Temporal trends in associations between severe mental illness and risk of cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Severe mental illness (SMI; schizophrenia, bipolar disorders (BDs), and other nonorganic psychoses) is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and CVD-related mortality. To date, no systematic review has investigated changes in population level CVD-related mortality over calendar time. It is unclear if this relationship has changed over time in higher-income countries with changing treatments. METHODS AND FINDINGS: To address this gap, a systematic review was conducted, to assess the association between SMI and CVD including temporal change. Seven databases were searched (last: November 30, 2021) for cohort or case-control studies lasting ≥1 year, comparing frequency of CVD mortality or incidence in high-income countries between people with versus without SMI. No language restrictions were applied. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to compute pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and rate ratios, pooled standardised mortality ratios (SMRs), pooled odds ratios (ORs), and pooled risk ratios (RRs) of CVD in those with versus without SMI. Temporal trends were explored by decade. Subgroup analyses by age, sex, setting, world region, and study quality (Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) score) were conducted. The narrative synthesis included 108 studies, and the quantitative synthesis 59 mortality studies (with (≥1,841,356 cases and 29,321,409 controls) and 28 incidence studies (≥401,909 cases and 14,372,146 controls). The risk of CVD-related mortality for people with SMI was higher than controls across most comparisons, except for total CVD-related mortality for BD and cerebrovascular accident (CVA) for mixed SMI. Estimated risks were larger for schizophrenia than BD. Pooled results ranged from SMR = 1.55 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.33 to 1.81, p < 0.001), for CVA in people with BD to HR/rate ratio = 2.40 (95% CI: 2.25 to 2.55, p < 0.001) for CVA in schizophrenia. For schizophrenia and BD, SMRs and pooled HRs/rate ratios for CHD and CVD mortality were larger in studies with outcomes occurring during the 1990s and 2000s than earlier decades (1980s: SMR = 1.14, 95% CI: 0.57 to 2.30, p = 0.71; 2000s: SMR = 2.59, 95% CI: 1.93 to 3.47, p < 0.001 for schizophrenia and CHD) and in studies including people with younger age. The incidence of CVA, CVD events, and heart failure in SMI was higher than controls. Estimated risks for schizophrenia ranged from HR/rate ratio 1.25 (95% CI: 1.04 to 1.51, p = 0.016) for total CVD events to rate ratio 3.82 (95% CI: 3.1 to 4.71, p < 0.001) for heart failure. Incidence of CHD was higher in BD versus controls. However, for schizophrenia, CHD was elevated in higher-quality studies only. The HR/rate ratios for CVA and CHD were larger in studies with outcomes occurring after the 1990s. Study limitations include the high risk of bias of some studies as they drew a comparison cohort from general population rates and the fact that it was difficult to exclude studies that had overlapping populations, although attempts were made to minimise this. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that SMI was associated with an approximate doubling in the rate ratio of CVD-related mortality, particularly since the 1990s, and in younger groups. SMI was also associated with increased incidence of CVA and CHD relative to control participants since the 1990s. More research is needed to clarify the association between SMI and CHD and ways to mitigate this risk.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to preserve insulin-secreting ß-cell function in people newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes: Results from intervention studies aimed at improving glucose control.

AIMS: Type 1 diabetes is characterised by the destruction of pancreatic ß-cells. Significant levels of ß-cells remain at diagnosis. Preserving these cells improves glucose control and protects from long-term complications. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analyses of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to preserve ß-cell function in people newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. This paper reports the results of interventions for improving glucose control to assess whether they preserve ß-cell function. METHODS: Searches for RCTs in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry. Eligible studies included newly diagnosed patients with type 1 diabetes, any intervention to improve glucose control and at least 1 month of follow-up. Data were extracted using a pre-defined data-extraction sheet with 10% of extractions checked by a second reviewer. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies with 1662 participants were grouped by intervention into six subgroups (alternative insulins, subcutaneous and intravenous insulin delivery, intensive therapy, glucose sensing, adjuncts). Only three studies demonstrated an improvement in glucose control as well as ß-cell function. These interventions included intensive insulin therapy and use of an alternative insulin. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest comprehensive review of RCTs in this area. It demonstrates a lack of robust evidence that interventions to improve glucose control preserve ß-cell function in new onset type 1 diabetes, although analysis was hampered by low-quality evidence and inconsistent reporting of studies. Development of guidelines to support the design of trials in this field is a priority.

Cooking outdoors or with cleaner fuels does not increase malarial risk in children under 5 years: a cross-sectional study of 17 sub-Saharan African countries.

BACKGROUND: Smoke from solid biomass cooking is often stated to reduce household mosquito levels and, therefore, malarial transmission. However, household air pollution (HAP) from solid biomass cooking is estimated to be responsible for 1.67 times more deaths in children aged under 5 years compared to malaria globally. This cross-sectional study investigates the association between malaria and (i) cleaner fuel usage; (ii) wood compared to charcoal fuel; and, (iii) household cooking location, among children aged under 5 years in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). METHODS: Population-based data was obtained from Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) for 85,263 children within 17 malaria-endemic sub-Saharan countries who were who were tested for malaria with a malarial rapid diagnostic test (RDT) or microscopy. To assess the independent association between malarial diagnosis (positive, negative), fuel type and cooking location (outdoor, indoor, attached to house), multivariable logistic regression was used, controlling for individual, household and contextual confounding factors. RESULTS: Household use of solid biomass fuels and kerosene cooking fuels was associated with a 57% increase in the odds ratio of malarial infection after adjusting for confounding factors (RDT adjusted odds ratio (AOR):1.57 [1.30-1.91]; Microscopy AOR: 1.58 [1.23-2.04]) compared to cooking with cleaner fuels. A similar effect was observed when comparing wood to charcoal among solid biomass fuel users (RDT AOR: 1.77 [1.54-2.04]; Microscopy AOR: 1.21 [1.08-1.37]). Cooking in a separate building was associated with a 26% reduction in the odds of malarial infection (RDT AOR: 0.74 [0.66-0.83]; Microscopy AOR: 0.75 [0.67-0.84]) compared to indoor cooking; however no association was observed with outdoor cooking. Similar effects were observed within a sub-analysis of malarial mesoendemic areas only. CONCLUSION: Cleaner fuels and outdoor cooking practices associated with reduced smoke exposure were not observed to have an adverse effect upon malarial infection among children under 5 years in SSA. Further mixed-methods research will be required to further strengthen the evidence base concerning this risk paradigm and to support appropriate public health messaging in this context.

Prevalence, contributory factors and severity of medication errors associated with direct-acting oral anticoagulants in adult patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to estimate the prevalence, contributory factors, and severity of medication errors associated with direct acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs). METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken by searching 11 databases including Medline, Embase, and CINHAL between January 2008 and September 2020. The pooled prevalence of errors and predictive intervals were estimated using random-effects models using Stata software. Data related to error causation were synthesised according to Reason's accident causation model. RESULTS: From the 5205 titles screened, 32 studies were included which were mostly based in hospitals and included DOAC treatment for thromboembolism and atrial fibrillation. The proportion of study population who experienced either prescription, administration, or dispensing error ranged from 5.3 to 37.3%. The pooled percentage of patients experiencing prescribing error was 20% (95% CI 15-25%; I2 = 96%; 95% PrI 4-43%). Prescribing error constituted the majority of all error types with a pooled estimate of 78% (95%CI 73-82%; I2 = 0) of all errors. The common reported causes were active failures including wrong drug, and dose for the indication. Mistakes such as non-consideration of renal function, and error-provoking conditions such as lack of knowledge were common contributing factors. Adverse events such as potentially fatal intracranial haemorrhage or patient deaths were linked to the errors but causality assessments were often missing. CONCLUSIONS: Despite their favourable safety profile, DOAC medication errors are common. There is a need to promote multidisciplinary working, guideline-adherence, training, and education of healthcare professionals, and the use of theory-based and technology-facilitated interventions to minimise errors and maximise the benefits of DOACs usage in all settings. PROTOCOL: A protocol developed as per PRISMA-P guideline is registered under PROSPERO ID = CRD42019122996.

