Efficacy of sustained knowledge translation (KT) interventions in chronic disease management in older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of complex interventions.

BACKGROUND: Chronic disease management (CDM) through sustained knowledge translation (KT) interventions ensures long-term, high-quality care. We assessed implementation of KT interventions for supporting CDM and their efficacy when sustained in older adults. METHODS: Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis engaging 17 knowledge users using integrated KT. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults (> 65 years old) with chronic disease(s), their caregivers, health and/or policy-decision makers receiving a KT intervention to carry out a CDM intervention for at least 12 months (versus other KT interventions or usual care). INFORMATION SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from each database's inception to March 2020. OUTCOME MEASURES: Sustainability, fidelity, adherence of KT interventions for CDM practice, quality of life (QOL) and quality of care (QOC). Data extraction, risk of bias (ROB) assessment: We screened, abstracted and appraised articles (Effective Practice and Organisation of Care ROB tool) independently and in duplicate. DATA SYNTHESIS: We performed both random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses and estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data. RESULTS: We included 158 RCTs (973,074 participants [961,745 patients, 5540 caregivers, 5789 providers]) and 39 companion reports comprising 329 KT interventions, involving patients (43.2%), healthcare providers (20.7%) or both (10.9%). We identified 16 studies described as assessing sustainability in 8.1% interventions, 67 studies as assessing adherence in 35.6% interventions and 20 studies as assessing fidelity in 8.7% of the interventions. Most meta-analyses suggested that KT interventions improved QOL, but imprecisely (36 item Short-Form mental [SF-36 mental]: MD 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] [- 1.25, 3.47], 14 RCTs, 5876 participants, I2 = 96%; European QOL-5 dimensions: MD 0.01, 95% CI [- 0.01, 0.02], 15 RCTs, 6628 participants, I2 = 25%; St George's Respiratory Questionnaire: MD - 2.12, 95% CI [- 3.72, - 0.51] 44 12 RCTs, 2893 participants, I2 = 44%). KT interventions improved QOC (OR 1.55, 95% CI [1.29, 1.85], 12 RCTS, 5271 participants, I2 = 21%). CONCLUSIONS: KT intervention sustainability was infrequently defined and assessed. Sustained KT interventions have the potential to improve QOL and QOC in older adults with CDM. However, their overall efficacy remains uncertain and it varies by effect modifiers, including intervention type, chronic disease number, comorbidities, and participant age. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018084810.

Antibiotics for acute otitis media in children.

