatient COVID-19 treatment We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care reduces or increases mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 2 studies, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and clinical worsening up to day 28 assessed as need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.59; 2 studies, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or need for supplemental oxygen (0 participants required supplemental oxygen; 1 study, 45 participants; very low-certainty evidence), adverse events within 28 days (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.97; 1 study, 152 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and viral clearance at day seven (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.51 to 6.48; 2 studies, 159 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care on clinical improvement up to 28 days (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 study; 73 participants; low-certainty evidence) and duration of hospitalization (mean difference (MD) -0.10 days, 95% CI -2.43 to 2.23; 1 study; 45 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported quality of life up to 28 days. Ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care for outpatient COVID-19 treatment We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo or standard of care reduces or increases mortality up to 28 days (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.05; 2 studies, 422 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and clinical worsening up to 14 days assessed as need for IMV (RR 2.97, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.47; 1 study, 398 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or non-IMV or high flow oxygen requirement (0 participants required non-IMV or high flow; 1 study, 398 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether ivermectin compared to placebo reduces or increases viral clearance at seven days (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 67.06; 1 study, 24 participants; low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care on the number of participants with symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.21; 1 study, 398 participants; low-certainty evidence) and adverse events within 28 days (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.05; 2 studies, 422 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for primary analysis. No study reported hospital admission or quality of life up to 14 days. Ivermectin compared to no treatment for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection We found one study. Mortality up to 28 days was the only outcome eligible for primary analysis. We are uncertain whether ivermectin reduces or increases mortality compared to no treatment (0 participants died; 1 study, 304 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported results for development of COVID-19 symptoms and adverse events up to 14 days that were included in a secondary analysis due to high risk of bias. No study reported SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospital admission, and quality of life up to 14 days. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current very low- to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the efficacy and safety of ivermectin used to treat or prevent COVID-19. The completed studies are small and few are considered high quality. Several studies are underway that may produce clearer answers in review updates. Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 outside of well-designed randomized trials.

Antibiotics for the treatment of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The effect of antibiotics with potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties are being investigated in clinical trials as treatment for COVID-19. The use of antibiotics follows the intention-to-treat the viral disease and not primarily to treat bacterial co-infections of individuals with COVID-19. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding effectiveness and safety of antibiotics as anti-viral treatments for COVID-19 based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotics compared to each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or any other active intervention with proven efficacy for treatment of COVID-19 outpatients and inpatients.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 14 June 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs were included that compared antibiotics with each other, no treatment, standard of care alone, placebo, or another proven intervention, for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, treated in the in- or outpatient settings. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms. We excluded studies comparing antibiotics to other pharmacological interventions with unproven efficacy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) for RCTs. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: 1. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as new need for intubation or death, clinical improvement defined as being discharged alive, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias; 2. to treat outpatients with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening defined as hospital admission or death, clinical improvement defined as symptom resolution, quality of life, adverse and serious adverse events, and cardiac arrhythmias. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 studies with 11,281 participants with an average age of 54 years investigating antibiotics compared to placebo, standard of care alone or another antibiotic. No study was found comparing antibiotics to an intervention with proven efficacy. All studies investigated azithromycin, two studies investigated other antibiotics compared to azithromycin. Seven studies investigated inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19 and four investigated mild COVID-19 cases in outpatient settings. Eight studies had an open-label design, two were blinded with a placebo control, and one did not report on blinding. We identified 19 ongoing and 15 studies awaiting classification pending publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies. Of the 30 study results contributing to primary outcomes by included studies, 17 were assessed as overall low risk and 13 as some concerns of bias. Only studies investigating azithromycin reported data eligible for the prioritised primary outcomes. Azithromycin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies.  Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in inpatients We are very certain that azithromycin has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 compared to standard of care alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.06; 8600 participants; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence). Azithromycin probably has little or no effect on clinical worsening or death at day 28 (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; 7311 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), on clinical improvement at day 28 (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11; 8172 participants; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), on serious adverse events during the study period (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.40; 794 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiac arrhythmias during the study period (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.15; 7865 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard of care alone. Azithromycin may increase any adverse events slightly during the study period (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.57; 355 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence) compared to standard of care alone. No study reported quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to placebo or standard of care alone in outpatients Azithromycin may have little or no effect compared to placebo or standard of care alone on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 1.00 ; 95% CI 0.06 to 15.69; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.94 ; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.56; 876 participants; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), and on symptom resolution at day 14 (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 138 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether azithromycin increases or reduces serious adverse events compared to placebo or standard of care alone (0 participants experienced serious adverse events; 454 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported on adverse events, cardiac arrhythmias during the study period or quality of life up to 28 days. Azithromycin for the treatment of COVID-19 compared to any other antibiotics in inpatients and outpatients One study compared azithromycin to lincomycin in inpatients, but did not report any primary outcome. Another study compared azithromycin to clarithromycin in outpatients, but did not report any relevant outcome for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are certain that risk of death in hospitalised COVID-19 patients is not reduced by treatment with azithromycin after 28 days. Further, based on moderate-certainty evidence, patients in the inpatient setting with moderate and severe disease probably do not benefit from azithromycin used as potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment for COVID-19 regarding clinical worsening or improvement. For the outpatient setting, there is currently low-certainty evidence that azithromycin may have no beneficial effect for COVID-19 individuals. There is no evidence from RCTs available for other antibiotics as antiviral and anti-inflammatory treatment of COVID-19. With accordance to the living approach of this review, we will continually update our search and include eligible trials to fill this evidence gap. However, in relation to the evidence for azithromycin and in the context of antimicrobial resistance, antibiotics should not be used for treatment of COVID-19 outside well-designed RCTs.