Effectiveness of interventions to reduce household air pollution from solid biomass fuels and improve maternal and child health outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Interventions to reduce household air pollution (HAP) are key to reducing associated morbidity and mortality in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs); especially among pregnant women and young children. This systematic review aims to determine the effectiveness of interventions aimed to reduce HAP exposure associated with domestic solid biomass fuel combustion, compared to usual cooking practices, for improving health outcomes in pregnant women and children under five in LMIC settings. A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken with searches undertaken in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, GIM, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Greenfile in August 2020. Inclusion criteria were experimental, non-experimental, or quasi-experimental studies investigating the impact of interventions to reduce HAP exposure and improve associated health outcomes among pregnant women or children under 5 years. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool were undertaken independently by two reviewers. Seventeen out of 7293 retrieved articles (seven pregnancy, nine child health outcome; 13 studies) met the inclusion criteria. These assessed improved cookstoves (ICS; n = 10 studies), ethanol stoves (n = 1 study), and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG; n = 2 studies) stoves interventions. Meta-analysis showed no significant effect of ICS interventions compared to traditional cooking for risk of preterm birth (n = 2 studies), small for gestational age (n = 2 studies), and incidence of acute respiratory infections (n = 6 studies). Although an observed increase in mean birthweight was observed, this was not statistically significant (n = 4). However, ICS interventions reduced the incidence of childhood burns (n = 3; observations = 41 723; Rate Ratio: 0.66 [95% CI: 0.45-0.96]; I2 : 46.7%) and risk of low birth weight (LBW; n = 4; observations = 3456; Odds Ratio: 0.73 [95% CI: 0.61-0.87]; I2 : 21.1%). Although few studies reported health outcomes, the data indicate that ICS interventions were associated with reduced risk of childhood burns and LBW. The data highlight the need for the development and implementation of robust, well-reported and monitored, community-driven intervention trials with longer-term participant follow-up.

Tocolytics for delaying preterm birth: a network meta-analysis (0924).

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is the leading cause of death in newborns and children. Tocolytic drugs aim to delay preterm birth by suppressing uterine contractions to allow time for administration of corticosteroids for fetal lung maturation, magnesium sulphate for neuroprotection, and transport to a facility with appropriate neonatal care facilities. However, there is still uncertainty about their effectiveness and safety. OBJECTIVES: To estimate relative effectiveness and safety profiles for different classes of tocolytic drugs for delaying preterm birth, and provide rankings of the available drugs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov (21 April 2021) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials assessing effectiveness or adverse effects of tocolytic drugs for delaying preterm birth. We excluded quasi- and non-randomised trials. We evaluated all studies against predefined criteria to judge their trustworthiness. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses, to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available tocolytics. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of the network meta-analysis effect estimates for each tocolytic versus placebo or no treatment. MAIN RESULTS: This network meta-analysis includes 122 trials (13,697 women) involving six tocolytic classes, combinations of tocolytics, and placebo or no treatment. Most trials included women with threatened preterm birth, singleton pregnancy, from 24 to 34 weeks of gestation. We judged 25 (20%) studies to be at low risk of bias. Overall, certainty in the evidence varied. Relative effects from network meta-analysis suggested that all tocolytics are probably effective in delaying preterm birth compared with placebo or no tocolytic treatment. Betamimetics are possibly effective in delaying preterm birth by 48 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.20; low-certainty evidence), and 7 days (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.25; low-certainty evidence). COX inhibitors are possibly effective in delaying preterm birth by 48 hours (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.23; low-certainty evidence). Calcium channel blockers are possibly effective in delaying preterm birth by 48 hours (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.24; low-certainty evidence), probably effective in delaying preterm birth by 7 days (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.27; moderate-certainty evidence), and prolong pregnancy by 5 days (0.1 more to 9.2 more; high-certainty evidence). Magnesium sulphate is probably effective in delaying preterm birth by 48 hours (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.23; moderate-certainty evidence). Oxytocin receptor antagonists are probably effective in delaying preterm birth by 48 hours (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.22; moderate-certainty evidence), are effective in delaying preterm birth by 7 days (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.30; high-certainty evidence), and possibly prolong pregnancy by 10 days (95% CI 2.3 more to 16.7 more). Nitric oxide donors are probably effective in delaying preterm birth by 48 hours (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31; moderate-certainty evidence), and 7 days (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.37; moderate-certainty evidence). Combinations of tocolytics are probably effective in delaying preterm birth by 48 hours (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.27; moderate-certainty evidence), and 7 days (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.34; moderate-certainty evidence). Nitric oxide donors ranked highest for delaying preterm birth by 48 hours and 7 days, and delay in birth (continuous outcome), followed by calcium channel blockers, oxytocin receptor antagonists and combinations of tocolytics. Betamimetics (RR 14.4, 95% CI 6.11 to 34.1; moderate-certainty evidence), calcium channel blockers (RR 2.96, 95% CI 1.23 to 7.11; moderate-certainty evidence), magnesium sulphate (RR 3.90, 95% CI 1.09 to 13.93; moderate-certainty evidence) and combinations of tocolytics (RR 6.87, 95% CI 2.08 to 22.7; low-certainty evidence) are probably more likely to result in cessation of treatment. Calcium channel blockers possibly reduce the risk of neurodevelopmental morbidity (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.85; low-certainty evidence), and respiratory morbidity (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.88; low-certainty evidence), and result in fewer neonates with birthweight less than 2000 g (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.87; low-certainty evidence). Nitric oxide donors possibly result in neonates with higher birthweight (mean difference (MD) 425.53 g more, 95% CI 224.32 more to 626.74 more; low-certainty evidence), fewer neonates with birthweight less than 2500 g (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.69; low-certainty evidence), and more advanced gestational age (MD 1.35 weeks more, 95% CI 0.37 more to 2.32 more; low-certainty evidence). Combinations of tocolytics possibly result in fewer neonates with birthweight less than 2500 g (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.93; low-certainty evidence). In terms of maternal adverse effects, betamimetics probably cause dyspnoea (RR 12.09, 95% CI 4.66 to 31.39; moderate-certainty evidence), palpitations (RR 7.39, 95% CI 3.83 to 14.24; moderate-certainty evidence), vomiting (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.91; moderate-certainty evidence), possibly headache (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.42; low-certainty evidence) and tachycardia (RR 3.01, 95% CI 1.17 to 7.71; low-certainty evidence) compared with placebo or no treatment. COX inhibitors possibly cause vomiting (RR 2.54, 95% CI 1.18 to 5.48; low-certainty evidence). Calcium channel blockers (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.39 to 4.83; low-certainty evidence), and nitric oxide donors probably cause headache (RR 4.20, 95% CI 2.13 to 8.25; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo or no tocolytic treatment, all tocolytic drug classes that we assessed (betamimetics, calcium channel blockers, magnesium sulphate, oxytocin receptor antagonists, nitric oxide donors) and their combinations were probably or possibly effective in delaying preterm birth for 48 hours, and 7 days. Tocolytic drugs were associated with a range of adverse effects (from minor to potentially severe) compared with placebo or no tocolytic treatment, although betamimetics and combination tocolytics were more likely to result in cessation of treatment. The effects of tocolytic use on neonatal outcomes such as neonatal and perinatal mortality, and on safety outcomes such as maternal and neonatal infection were uncertain.

What Do Diagnoses of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease in Specialist Sexual Health Services in England Tell Us About Chlamydia Control?