BACKGROUND: Acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common diseases in childhood for which antibiotics are commonly prescribed; a systematic review reported a pooled prevalence of 85.6% in high-income countries. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in the Cochrane Library in 1997 and updated in 1999, 2005, 2009, 2013 and 2015. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antibiotics for children with AOM. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Current Contents, CINAHL, LILACS and two trial registers. The date of the search was 14 February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing 1) antimicrobial drugs with placebo, and 2) immediate antibiotic treatment with expectant observation (including delayed antibiotic prescribing) in children with AOM. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion and extracted data using the standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were: 1) pain at various time points (24 hours, two to three days, four to seven days, 10 to 14 days), and 2) adverse effects likely to be related to the use of antibiotics. Secondary outcomes were: 1) abnormal tympanometry findings, 2) tympanic membrane perforation, 3) contralateral otitis (in unilateral cases), 4) AOM recurrences, 5) serious complications related to AOM and 6) long-term effects (including the number of parent-reported AOM symptom episodes, antibiotic prescriptions and health care utilisation as assessed at least one year after randomisation). We used the GRADE approach to rate the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome of interest. MAIN RESULTS: Antibiotics versus placebo We included 13 trials (3401 children and 3938 AOM episodes) from high-income countries, which we assessed at generally low risk of bias. Antibiotics do not reduce pain at 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.01; 5 trials, 1394 children; high-certainty evidence), or at four to seven days (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.14; 7 trials, 1264 children), but result in almost a third fewer children having pain at two to three days (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.88; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 20; 7 trials, 2320 children; high-certainty evidence), and likely result in two-thirds fewer having pain at 10 to 12 days (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66; NNTB 7; 1 trial, 278 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Antibiotics increase the risk of adverse events such as vomiting, diarrhoea or rash (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.63; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 14; 8 trials, 2107 children; high-certainty evidence). Antibiotics reduce the risk of children having abnormal tympanometry findings at two to four weeks (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96; NNTB 11; 7 trials, 2138 children), slightly reduce the risk of experiencing tympanic membrane perforations (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.89; NNTB 33; 5 trials, 1075 children) and halve the risk of contralateral otitis episodes (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.95; NNTB 11; 4 trials, 906 children). However, antibiotics do not reduce the risk of abnormal tympanometry findings at six to eight weeks (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.13; 3 trials, 953 children) and at three months (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.34; 3 trials, 809 children) or late AOM recurrences (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.11; 6 trials, 2200 children). Severe complications were rare, and the evidence suggests that serious complications do not differ between children treated with either antibiotics or placebo. Immediate antibiotics versus expectant observation We included six trials (1556 children) from high-income countries. The evidence suggests that immediate antibiotics may result in a reduction of pain at two to three days (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.79; NNTB 8; 1 trial, 396 children; low-certainty evidence), but probably do not reduce the risk of pain at three to seven days (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.12; 4 trials, 959 children; moderate-certainty evidence), and may not reduce the risk of pain at 11 to 14 days (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10; 1 trial, 247 children; low-certainty evidence). Immediate antibiotics increase the risk of vomiting, diarrhoea or rash (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.51; NNTH 10; 3 trials, 946 children; high-certainty evidence). Immediate antibiotics probably do not reduce the proportion of children with abnormal tympanometry findings at four weeks and evidence suggests that immediate antibiotics may not reduce the risk of tympanic membrane perforation and AOM recurrences. No serious complications occurred in either group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review reveals that antibiotics probably have no effect on pain at 24 hours, a slight effect on pain in the days following and only a modest effect on the number of children with tympanic perforations, contralateral otitis episodes and abnormal tympanometry findings at two to four weeks compared with placebo in children with AOM. In high-income countries, most cases of AOM spontaneously remit without complications. The benefits of antibiotics must be weighed against the possible harms: for every 14 children treated with antibiotics, one child experienced an adverse event (such as vomiting, diarrhoea or rash) that would not have occurred if antibiotics were withheld. For most children with mild disease in high-income countries, an expectant observational approach seems justified. Therefore, clinical management should emphasise advice about adequate analgesia and the limited role for antibiotics.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.

BACKGROUND: Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020. We include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and two trials registers in October 2022, with backwards and forwards citation analysis on the new studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, glasses, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included 12 trials (10 cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI)/COVID-19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza/SARS-CoV-2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low-certainty evidence).  One previously reported ongoing RCT has now been published and observed that medical/surgical masks were non-inferior to N95 respirators in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID-19 patients.  Hand hygiene compared to control Nineteen trials compared hand hygiene interventions with controls with sufficient data to include in meta-analyses. Settings included schools, childcare centres and homes. Comparing hand hygiene interventions with controls (i.e. no intervention), there was a 14% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.90; 9 trials, 52,105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 380 events per 1000 people to 327 per 1000 people (95% CI 308 to 342). When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; 11 trials, 34,503 participants; low-certainty evidence), and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials, 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence), suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled 19 trials (71, 210 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. Pooled data showed that hand hygiene may be beneficial with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 200 events per 1000 people to 178 per 1000 people (95% CI 166 to 188). Few trials measured and reported harms (very low-certainty evidence). We found no RCTs on gowns and gloves, face shields, or screening at entry ports. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

Antibiotics for treatment of sore throat in children and adults.