Intraoperative management of combined general anesthesia and thoracic epidural analgesia: A survey among German anesthetists.

BACKGROUND: Evidence concerning combined general anesthesia (GA) and thoracic epidural analgesia (EA) is controversial and the procedure appears heterogeneous in clinical implementation. We aimed to gain an overview of different approaches and to unveil a suspected heterogeneity concerning the intraoperative management of combined GA and EA. METHODS: This was an anonymous survey among Members of the Scientific working group for regional anesthesia within the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) conducted from February 2020 to August 2020. RESULTS: The response rate was 38%. The majority of participants were experienced anesthetists with high expertise for the specific regimen of combined GA and EA. Most participants establish EA in the sitting position (94%), prefer early epidural initiation (prior to skin incision: 80%; intraoperative: 14%) and administer ropivacaine (89%) in rather low concentrations (0.2%: 45%; 0.375%: 30%; 0.75%: 15%) mostly with an opioid (84%) in a bolus-based mode (95%). The majority reduce systemic opioid doses intraoperatively if EA works sufficiently (minimal systemic opioids: 58%; analgesia exclusively via EA: 34%). About 85% manage intraoperative EA insufficiency with systemic opioids, 52% try to escalate EA, and only 25% use non-opioids, e.g. intravenous ketamine or lidocaine. CONCLUSIONS: Although, consensus seems to be present for several aspects (patient's position during epidural puncture, main epidural substance, application mode), there is considerable heterogeneity regarding systemic opioids, rescue strategies for insufficient EA, and hemodynamic management, which might explain inconsistent results of previous trials and meta-analyses.

Trial registration and selective outcome reporting in 585 clinical trials investigating drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Selective outcome reporting in clinical trials introduces bias in the body of evidence distorting clinical decision making. Trial registration aims to prevent this bias and is suggested by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) since 2004. METHODS: The 585 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1965 and 2017 that were included in a recently published Cochrane review on antiemetic drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting were selected. In a retrospective study, we assessed trial registration and selective outcome reporting by comparing study publications with their registered protocols according to the 'Cochrane Risk of bias' assessment tool 1.0. RESULTS: In the Cochrane review, the first study which referred to a registered trial protocol was published in 2004. Of all 585 trials included in the Cochrane review, 334 RCTs were published in 2004 or later, of which only 22% (75/334) were registered. Among the registered trials, 36% (27/75) were pro- and 64% (48/75) were retrospectively registered. 41% (11/27) of the prospectively registered trials were free of selective outcome reporting bias, 22% (6/27) were incompletely registered and assessed as unclear risk, and 37% (10/27) were assessed as high risk. Major outcome discrepancies between registered and published high risk trials were a change from the registered primary to a published secondary outcome (32%), a new primary outcome (26%), and different outcome assessment times (26%). Among trials with high risk of selective outcome reporting 80% favoured at least one statistically significant result. Registered trials were assessed more often as 'overall low risk of bias' compared to non-registered trials (64% vs 28%). CONCLUSIONS: In 2017, 13 years after the ICMJE declared prospective protocol registration a necessity for reliable clinical studies, the frequency and quality of trial registration in the field of PONV is very poor. Selective outcome reporting reduces trustworthiness in findings of clinical trials. Investigators and clinicians should be aware that only following a properly registered protocol and transparently reporting of predefined outcomes, regardless of the direction and significance of the result, will ultimately strengthen the body of evidence in the field of PONV research in the future.