BACKGROUND: Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) is an outcome measure for the evaluation of chlamydia screening programs. We explore PID diagnoses in specialist sexual health services (SSHSs) in England to inform the evaluation of the National Chlamydia Screening Programme, which was implemented nationally in 2008. METHODS: We conducted descriptive analyses using data on diagnoses of PID-with and without Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and/or Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC)-by age and year of birth, in SSHSs between 2009 and 2019 from the GUMCAD STI Surveillance System database. Rates were calculated per 100 000 females residing in England. RESULTS: CT screening activity peaked in 2010. The rates of all PID diagnoses decreased between 2009 and 2019 by 39%. CT-associated PID (CT-PID) declined by 58%, and nonspecific PID declined by 37%. GC-PID increased by 34%. CT-PID decreased across all age groups with the highest observed decline, 71%, in 15- to 19-year-olds. A dose-response relationship was observed between CT-PID rates and screening, with rates lowest in those with the greatest exposure to screening. CONCLUSIONS: There was a marked decline in diagnoses of CT-PID, and nonspecific PID, at SSHSs after the introduction of widespread chlamydia screening, whereas GC-PID diagnoses increased. This ecological trend was broadly consistent with what we would have expected to see if widespread screening reduced the incidence of chlamydia-associated PID (and of nonspecific PID), as has been observed in randomized controlled trials of screening.

Global prevalence and types of complementary and alternative medicines use amongst adults with diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: This study aimed to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of global prevalence and types of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use amongst adults with diabetes. METHODS: Nine databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, were searched for studies published between 2009 and 2019 which included extractable data for CAM use in adult patients with diabetes. Study characteristics, types of CAM, and overall and subgroup prevalence data in relation to CAM use were extracted. Meta-analysis of aggregate level data on prevalence and prevalence ratios (PRs) was performed using a random effects model. RESULTS: From the 38 studies included in the review, a total of 37 types of CAM and 223 types of herbs were identified. Pooled prevalence of CAM use was 51%. A wide variation in prevalence rates (predictive interval 8-93%) was observed. In the context of high heterogeneity, we found no evidence that CAM use was associated with gender, chronicity or type of diabetes. Approximately one third of patients did not disclose their use of CAM to healthcare professionals (95% PrI 25%, 97%). Herbal medicines, acupuncture, homoeopathy and spiritual healing were the common CAM types reported. CONCLUSIONS: A wide variation in prevalence of CAM use by patients with diabetes was identified. Healthcare professionals should be aware of their patients' use of CAM to ensure treatment optimization, avoid herb-drug interactions and promote medication adherence in diabetes. Diabetic reviews and clinical guidelines should incorporate exploration of patient use of CAM as many patients do not proactively disclose the use of CAM to their healthcare professionals. REGISTRATION: The protocol for this study was registered with the Centre for Review and Dissemination (CRD). Protocol registration number CRD42019125036.

Progestogens for preventing miscarriage: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Miscarriage, defined as the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks' gestation, is common with approximately 25% of women experiencing a miscarriage in their lifetime, and 15% to 20% of pregnancies ending in a miscarriage. Progesterone has an important role in maintaining a pregnancy, and supplementation with different progestogens in early pregnancy has been attempted to rescue a pregnancy in women with early pregnancy bleeding (threatened miscarriage), and to prevent miscarriages in asymptomatic women who have a history of three or more previous miscarriages (recurrent miscarriage). OBJECTIVES: To estimate the relative effectiveness and safety profiles for the different progestogen treatments for threatened and recurrent miscarriage, and provide rankings of the available treatments according to their effectiveness, safety, and side-effect profile. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 15 December 2020: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE(R), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness or safety of progestogen treatment for the prevention of miscarriage. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Randomised trials published only as abstracts were eligible if sufficient information could be retrieved. We excluded quasi- and non-randomised trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We performed pairwise meta-analyses and indirect comparisons, where possible, to determine the relative effects of all available treatments, but due to the limited number of included studies only direct or indirect comparisons were possible. We estimated the relative effects for the primary outcome of live birth and the secondary outcomes including miscarriage (< 24 weeks of gestation), preterm birth (< 37 weeks of gestation), stillbirth, ectopic pregnancy, congenital abnormalities, and adverse drug events. Relative effects for all outcomes are reported separately by the type of miscarriage (threatened and recurrent miscarriage). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Our meta-analysis included seven randomised trials involving 5,682 women, and all provided data for meta-analysis. All trials were conducted in hospital settings. Across seven trials (14 treatment arms), the following treatments were used: three arms (21%) used vaginal micronized progesterone; three arms (21%) used dydrogesterone; one arm (7%) used oral micronized progesterone; one arm (7%) used 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone, and six arms (43%) used placebo. Women with threatened miscarriage Based on the relative effects from the pairwise meta-analysis, vaginal micronized progesterone (two trials, 4090 women, risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.07, high-certainty evidence), and dydrogesterone (one trial, 406 women, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.07, moderate-certainty evidence) probably make little or no difference to the live birth rate when compared with placebo for women with threatened miscarriage. No data are available to assess the effectiveness of 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone or oral micronized progesterone for the outcome of live birth in women with threatened miscarriage. The pre-specified subgroup analysis by number of previous miscarriages is only possible for vaginal micronized progesterone in women with threatened miscarriage. In women with no previous miscarriages and early pregnancy bleeding, there is probably little or no improvement in the live birth rate (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.04, high-certainty evidence) when treated with vaginal micronized progesterone compared to placebo. However, for women with one or more previous miscarriages and early pregnancy bleeding, vaginal micronized progesterone increases the live birth rate compared to placebo (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.15, high-certainty evidence). Women with recurrent miscarriage Based on the results from one trial (826 women) vaginal micronized progesterone (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.15, high-certainty evidence) probably makes little or no difference to the live birth rate when compared with placebo for women with recurrent miscarriage. The evidence for dydrogesterone compared with placebo for women with recurrent miscarriage is of very low-certainty evidence, therefore the effects remain unclear. No data are available to assess the effectiveness of 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone or oral micronized progesterone for the outcome of live birth in women with recurrent miscarriage. Additional outcomes All progestogen treatments have a wide range of effects on the other pre-specified outcomes (miscarriage (< 24 weeks of gestation), preterm birth (< 37 weeks of gestation), stillbirth, ectopic pregnancy) in comparison to placebo for both threatened and recurrent miscarriage. Moderate- and low-certainty evidence with a wide range of effects suggests that there is probably no difference in congenital abnormalities and adverse drug events with vaginal micronized progesterone for threatened (congenital abnormalities RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.46, moderate-certainty evidence; adverse drug events RR 1.07 95% CI 0.81 to 1.39, moderate-certainty evidence) or recurrent miscarriage (congenital abnormalities 0.75, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.85, low-certainty evidence; adverse drug events RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.29, moderate-certainty evidence) compared with placebo. There are limited data and very low-certainty evidence on congenital abnormalities and adverse drug events for the other progestogens. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The overall available evidence suggests that progestogens probably make little or no difference to live birth rate for women with threatened or recurrent miscarriage. However, vaginal micronized progesterone may increase the live birth rate for women with a history of one or more previous miscarriages and early pregnancy bleeding, with likely no difference in adverse events. There is still uncertainty over the effectiveness and safety of alternative progestogen treatments for threatened and recurrent miscarriage.