BACKGROUND: Sore throat is a common reason for people to present for medical care and to be prescribed antibiotics. Overuse of antibiotics in primary medicine is a concern, hence it is important to establish their efficacy in treating sore throat and preventing secondary complications.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antibiotics for reducing symptoms of sore throat for child and adult patients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL 2021, Issue 2, MEDLINE (January 1966 to April week 1, 2021), Embase (January 1990 to April 2021), and two trial registries (searched 6 April 2021). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of antibiotics versus control assessing typical sore throat symptoms or complications amongst children and adults seeking medical care for sore throat symptoms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion and extracted data, resolving any differences in opinion by discussion. We contacted the trial authors from three studies for additional information. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for the efficacy of antibiotics on our primary outcomes (sore throat at day three and one week) and secondary outcomes (fever and headache symptoms and incidence of acute rheumatic fever, acute glomerulonephritis, acute otitis media, acute sinusitis, and quinsy). MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 trials with 15,337 cases of sore throat. The majority of included studies were conducted in the 1950s, during which time the rates of serious complications (especially acute rheumatic fever) were much higher than today. Although clinical antibiotic trials for sore throat and respiratory symptoms are still being conducted, it is unusual for them to include placebo or 'no treatment' control arms, which is a requirement for inclusion in the review. The age of participants ranged from younger than one year to older than 50 years, but most participants across all studies were adults. Although all studies recruited patients presenting with symptoms of sore throat, few of them distinguished between bacterial and viral aetiology. Bias may have been introduced through non-clarity in treatment allocation procedures and lack of blinding in some studies. Harms from antibiotics were poorly or inconsistently reported, and were thus not quantified for this review. 1. Symptoms Throat soreness and headache at day three were reduced by using antibiotics, although 82% of participants in the placebo or no treatment group were symptom-free by one week. The reduction in sore throat symptoms at day three (risk ratio (RR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.80; 16 studies, 3730 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) was greater than at one week in absolute numbers (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.75; 14 studies, 3083 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) due to many cases in both treatment groups having resolved by this time. The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) to prevent one sore throat at day three was less than six; at week one it was 18. Compared with placebo or no treatment, antibiotics did not significantly reduce fever at day three (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.07; 8 studies, 1443 participants; high-certainty evidence), but did reduce headache at day three (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.70; 4 studies, 1020 participants; high-certainty evidence). 2. Suppurative complications Whilst the prevalence of suppurative complications was low, antibiotics reduced the incidence of acute otitis media within 14 days (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.40; 10 studies, 3646 participants; high-certainty evidence) and quinsy within two months (Peto OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.35; 8 studies, 2433 participants; high-certainty evidence) compared to those receiving placebo or no treatment, but not acute sinusitis within 14 days (Peto OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.05; 8 studies, 2387 participants; high-certainty evidence). 3. Non-suppurative complications There were too few cases of acute glomerulonephritis to determine whether there was a protective effect of antibiotics compared with placebo against this complication (Peto OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.32; 10 studies, 5147 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antibiotics reduced acute rheumatic fever within two months when compared to the control group (Peto OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.50; 18 studies, 12,249 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It should be noted that the overall prevalence of acute rheumatic fever was very low, particularly in the later studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotics probably reduce the number of people experiencing sore throat, and reduce the likelihood of headache, and some sore throat complications. As the effect on symptoms can be small, clinicians must judge on an individual basis whether it is clinically justifiable to use antibiotics to produce this effect, and whether the underlying cause of the sore throat is likely to be of bacterial origin. Furthermore, the balance between modest symptom reduction and the potential hazards of antimicrobial resistance must be recognised. Few trials have attempted to measure symptom severity. If antibiotics reduce the severity as well as the duration of symptoms, their benefit will have been underestimated in this meta-analysis. Additionally, more trials are needed in low-income countries, in socio-economically deprived sections of high-income countries, as well as in children.

Estimating the magnitude of cancer overdiagnosis in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the proportion of cancer diagnoses in Australia that might reasonably be attributed to overdiagnosis by comparing current and past lifetime risks of cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Routinely collected Australian Institute of Health and Welfare national data were analysed to estimate recent (2012) and historical (1982) lifetime risks (adjusted for competing risk of death and changes in risk factors) of diagnoses with five cancers: prostate, breast, renal, thyroid cancers, and melanoma. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Difference in lifetime risks of cancer diagnosis between 1982 and 2012, interpreted as probable overdiagnosis. RESULTS: For women, absolute lifetime risk increased by 3.4 percentage points for breast cancer (invasive cancers, 1.7 percentage points), 0.6 percentage point for renal cancer, 1.0 percentage point for thyroid cancer, and 5.1 percentage points for melanoma (invasive melanoma, 0.7 percentage point). An estimated 22% of breast cancers (invasive cancers, 13%), 58% of renal cancers, 73% of thyroid cancers, and 54% of melanomas (invasive melanoma, 15%) were overdiagnosed, or 18% of all cancer diagnoses (8% of invasive cancer diagnoses). For men, absolute lifetime risk increased by 8.2 percentage points for prostate cancer, 0.8 percentage point for renal cancer, 0.4 percentage point for thyroid cancer, and 8.0 percentage points for melanoma (invasive melanoma, 1.5 percentage points). An estimated 42% of prostate cancers, 42% of renal cancers, 73% of thyroid cancers, and 58% of melanomas (invasive melanomas, 22%) were overdiagnosed, or 24% of all cancer diagnoses (16% of invasive cancer diagnoses). Alternative assumptions slightly modified the estimates for overdiagnosis of breast cancer and melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: About 11 000 cancers in women and 18 000 in men may be overdiagnosed each year. Rates of overdiagnosis need to be reduced and health services should monitor emerging areas of overdiagnosis.