Methods for managing miscarriage: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Miscarriage, defined as the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks' gestation, is common with approximately 25% of women experiencing a miscarriage in their lifetime. An estimated 15% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Miscarriage can lead to serious morbidity, including haemorrhage, infection, and even death, particularly in settings without adequate healthcare provision. Early miscarriages occur during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, and can be managed expectantly, medically or surgically. However, there is uncertainty about the relative effectiveness and risks of each option. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the relative effectiveness and safety profiles for the different management methods for early miscarriage, and to provide rankings of the available methods according to their effectiveness, safety, and side-effect profile using a network meta-analysis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 February 2021), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (12 February 2021), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness or safety of methods for miscarriage management. Early miscarriage was defined as less than or equal to 14 weeks of gestation, and included missed and incomplete miscarriage. Management of late miscarriages after 14 weeks of gestation (often referred to as intrauterine fetal deaths) was not eligible for inclusion in the review. Cluster- and quasi-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Randomised trials published only as abstracts were eligible if sufficient information could be retrieved. We excluded non-randomised trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least three review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We estimated the relative effects and rankings for the primary outcomes of complete miscarriage and composite outcome of death or serious complications. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Relative effects for the primary outcomes are reported subgrouped by the type of miscarriage (incomplete and missed miscarriage). We also performed pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available methods. MAIN RESULTS: Our network meta-analysis included 78 randomised trials involving 17,795 women from 37 countries. Most trials (71/78) were conducted in hospital settings and included women with missed or incomplete miscarriage. Across 158 trial arms, the following methods were used: 51 trial arms (33%) used misoprostol; 50 (32%) used suction aspiration; 26 (16%) used expectant management or placebo; 17 (11%) used dilatation and curettage; 11 (6%) used mifepristone plus misoprostol; and three (2%) used suction aspiration plus cervical preparation. Of these 78 studies, 71 (90%) contributed data in a usable form for meta-analysis. Complete miscarriage Based on the relative effects from the network meta-analysis of 59 trials (12,591 women), we found that five methods may be more effective than expectant management or placebo for achieving a complete miscarriage: · suction aspiration after cervical preparation (risk ratio (RR) 2.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 3.20, low-certainty evidence), · dilatation and curettage (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.75, low-certainty evidence), · suction aspiration (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.62, low-certainty evidence), · mifepristone plus misoprostol (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.66, moderate-certainty evidence), · misoprostol (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.46, low-certainty evidence). The highest ranked surgical method was suction aspiration after cervical preparation. The highest ranked non-surgical treatment was mifepristone plus misoprostol. All surgical methods were ranked higher than medical methods, which in turn ranked above expectant management or placebo. Composite outcome of death and serious complications Based on the relative effects from the network meta-analysis of 35 trials (8161 women), we found that four methods with available data were compatible with a wide range of treatment effects compared with expectant management or placebo: · dilatation and curettage (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.06, low-certainty evidence), · suction aspiration (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.32, low-certainty evidence), · misoprostol (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.15, low-certainty evidence), · mifepristone plus misoprostol (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.84, low-certainty evidence). Importantly, no deaths were reported in these studies, thus this composite outcome was entirely composed of serious complications, including blood transfusions, uterine perforations, hysterectomies, and intensive care unit admissions. Expectant management and placebo ranked the lowest when compared with alternative treatment interventions. Subgroup analyses by type of miscarriage (missed or incomplete) agreed with the overall analysis in that surgical methods were the most effective treatment, followed by medical methods and then expectant management or placebo, but there are possible subgroup differences in the effectiveness of the available methods.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on relative effects from the network meta-analysis, all surgical and medical methods for managing a miscarriage may be more effective than expectant management or placebo. Surgical methods were ranked highest for managing a miscarriage, followed by medical methods, which in turn ranked above expectant management or placebo. Expectant management or placebo had the highest chance of serious complications, including the need for unplanned or emergency surgery. A subgroup analysis showed that surgical and medical methods may be more beneficial in women with missed miscarriage compared to women with incomplete miscarriage. Since type of miscarriage (missed and incomplete) appears to be a source of inconsistency and heterogeneity within these data, we acknowledge that the main network meta-analysis may be unreliable. However, we plan to explore this further in future updates and consider the primary analysis as separate networks for missed and incomplete miscarriage.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection could contribute to clinical and public health strategies to manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Point-of-care antigen and molecular tests to detect current infection could increase access to testing and early confirmation of cases, and expediate clinical and public health management decisions that may reduce transmission. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. SEARCH METHODS: Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 30 Sept 2020. We checked repositories of COVID-19 publications and included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics and the Diagnostics Global Health website to 16 Nov 2020. We did not apply language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of people with either suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, known SARS-CoV-2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point-of-care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards that define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests and established diagnostic criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were screened independently in duplicate with disagreements resolved by discussion with a third author. Study characteristics were extracted by one author and checked by a second; extraction of study results and assessments of risk of bias and applicability (made using the QUADAS-2 tool) were undertaken independently in duplicate. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and pooled data using the bivariate model separately for antigen and molecular-based tests. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status. MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-eight study cohorts were included (described in 64 study reports, including 20 pre-prints), reporting results for 24,087 samples (7,415 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly from Europe (n = 39) or North America (n = 20), and evaluated 16 antigen and five molecular assays. We considered risk of bias to be high in 29 (50%) studies because of participant selection; in 66 (85%) because of weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection; and in 29 (45%) for participant flow and timing. Studies of antigen tests were of a higher methodological quality compared to studies of molecular tests, particularly regarding the risk of bias for participant selection and the index test. Characteristics of participants in 35 (45%) studies differed from those in whom the test was intended to be used and the delivery of the index test in 39 (50%) studies differed from the way in which the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (97%) defined the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 based on a single RT-PCR result, and none included participants meeting case definitions for probable COVID-19. Antigen tests Forty-eight studies reported 58 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies. There were differences between symptomatic (72.0%, 95% CI 63.7% to 79.0%; 37 evaluations; 15530 samples, 4410 cases) and asymptomatic participants (58.1%, 95% CI 40.2% to 74.1%; 12 evaluations; 1581 samples, 295 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (78.3%, 95% CI 71.1% to 84.1%; 26 evaluations; 5769 samples, 2320 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (51.0%, 95% CI 40.8% to 61.0%; 22 evaluations; 935 samples, 692 cases). Sensitivity was high in those with cycle threshold (Ct) values on PCR ≤25 (94.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 96.7%; 36 evaluations; 2613 cases) compared to those with Ct values >25 (40.7%, 95% CI 31.8% to 50.3%; 36 evaluations; 2632 cases). Sensitivity varied between brands. Using data from instructions for use (IFU) compliant evaluations in symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities ranged from 34.1% (95% CI 29.7% to 38.8%; Coris Bioconcept) to 88.1% (95% CI 84.2% to 91.1%; SD Biosensor STANDARD Q). Average specificities were high in symptomatic and asymptomatic participants, and for most brands (overall summary specificity 99.6%, 95% CI 99.0% to 99.8%). At 5% prevalence using data for the most sensitive assays in symptomatic people (SD Biosensor STANDARD Q and Abbott Panbio), positive predictive values (PPVs) of 84% to 90% mean that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 6 positive results will be a false positive, and between 1 in 4 and 1 in 8 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence applying the same tests in asymptomatic people would result in PPVs of 11% to 28% meaning that between 7 in 10 and 9 in 10 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed. No studies assessed the accuracy of repeated lateral flow testing or self-testing. Rapid molecular assays Thirty studies reported 33 evaluations of five different rapid molecular tests. Sensitivities varied according to test brand. Most of the data relate to the ID NOW and Xpert Xpress assays. Using data from evaluations following the manufacturer's instructions for use, the average sensitivity of ID NOW was 73.0% (95% CI 66.8% to 78.4%) and average specificity 99.7% (95% CI 98.7% to 99.9%; 4 evaluations; 812 samples, 222 cases). For Xpert Xpress, the average sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 88.1% to 100%) and average specificity 97.2% (95% CI 89.4% to 99.3%; 2 evaluations; 100 samples, 29 cases). Insufficient data were available to investigate the effect of symptom status or time after symptom onset. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. The assays shown to meet appropriate criteria, such as WHO's priority target product profiles for COVID-19 diagnostics ('acceptable' sensitivity ≥ 80% and specificity ≥ 97%), can be considered as a replacement for laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. Positive predictive values suggest that confirmatory testing of those with positive results may be considered in low prevalence settings. Due to the variable sensitivity of antigen tests, people who test negative may still be infected. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts was limited. Test accuracy studies cannot adequately assess the ability of antigen tests to differentiate those who are infectious and require isolation from those who pose no risk, as there is no reference standard for infectiousness. A small number of molecular tests showed high accuracy and may be suitable alternatives to RT-PCR. However, further evaluations of the tests in settings as they are intended to be used are required to fully establish performance in practice. Several important studies in asymptomatic individuals have been reported since the close of our search and will be incorporated at the next update of this review. Comparative studies of antigen tests in their intended use settings and according to test operator (including self-testing) are required.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify or rule out current infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Point-of-care antigen and molecular tests to detect current SARS-CoV-2 infection have the potential to allow earlier detection and isolation of confirmed cases compared to laboratory-based diagnostic methods, with the aim of reducing household and community transmission. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection. SEARCH METHODS: On 25 May 2020 we undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of people with suspected current SARS-CoV-2 infection, known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point-of-care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results available within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests and established clinical diagnostic criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies and resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. One review author independently extracted study characteristics, which were checked by a second review author. Two review authors independently extracted 2x2 contingency table data and assessed risk of bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We present sensitivity and specificity, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), for each test using paired forest plots. We pooled data using the bivariate hierarchical model separately for antigen and molecular-based tests, with simplifications when few studies were available. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 publications reporting on a total of 18 study cohorts with 3198 unique samples, of which 1775 had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ten studies took place in North America, two in South America, four in Europe, one in China and one was conducted internationally. We identified data for eight commercial tests (four antigen and four molecular) and one in-house antigen test. Five of the studies included were only available as preprints. We did not find any studies at low risk of bias for all quality domains and had concerns about applicability of results across all studies. We judged patient selection to be at high risk of bias in 50% of the studies because of deliberate over-sampling of samples with confirmed COVID-19 infection and unclear in seven out of 18 studies because of poor reporting. Sixteen (89%) studies used only a single, negative RT-PCR to confirm the absence of COVID-19 infection, risking missing infection. There was a lack of information on blinding of index test (n = 11), and around participant exclusions from analyses (n = 10). We did not observe differences in methodological quality between antigen and molecular test evaluations. Antigen tests Sensitivity varied considerably across studies (from 0% to 94%): the average sensitivity was 56.2% (95% CI 29.5 to 79.8%) and average specificity was 99.5% (95% CI 98.1% to 99.9%; based on 8 evaluations in 5 studies on 943 samples). Data for individual antigen tests were limited with no more than two studies for any test. Rapid molecular assays Sensitivity showed less variation compared to antigen tests (from 68% to 100%), average sensitivity was 95.2% (95% CI 86.7% to 98.3%) and specificity 98.9% (95% CI 97.3% to 99.5%) based on 13 evaluations in 11 studies of on 2255 samples. Predicted values based on a hypothetical cohort of 1000 people with suspected COVID-19 infection (with a prevalence of 10%) result in 105 positive test results including 10 false positives (positive predictive value 90%), and 895 negative results including 5 false negatives (negative predictive value 99%). Individual tests We calculated pooled results of individual tests for ID NOW (Abbott Laboratories) (5 evaluations) and Xpert Xpress (Cepheid Inc) (6 evaluations). Summary sensitivity for the Xpert Xpress assay (99.4%, 95% CI 98.0% to 99.8%) was 22.6 (95% CI 18.8 to 26.3) percentage points higher than that of ID NOW (76.8%, (95% CI 72.9% to 80.3%), whilst the specificity of Xpert Xpress (96.8%, 95% CI 90.6% to 99.0%) was marginally lower than ID NOW (99.6%, 95% CI 98.4% to 99.9%; a difference of -2.8% (95% CI -6.4 to 0.8)) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies early-stage evaluations of point-of-care tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection, largely based on remnant laboratory samples. The findings currently have limited applicability, as we are uncertain whether tests will perform in the same way in clinical practice, and according to symptoms of COVID-19, duration of symptoms, or in asymptomatic people. Rapid tests have the potential to be used to inform triage of RT-PCR use, allowing earlier detection of those testing positive, but the evidence currently is not strong enough to determine how useful they are in clinical practice. Prospective and comparative evaluations of rapid tests for COVID-19 infection in clinically relevant settings are urgently needed. Studies should recruit consecutive series of eligible participants, including both those presenting for testing due to symptoms and asymptomatic people who may have come into contact with confirmed cases. Studies should clearly describe symptomatic status and document time from symptom onset or time since exposure. Point-of-care tests must be conducted on samples according to manufacturer instructions for use and be conducted at the point of care. Any future research study report should conform to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) guideline.

Uterotonic agents for first-line treatment of postpartum haemorrhage: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), defined as a blood loss of 500 mL or more after birth, is the leading cause of maternal death worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that all women giving birth should receive a prophylactic uterotonic agent. Despite the routine administration of a uterotonic agent for prevention, PPH remains a common complication causing one-quarter of all maternal deaths globally. When prevention fails and PPH occurs, further administration of uterotonic agents as 'first-line' treatment is recommended. However, there is uncertainty about which uterotonic agent is best for the 'first-line' treatment of PPH. OBJECTIVES: To identify the most effective uterotonic agent(s) with the least side-effects for PPH treatment, and generate a meaningful ranking among all available agents according to their relative effectiveness and side-effect profile. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (5 May 2020), and the reference lists of all retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised trials comparing the effectiveness and safety of uterotonic agents with other uterotonic agents for the treatment of PPH were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed all trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed each trial for risk of bias. Our primary outcomes were additional blood loss of 500 mL or more after recruitment to the trial until cessation of active bleeding and the composite outcome of maternal death or severe morbidity. Secondary outcomes included blood loss-related outcomes, morbidity outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes. We performed pairwise meta-analyses and indirect comparisons, where possible, but due to the limited number of included studies, we were unable to conduct the planned network meta-analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials, involving 3738 women in 10 countries, were included in this review. All trials were conducted in hospital settings. Randomised women gave birth vaginally, except in one small trial, where women gave birth either vaginally or by caesarean section. Across the seven trials (14 trial arms) the following agents were used: six trial arms used oxytocin alone; four trial arms used misoprostol plus oxytocin; three trial arms used misoprostol; one trial arm used Syntometrine® (oxytocin and ergometrine fixed-dose combination) plus oxytocin infusion. Pairwise meta-analysis of two trials (1787 participants), suggests that misoprostol, as first-line treatment uterotonic agent, probably increases the risk of blood transfusion (risk ratio (RR) 1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 2.14, moderate-certainty) compared with oxytocin. Low-certainty evidence suggests that misoprostol administration may increase the incidence of additional blood loss of 1000 mL or more (RR 2.57, 95% CI 1.00 to 6.64). The data comparing misoprostol with oxytocin is imprecise, with a wide range of treatment effects for the additional blood loss of 500 mL or more (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.69 to 4.02, low-certainty), maternal death or severe morbidity (RR 1.98, 95% CI 0.36 to 10.72, low-certainty, based on one study n = 809 participants, as the second study had zero events), and the use of additional uterotonics (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.94, low-certainty). The risk of side-effects may be increased with the use of misoprostol compared with oxytocin: vomiting (2 trials, 1787 participants, RR 2.47, 95% CI 1.37 to 4.47, high-certainty) and fever (2 trials, 1787 participants, RR 3.43, 95% CI 0.65 to 18.18, low-certainty). According to pairwise meta-analysis of four trials (1881 participants) generating high-certainty evidence, misoprostol plus oxytocin makes little or no difference to the use of additional uterotonics (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.05) and to blood transfusion (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.17) compared with oxytocin. We cannot rule out an important benefit of using the misoprostol plus oxytocin combination over oxytocin alone, for additional blood loss of 500 mL or more (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.06, moderate-certainty). We also cannot rule out important benefits or harms for additional blood loss of 1000 mL or more (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.34, moderate-certainty, 3 trials, 1814 participants, one study reported zero events), and maternal mortality or severe morbidity (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.39, moderate-certainty). Misoprostol plus oxytocin increases the incidence of fever (4 trials, 1866 participants, RR 3.07, 95% CI 2.62 to 3.61, high-certainty), and vomiting (2 trials, 1482 participants, RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.95, high-certainty) compared with oxytocin alone. For all outcomes of interest, the available evidence on the misoprostol versus Syntometrine® plus oxytocin combination was of very low-certainty and these effects remain unclear. Although network meta-analysis was not performed, we were able to compare the misoprostol plus oxytocin combination with misoprostol alone through the common comparator of oxytocin. This indirect comparison suggests that the misoprostol plus oxytocin combination probably reduces the risk of blood transfusion (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.99, moderate-certainty) and may reduce the risk of additional blood loss of 1000 mL or more (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.89, low-certainty) compared with misoprostol alone. The combination makes little or no difference to vomiting (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.59, high-certainty) compared with misoprostol alone. Misoprostol plus oxytocin compared to misoprostol alone are compatible with a wide range of treatment effects for additional blood loss of 500 mL or more (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.26, low-certainty), maternal mortality or severe morbidity (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 4.24, low-certainty), use of additional uterotonics (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.73, low-certainty), and fever (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.17 to 4.77, low-certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that oxytocin used as first-line treatment of PPH probably is more effective than misoprostol with less side-effects. Adding misoprostol to the conventional treatment of oxytocin probably makes little or no difference to effectiveness outcomes, and is also associated with more side-effects. The evidence for most uterotonic agents used as first-line treatment of PPH is limited, with no evidence found for commonly used agents, such as injectable prostaglandins, ergometrine, and Syntometrine®.