Is the risk of cancer in Australia overstated? The importance of competing mortality for estimating lifetime risk.

OBJECTIVES: To calculate lifetime risks of cancer diagnosis and cancer-specific death, adjusted for competing mortality, and to compare these estimates with the corresponding risks published by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). DESIGN, SETTING: Analysis of publicly available annual AIHW data on age-specific cancer incidence and mortality - for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, melanoma of the skin, and lung cancer - and all-cause mortality in Australia, 1982-2013. OUTCOME MEASURES: Lifetime risks of cancer diagnosis and mortality (to age 85), adjusted for competing mortality. RESULTS: During 1982-2013, AIHW estimates were consistently higher than our competing mortality-adjusted estimates of lifetime risks of diagnosis and death for all five cancers. Differences between AIHW and adjusted estimates declined with time for breast cancer, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, and lung cancer (for men only), but remained steady for lung cancer (women only) and melanoma of the skin. In 2013, the respective estimated lifetime risks of diagnosis (AIHW and adjusted) were 12.7% and 12.1% for breast cancer, 18.7% and 16.2% for prostate cancer, 9.0% and 7.0% (men) and 6.4% and 5.5% (women) for colorectal cancer, 7.5% and 6.0% (men) and 4.4% and 4.0% (women) for melanoma of the skin, and 7.6% and 5.8% (men) and 4.5% and 3.9% (women) for lung cancer. CONCLUSION: The method employed in Australia to calculate the lifetime risks of cancer diagnosis and mortality overestimates these risks, especially for men.

Corticosteroids as standalone or add-on treatment for sore throat.

BACKGROUND: Sore throat is a common condition associated with a high rate of antibiotic prescriptions, despite limited evidence for the effectiveness of antibiotics. Corticosteroids may improve symptoms of sore throat by reducing inflammation of the upper respiratory tract. This review is an update to our review published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical benefit and safety of corticosteroids in reducing the symptoms of sore throat in adults and children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (Issue 4, 2019), MEDLINE (1966 to 14 May 2019), Embase (1974 to 14 May 2019), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE, 2002 to 2015), and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (inception to 2015). We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared steroids to either placebo or standard care in adults and children (aged over three years) with sore throat. We excluded studies of hospitalised participants, those with infectious mononucleosis (glandular fever), sore throat following tonsillectomy or intubation, or peritonsillar abscess. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included one new RCT in this update, for a total of nine trials involving 1319 participants (369 children and 950 adults). In eight trials, participants in both corticosteroid and placebo groups received antibiotics; one trial offered delayed prescription of antibiotics based on clinical assessment. Only two trials reported funding sources (government and a university foundation). In addition to any effect of antibiotics and analgesia, corticosteroids increased the likelihood of complete resolution of pain at 24 hours by 2.40 times (risk ratio (RR) 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29 to 4.47; P = 0.006; I² = 67%; high-certainty evidence) and at 48 hours by 1.5 times (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.76; P < 0.001; I² = 0%; high-certainty evidence). Five people need to be treated to prevent one person continuing to experience pain at 24 hours. Corticosteroids also reduced the mean time to onset of pain relief and the mean time to complete resolution of pain by 6 and 11.6 hours, respectively, although significant heterogeneity was present (moderate-certainty evidence). At 24 hours, pain (assessed by visual analogue scales) was reduced by an additional 10.6% by corticosteroids (moderate-certainty evidence). No differences were reported in recurrence/relapse rates, days missed from work or school, or adverse events for participants taking corticosteroids compared to placebo. However, the reporting of adverse events was poor, and only two trials included children or reported days missed from work or school. The included studies were assessed as moderate quality evidence, but the small number of included studies has the potential to increase the uncertainty, particularly in terms of applying these results to children. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oral or intramuscular corticosteroids, in addition to antibiotics, moderately increased the likelihood of both resolution and improvement of pain in participants with sore throat. Given the limited benefit, further research into the harms and benefits of short courses of steroids is needed to permit informed decision-making.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.