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and resulting COVID-19 pandemic present important diagnostic challenges. Several diagnostic strategies are available to identify current infection, rule out infection, identify people in need of care escalation, or to test for past infection and immune response. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 aim to identify previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and may help to confirm the presence of current infection. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of antibody tests to determine if a person presenting in the community or in primary or secondary care has SARS-CoV-2 infection, or has previously had SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the accuracy of antibody tests for use in seroprevalence surveys. SEARCH METHODS: We undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. We conducted searches for this review iteration up to 27 April 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated antibody tests (including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, chemiluminescence immunoassays, and lateral flow assays) in people suspected of current or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, or where tests were used to screen for infection. We also included studies of people either known to have, or not to have SARS-CoV-2 infection. We included all reference standards to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR) and clinical diagnostic criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed possible bias and applicability of the studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We extracted 2x2 contingency table data and present sensitivity and specificity for each antibody (or combination of antibodies) using paired forest plots. We pooled data using random-effects logistic regression where appropriate, stratifying by time since post-symptom onset. We tabulated available data by test manufacturer. We have presented uncertainty in estimates of sensitivity and specificity using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 57 publications reporting on a total of 54 study cohorts with 15,976 samples, of which 8526 were from cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studies were conducted in Asia (n = 38), Europe (n = 15), and the USA and China (n = 1). We identified data from 25 commercial tests and numerous in-house assays, a small fraction of the 279 antibody assays listed by the Foundation for Innovative Diagnostics. More than half (n = 28) of the studies included were only available as preprints. We had concerns about risk of bias and applicability. Common issues were use of multi-group designs (n = 29), inclusion of only COVID-19 cases (n = 19), lack of blinding of the index test (n = 49) and reference standard (n = 29), differential verification (n = 22), and the lack of clarity about participant numbers, characteristics and study exclusions (n = 47). Most studies (n = 44) only included people hospitalised due to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. There were no studies exclusively in asymptomatic participants. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 33) defined COVID-19 cases based on RT-PCR results alone, ignoring the potential for false-negative RT-PCR results. We observed evidence of selective publication of study findings through omission of the identity of tests (n = 5). We observed substantial heterogeneity in sensitivities of IgA, IgM and IgG antibodies, or combinations thereof, for results aggregated across different time periods post-symptom onset (range 0% to 100% for all target antibodies). We thus based the main results of the review on the 38 studies that stratified results by time since symptom onset. The numbers of individuals contributing data within each study each week are small and are usually not based on tracking the same groups of patients over time. Pooled results for IgG, IgM, IgA, total antibodies and IgG/IgM all showed low sensitivity during the first week since onset of symptoms (all less than 30.1%), rising in the second week and reaching their highest values in the third week. The combination of IgG/IgM had a sensitivity of 30.1% (95% CI 21.4 to 40.7) for 1 to 7 days, 72.2% (95% CI 63.5 to 79.5) for 8 to 14 days, 91.4% (95% CI 87.0 to 94.4) for 15 to 21 days. Estimates of accuracy beyond three weeks are based on smaller sample sizes and fewer studies. For 21 to 35 days, pooled sensitivities for IgG/IgM were 96.0% (95% CI 90.6 to 98.3). There are insufficient studies to estimate sensitivity of tests beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. Summary specificities (provided in 35 studies) exceeded 98% for all target antibodies with confidence intervals no more than 2 percentage points wide. False-positive results were more common where COVID-19 had been suspected and ruled out, but numbers were small and the difference was within the range expected by chance. Assuming a prevalence of 50%, a value considered possible in healthcare workers who have suffered respiratory symptoms, we would anticipate that 43 (28 to 65) would be missed and 7 (3 to 14) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG/IgM testing at days 15 to 21 post-symptom onset. At a prevalence of 20%, a likely value in surveys in high-risk settings, 17 (11 to 26) would be missed per 1000 people tested and 10 (5 to 22) would be falsely positive. At a lower prevalence of 5%, a likely value in national surveys, 4 (3 to 7) would be missed per 1000 tested, and 12 (6 to 27) would be falsely positive. Analyses showed small differences in sensitivity between assay type, but methodological concerns and sparse data prevent comparisons between test brands. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of antibody tests is too low in the first week since symptom onset to have a primary role for the diagnosis of COVID-19, but they may still have a role complementing other testing in individuals presenting later, when RT-PCR tests are negative, or are not done. Antibody tests are likely to have a useful role for detecting previous SARS-CoV-2 infection if used 15 or more days after the onset of symptoms. However, the duration of antibody rises is currently unknown, and we found very little data beyond 35 days post-symptom onset. We are therefore uncertain about the utility of these tests for seroprevalence surveys for public health management purposes. Concerns about high risk of bias and applicability make it likely that the accuracy of tests when used in clinical care will be lower than reported in the included studies. Sensitivity has mainly been evaluated in hospitalised patients, so it is unclear whether the tests are able to detect lower antibody levels likely seen with milder and asymptomatic COVID-19 disease. The design, execution and reporting of studies of the accuracy of COVID-19 tests requires considerable improvement. Studies must report data on sensitivity disaggregated by time since onset of symptoms. COVID-19-positive cases who are RT-PCR-negative should be included as well as those confirmed RT-PCR, in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) and China National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (CDC) case definitions. We were only able to obtain data from a small proportion of available tests, and action is needed to ensure that all results of test evaluations are available in the public domain to prevent selective reporting. This is a fast-moving field and we plan ongoing updates of this living systematic review.