BACKGROUND: Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011. The evidence summarised in this review does not include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL on 1 April 2020. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP on 16 March 2020. We conducted a backwards and forwards citation analysis on the newly included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of trials investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission. In previous versions of this review we also included observational studies. However, for this update, there were sufficient RCTs to address our study aims.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Three pairs of review authors independently extracted data using a standard template applied in previous versions of this review, but which was revised to reflect our focus on RCTs and cluster-RCTs for this update. We did not contact trialists for missing data due to the urgency in completing the review. We extracted data on adverse events (harms) associated with the interventions. MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs in this update, bringing the total number of randomised trials to 67. There were no included studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Six ongoing studies were identified, of which three evaluating masks are being conducted concurrent with the COVID pandemic, and one is completed. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods, but several studies were conducted during the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Thus, studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Compliance with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included nine trials (of which eight were cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and seven in the community). There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported. Two studies during COVID-19 plan to recruit a total of 72,000 people. One evaluates medical/surgical masks (N = 6000) (published Annals of Internal Medicine, 18 Nov 2020), and one evaluates cloth masks (N = 66,000). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). There is uncertainty over the effects of N95/P2 respirators when compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcomes of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; very low-certainty evidence; 3 trials; 7779 participants) and ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; low-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). The evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirator compared to a medical/surgical mask probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; moderate-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). Restricting the pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies. One ongoing study recruiting 576 people compares N95/P2 respirators with medical surgical masks for healthcare workers during COVID-19. Hand hygiene compared to control Settings included schools, childcare centres, homes, and offices. In a comparison of hand hygiene interventions with control (no intervention), there was a 16% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.86; 7 trials; 44,129 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13; 10 trials; 32,641 participants; low-certainty evidence) and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials; 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence) suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled all 16 trials (61,372 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. The pooled data showed that hand hygiene may offer a benefit with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. Few trials measured and reported harms. There are two ongoing studies of handwashing interventions in 395 children outside of COVID-19. We identified one RCT on quarantine/physical distancing. Company employees in Japan were asked to stay at home if household members had ILI symptoms. Overall fewer people in the intervention group contracted influenza compared with workers in the control group (2.75% versus 3.18%; hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97). However, those who stayed at home with their infected family members were 2.17 times more likely to be infected. We found no RCTs on eye protection, gowns and gloves, or screening at entry ports. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low compliance with the interventions during the studies hamper drawing firm conclusions and generalising the findings to the current COVID-19 pandemic. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low-moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

D-Dimer Predicts Long-Term Cause-Specific Mortality, Cardiovascular Events, and Cancer in Patients With Stable Coronary Heart Disease: LIPID Study.

BACKGROUND: D-dimer, a degradation product of cross-linked fibrin, is a marker for hypercoagulability and thrombotic events. Moderately elevated levels of D-dimer are associated with the risk of venous and arterial events in patients with vascular disease. We assessed the role of D-dimer levels in predicting long-term vascular outcomes, cause-specific mortality, and new cancers in the LIPID trial (Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease) in the context of other risk factors. METHODS: LIPID randomized patients to placebo or pravastatin 40 mg/d 5 to 38 months after myocardial infarction or unstable angina. D-dimer levels were measured at baseline and at 1 year. Median follow-up was 6.0 years during the trial and 16 years in total. RESULTS: Baseline D-dimer levels for 7863 patients were grouped by quartile (≤112, 112-173, 173-273, >273 ng/mL). Higher levels were associated with older age, female sex, history of hypertension, poor renal function, and elevated levels of B-natriuretic peptide, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and sensitive troponin I (each P<0.001). During the first 6 years, after adjustment for up to 30 additional risk factors, higher D-dimer was associated with a significantly increased risk of a major coronary event (quartile 4 versus 1: hazard ratio [HR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.74), major cardiovascular disease (CVD) event (HR, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-1.71) and venous thromboembolism (HR, 4.03; 95% confidence interval, 2.31-7.03; each P<0.001). During the 16 years overall, higher D-dimer was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality (HR, 1.59), CVD mortality (HR, 1.61), cancer mortality (HR, 1.54), and non-CVD noncancer mortality (HR, 1.57; each P<0.001), remaining significant for deaths resulting from each cause occurring beyond 10 years of follow-up (each P≤0.01). Higher D-dimer also independently predicted an increase in cancer incidence (HR, 1.16; P=0.02).The D-dimer level increased the net reclassification index for all-cause mortality by 4.0 and venous thromboembolism by 13.6. CONCLUSIONS: D-dimer levels predict long-term risk of arterial and venous events, CVD mortality, and non-CVD noncancer mortality independent of other risk factors. D-dimer is also a significant predictor of cancer incidence and mortality. These results support an association of D-dimer with fatal events across multiple diseases and demonstrate that this link extends beyond 10 years' follow-up.