Uterotonic agents for preventing postpartum haemorrhage: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. Prophylactic uterotonic agents can prevent PPH, and are routinely recommended. The current World Health Organization (WHO) recommendation for preventing PPH is 10 IU (international units) of intramuscular or intravenous oxytocin. There are several uterotonic agents for preventing PPH but there is still uncertainty about which agent is most effective with the least side effects. This is an update of a Cochrane Review which was first published in April 2018 and was updated to incorporate results from a recent large WHO trial. OBJECTIVES: To identify the most effective uterotonic agent(s) to prevent PPH with the least side effects, and generate a ranking according to their effectiveness and side-effect profile. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (24 May 2018), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised trials comparing the effectiveness and side effects of uterotonic agents with other uterotonic agents, placebo or no treatment for preventing PPH were eligible for inclusion. Quasi-randomised trials were excluded. Randomised trials published only as abstracts were eligible if sufficient information could be retrieved. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We estimated the relative effects and rankings for preventing PPH ≥ 500 mL and PPH ≥ 1000 mL as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included blood loss and related outcomes, morbidity outcomes, maternal well-being and satisfaction and side effects. Primary outcomes were also reported for pre-specified subgroups, stratifying by mode of birth, prior risk of PPH, healthcare setting, dosage, regimen and route of administration. We performed pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available agents. MAIN RESULTS: The network meta-analysis included 196 trials (135,559 women) involving seven uterotonic agents and placebo or no treatment, conducted across 53 countries (including high-, middle- and low-income countries). Most trials were performed in a hospital setting (187/196, 95.4%) with women undergoing a vaginal birth (71.5%, 140/196).Relative effects from the network meta-analysis suggested that all agents were effective for preventing PPH ≥ 500 mL when compared with placebo or no treatment. The three highest ranked uterotonic agents for prevention of PPH ≥ 500 mL were ergometrine plus oxytocin combination, misoprostol plus oxytocin combination and carbetocin. There is evidence that ergometrine plus oxytocin (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.84, moderate certainty), carbetocin (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.93, moderate certainty) and misoprostol plus oxytocin (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.86, low certainty) may reduce PPH ≥ 500 mL compared with oxytocin. Low-certainty evidence suggests that misoprostol, injectable prostaglandins, and ergometrine may make little or no difference to this outcome compared with oxytocin.All agents except ergometrine and injectable prostaglandins were effective for preventing PPH ≥ 1000 mL when compared with placebo or no treatment. High-certainty evidence suggests that ergometrine plus oxytocin (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03) and misoprostol plus oxytocin (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.11) make little or no difference in the outcome of PPH ≥ 1000 mL compared with oxytocin. Low-certainty evidence suggests that ergometrine may make little or no difference to this outcome compared with oxytocin meanwhile the evidence on carbetocin was of very low certainty. High-certainty evidence suggests that misoprostol is less effective in preventing PPH ≥ 1000 mL when compared with oxytocin (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.42). Despite the comparable relative treatment effects between all uterotonics (except misoprostol) and oxytocin, ergometrine plus oxytocin, misoprostol plus oxytocin combinations and carbetocin were the highest ranked agents for PPH ≥ 1000 mL.Misoprostol plus oxytocin reduces the use of additional uterotonics (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.73, high certainty) and probably also reduces the risk of blood transfusion (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.70, moderate certainty) when compared with oxytocin. Carbetocin, injectable prostaglandins and ergometrine plus oxytocin may also reduce the use of additional uterotonics but the certainty of the evidence is low. No meaningful differences could be detected between all agents for maternal deaths or severe morbidity as these outcomes were rare in the included randomised trials where they were reported.The two combination regimens were associated with important side effects. When compared with oxytocin, misoprostol plus oxytocin combination increases the likelihood of vomiting (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.18, high certainty) and fever (RR 3.14, 95% CI 2.20 to 4.49, moderate certainty). Ergometrine plus oxytocin increases the likelihood of vomiting (RR 2.93, 95% CI 2.08 to 4.13, moderate certainty) and may make little or no difference to the risk of hypertension, however absolute effects varied considerably and the certainty of the evidence was low for this outcome.Subgroup analyses did not reveal important subgroup differences by mode of birth (caesarean versus vaginal birth), setting (hospital versus community), risk of PPH (high versus low risk for PPH), dose of misoprostol (≥ 600 mcg versus < 600 mcg) and regimen of oxytocin (bolus versus bolus plus infusion versus infusion only). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: All agents were generally effective for preventing PPH when compared with placebo or no treatment. Ergometrine plus oxytocin combination, carbetocin, and misoprostol plus oxytocin combination may have some additional desirable effects compared with the current standard oxytocin. The two combination regimens, however, are associated with significant side effects. Carbetocin may be more effective than oxytocin for some outcomes without an increase in side effects.

Uterotonic agents for preventing postpartum haemorrhage: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. Prophylactic uterotonic drugs can prevent PPH, and are routinely recommended. There are several uterotonic drugs for preventing PPH but it is still debatable which drug is best. OBJECTIVES: To identify the most effective uterotonic drug(s) to prevent PPH, and generate a ranking according to their effectiveness and side-effect profile. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (1 June 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for unpublished trial reports (30 June 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled comparisons or cluster trials of effectiveness or side-effects of uterotonic drugs for preventing PPH.Quasi-randomised trials and cross-over trials are not eligible for inclusion in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We estimated the relative effects and rankings for preventing PPH ≥ 500 mL and PPH ≥ 1000 mL as primary outcomes. We performed pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available drugs. We stratified our primary outcomes according to mode of birth, prior risk of PPH, healthcare setting, dosage, regimen and route of drug administration, to detect subgroup effects.The absolute risks in the oxytocin are based on meta-analyses of proportions from the studies included in this review and the risks in the intervention groups were based on the assumed risk in the oxytocin group and the relative effects of the interventions. MAIN RESULTS: This network meta-analysis included 140 randomised trials with data from 88,947 women. There are two large ongoing studies. The trials were mostly carried out in hospital settings and recruited women who were predominantly more than 37 weeks of gestation having a vaginal birth. The majority of trials were assessed to have uncertain risk of bias due to poor reporting of study design. This primarily impacted on our confidence in comparisons involving carbetocin trials more than other uterotonics.The three most effective drugs for prevention of PPH ≥ 500 mL were ergometrine plus oxytocin combination, carbetocin, and misoprostol plus oxytocin combination. These three options were more effective at preventing PPH ≥ 500 mL compared with oxytocin, the drug currently recommended by the WHO (ergometrine plus oxytocin risk ratio (RR) 0.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.83), moderate-quality evidence; carbetocin RR 0.72 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.00), very low-quality evidence; misoprostol plus oxytocin RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.90), moderate-quality evidence). Based on these results, about 10.5% women given oxytocin would experience a PPH of ≥ 500 mL compared with 7.2% given ergometrine plus oxytocin combination, 7.6% given carbetocin, and 7.7% given misoprostol plus oxytocin. Oxytocin was ranked fourth with close to 0% cumulative probability of being ranked in the top three for PPH ≥ 500 mL.The outcomes and rankings for the outcome of PPH ≥ 1000 mL were similar to those of PPH ≥ 500 mL. with the evidence for ergometrine plus oxytocin combination being more effective than oxytocin (RR 0.77 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.95), high-quality evidence) being more certain than that for carbetocin (RR 0.70 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.28), low-quality evidence), or misoprostol plus oxytocin combination (RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.14), moderate-quality evidence)There were no meaningful differences between all drugs for maternal deaths or severe morbidity as these outcomes were so rare in the included randomised trials.Two combination regimens had the poorest rankings for side-effects. Specifically, the ergometrine plus oxytocin combination had the higher risk for vomiting (RR 3.10 (95% CI 2.11 to 4.56), high-quality evidence; 1.9% versus 0.6%) and hypertension [RR 1.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 5.66), low-quality evidence; 1.2% versus 0.7%), while the misoprostol plus oxytocin combination had the higher risk for fever (RR 3.18 (95% CI 2.22 to 4.55), moderate-quality evidence; 11.4% versus 3.6%) when compared with oxytocin. Carbetocin had similar risk for side-effects compared with oxytocin although the quality evidence was very low for vomiting and for fever, and was low for hypertension. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Ergometrine plus oxytocin combination, carbetocin, and misoprostol plus oxytocin combination were more effective for preventing PPH ≥ 500 mL than the current standard oxytocin. Ergometrine plus oxytocin combination was more effective for preventing PPH ≥ 1000 mL than oxytocin. Misoprostol plus oxytocin combination evidence is less consistent and may relate to different routes and doses of misoprostol used in the studies. Carbetocin had the most favourable side-effect profile amongst the top three options; however, most carbetocin trials were small and at high risk of bias.Amongst the 11 ongoing studies listed in this review there are two key studies that will inform a future update of this review. The first is a WHO-led multi-centre study comparing the effectiveness of a room temperature stable carbetocin versus oxytocin (administered intramuscularly) for preventing PPH in women having a vaginal birth. The trial includes around 30,000 women from 10 countries. The other is a UK-based trial recruiting more than 6000 women to a three-arm trial comparing carbetocin, oxytocin and ergometrine plus oxytocin combination. Both trials are expected to report in 2018.Consultation with our consumer group demonstrated the need for more research into PPH outcomes identified as priorities for women and their families, such as women's views regarding the drugs used, clinical signs of excessive blood loss, neonatal unit admissions and breastfeeding at discharge. To date, trials have rarely investigated these outcomes. Consumers also considered the side-effects of uterotonic drugs to be important but these were often not reported. A forthcoming set of core outcomes relating to PPH will identify outcomes to prioritise in trial reporting and will inform futures updates of this review. We urge all trialists to consider measuring these outcomes for each drug in all future randomised trials. Lastly, future evidence synthesis research could compare the effects of different dosages and routes of administration for the most effective drugs.