External validation and comparison of four cardiovascular risk prediction models with data from the Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of the 2013 Pooled Cohort Risk Equation (PCE-ASCVD) for predicting cardiovascular disease (CVD) in an Australian population; to compare this performance with that of three frequently used Framingham-based CVD risk prediction models. DESIGN: Prospective national population-based cohort study. SETTING: 42 randomly selected urban and non-urban areas in six Australian states and the Northern Territory. PARTICIPANTS: 5453 adults aged 40-74 years enrolled in the Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle study and followed until November 2011. We excluded participants who had CVD at baseline or for whom data required for risk model calculations were missing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Predicted and observed 10-year CVD risks (adjusted for treatment drop-in); performance (calibration and discrimination) of four CVD risk prediction models: 1991 Framingham, 2008 Framingham, 2008 office-based Framingham, 2013 PCE-ASCVD. RESULTS: The performance of the 2013 PCE-ASCVD model was slightly better than 1991 Framingham, and each was better the two 2008 Framingham risk models, both in men and women. However, all four models overestimated 10-year CVD risk, particularly for patients in higher deciles of predicted risk. The 2013 PCE-ASCVD (7.5% high risk threshold) identified 46% of men and 18% of women as being at high risk; the 1991 Framingham model (20% threshold) identified 17% of men and 2% of women as being at high risk. Only 16% of men and 11% of women identified as being at high risk by the 2013 PCE-ASCVD experienced a CV event within 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: The 2013 PCE-ASCVD or 1991 Framingham should be used as CVD risk models in Australian. However, the CVD high risk threshold for initiating CVD primary preventive therapy requires reconsideration.

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication.

BACKGROUND: Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event. MAIN RESULTS: We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; I² = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.

Long-Term Effectiveness and Safety of Pravastatin in Patients With Coronary Heart Disease: Sixteen Years of Follow-Up of the LIPID Study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the long-term effects of treatment with statin therapy on all-cause mortality, cause-specific mortality, and cancer incidence from extended follow-up of the Long-term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischemic Disease (LIPID) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: LIPID initially compared pravastatin and placebo over 6 years in 9014 patients with previous coronary heart disease. After the double-blind period, all patients were offered open-label statin therapy. Data were obtained over a further 10 years from 7721 patients, by direct contact for 2 years, by questionnaires thereafter, and from mortality and cancer registries. During extended follow-up, 85% assigned pravastatin and 84% assigned placebo took statin therapy. Patients assigned pravastatin maintained a significantly lower risk of death from coronary heart disease (relative risk [RR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.97; P=0.009), from cardiovascular disease (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.95; P=0.002), and from any cause (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.97; absolute risk reduction, 2.6%; P=0.003).Cancer incidence was similar by original treatment group during the double-blind period (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82-1.08; P=0.41), later follow-up (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.14; P=0.74), and overall (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91-1.08; P=0.83). There were no significant differences in cancer mortality, or in the incidence of organ-specific cancers. Cancer findings were confirmed in a meta-analysis with other large statin trials with extended follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In LIPID, the absolute survival benefit from 6 years of pravastatin treatment appeared to be maintained for the next 10 years, with a similar risk of death among survivors in both groups after the initial period. Treatment with statins does not influence cancer or death from noncardiovascular causes during long-term follow-up.