Genital Chlamydia trachomatis Infections Clear More Slowly in Men Than Women, but Are Less Likely to Become Established.

Background: Rigorous estimates for clearance rates of untreated chlamydia infections are important for understanding chlamydia epidemiology and designing control interventions, but were previously only available for women. Methods: We used data from published studies of chlamydia-infected men who were retested at a later date without having received treatment. Our analysis allowed new infections to take one of 1, 2, or 3 courses, each clearing at a different rate. We determined which of these 3 models had the most empirical support. Results: The best-fitting model had 2 courses of infection in men, as was previously found for women: "slow-clearing" and "fast-clearing." Only 68% (57%-78%) (posterior median and 95% credible interval [CrI]) of incident infections in men were slow-clearing, vs 77% (69%-84%) in women. The slow clearance rate in men (based on 6 months' follow-up) was 0.35 (.05-1.15) year-1 (posterior median and 95% CrI), corresponding to mean infection duration 2.84 (.87-18.79) years. This compares to 1.35 (1.13-1.63) years in women. Conclusions: Our estimated clearance rate is slower than previously assumed. Fewer infections become established in men than women but once established, they clear more slowly. This study provides an improved description of chlamydia's natural history to inform public health decision making. We describe how further data collection could reduce uncertainty in estimates.

Is the first urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (ACR) in women with suspected preeclampsia a prognostic factor for maternal and neonatal adverse outcome? A retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to determine the prognostic value of the first urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (ACR) for adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes and how it relates to other prognostic factors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study from December 2009 to February 2012 with analysis of demographic, clinical and biochemical data from two obstetric day assessment units in hospitals in Southeast Scotland. We included 717 pregnant women, with singleton pregnancies after 20 weeks' gestation, referred for evaluation of suspected preeclampsia and having their first ACR performed. The ability of ACR to predict future outcomes was assessed in both univariable and multivariable logistic regression models. The latter assessed its prognostic value independent of (adjusting for) existing prognostic factors. Primary outcome measures were maternal and neonatal composite adverse outcomes, and a secondary outcome was gestation at delivery. RESULTS: In all, 204 women (28.5%) experienced a composite adverse maternal outcome and 146 women (20.4%) experienced a composite adverse neonatal outcome. Multivariate analysis of log-transformed ACR demonstrated that a 1-unit increase in log ACR is associated with an increased odds of adverse maternal [odds ratio 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.45-1.80] and adverse neonatal (odds ratio 1.15, 95% CI 1.02-1.29) composite outcomes, and with reduced gestational age at delivery (coefficient: -0.46, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.38). CONCLUSIONS: ACR is an independent prognostic factor for maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes in suspected preeclampsia. ACR may be useful to inform risk predictions within a prognostic model.

Proportion of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease Cases Caused by Chlamydia trachomatis: Consistent Picture From Different Methods.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) is a leading cause of both tubal factor infertility and ectopic pregnancy. Chlamydia trachomatis is an important risk factor for PID, but the proportion of PID cases caused by C. trachomatis is unclear. Estimates of this are required to evaluate control measures. METHODS: We consider 5 separate methods of estimating age-group-specific population excess fractions (PEFs) of PID due to C. trachomatis, using routine data, surveys, case-control studies, and randomized controlled trials, and apply these to data from the United Kingdom before introduction of the National Chlamydia Screening Programme. RESULTS: As they are informed by randomized comparisons and national exposure and outcome estimates, our preferred estimates of the proportion of PID cases caused by C. trachomatis are 35% (95% credible interval [CrI], 11%-69%) in women aged 16-24 years and 20% (95% CrI, 6%-38%) in women aged 16-44 years in the United Kingdom. There is a fair degree of consistency between adjusted estimates of PEF, but all have wide 95% CrIs. The PEF decreases from 53.5% (95% CrI, 15.6%-100%) in women aged 16-19 years to 11.5% (95% CrI, 3.0%-25.7%) in women aged 35-44 years. CONCLUSIONS: The PEFs of PID due to C. trachomatis decline steeply with age by a factor of around 5-fold between younger and older women. Further studies of the etiology of PID in different age groups are required.

Impact of a community pharmacy-based medication therapy management program on clinical and humanistic outcomes in patients with uncontrolled diabetes: a randomised controlled trial.

This study was aimed to evaluate the impact of community pharmacy (CP)-based medication therapy management (MTM) program on clinical and humanistic outcomes in patients with uncontrolled diabetes. An open label, parallel-group randomised controlled trial was undertaken at a community pharmacy in Riyadh city, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Patients with a diagnosis of uncontrolled diabetes (HbA1c of ≥ 8%) meeting the eligibility criteria were randomised to receive either the MTM programme provided by pharmacists or standard care. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c over 6 months. Secondary outcomes included: changes in clinical parameters (blood pressure (BP), lipid profile, serum creatinine (SCr) and albumin-to- creatinine ratio (ACR)), types of drug-related problems (DRPs), health service utilization (HSU), adherence, diabetes distress and overall patient satisfaction with the service at 6-month. A sufficiently powered sample of 160 participants with a mean age was 50 years (SD ± 11.9) was recruited. The majority of the patients (68.1%) were male and had diabetes for more than eight years [IQR 3, 14]. After adjusting for baseline HbA1c, compared to the control group, the mean HbA1c level was 0.02% (p = 0.929) and 0.2% (p = 0.47) lower in the intervention arm at 3-month and 6-month respectively. However, these differences were not statistically significant. Nonetheless, within each arm, there was a significant improvement in HbA1c from baseline. Furthermore, the intervention arm demonstrated improvement in BP control (SBP lowered by 3.2 mmHg (p = 0.05) and DBP lowered by 3.8 mmHg (p = 0.008)). During the study period, none of the participants in the intervention group reported hospitalization or ER visits compared to 14 patients in the control group [OR 0.069 (95% CI 0.004, 1.3)]. Patient satisfaction as measured by Patient Satisfaction with Pharmacist Services Questionnaire 2.0 (PSPSQ 2.0) was significantly higher among MTM program participants compared to standard care (p = 0.00001). Patients in the MTM program were eight times more likely to be adherent compared to the patients in the standard care [OR 7.89 (95% CI 3.6, 17.4)]. MTM program metrics showed that per patient, the pharmacists spent a median of 35 [IQR 30, 44.5] minutes at the initial visit and 20 [IQR 10, 25] minutes during the 6-month visit. The number of DRPs had significantly dropped in the intervention arm at 3 and 6-month (p = 0.0001). In conclusion, CP-based MTM program can improve health outcomes and prevent hospitalisations in patients with diabetes. These findings support the implementation of CP-based MTM services for patients with diabetes in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.