COHESION: a core outcome set for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy.

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity in outcomes reported in trials of interventions for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy (NE) makes evaluating the effectiveness of treatments difficult. Developing a core outcome set for NE treatment would enable researchers to measure and report the same outcomes in future trials. This would minimise waste, ensure relevant outcomes are measured and enable evidence synthesis. Therefore, we aimed to develop a core outcome set for treating NE. METHODS: Outcomes identified from a systematic review of the literature and interviews with parents were prioritised by stakeholders (n = 99 parents/caregivers, n = 101 healthcare providers, and n = 22 researchers/ academics) in online Delphi surveys. Agreement on the outcomes was achieved at online consensus meetings attended by n = 10 parents, n = 18 healthcare providers, and n = 13 researchers/ academics. RESULTS: Seven outcomes were included in the final core outcome set: survival; brain injury on imaging; neurological status at discharge; cerebral palsy; general cognitive ability; quality of life of the child, and adverse events related to treatment. CONCLUSION: We developed a core outcome set for the treatment of NE. This will allow future trials to measure and report the same outcomes and ensure results can be compared. Future work should identify how best to measure the COS. IMPACT: We have identified seven outcomes that should be measured and reported in all studies for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy. Previously, a core outcome set for neonatal encephalopathy treatments did not exist. This will help to reduce heterogeneity in outcomes reported in clinical trials and other studies, and help researchers identify the best treatments for neonatal encephalopathy.

Consensus definition and diagnostic criteria for neonatal encephalopathy-study protocol for a real-time modified delphi study.

BACKGROUND: 'Neonatal encephalopathy' (NE) describes a group of conditions in term infants presenting in the earliest days after birth with disturbed neurological function of cerebral origin. NE is aetiologically heterogenous; one cause is peripartum hypoxic ischaemia. Lack of uniformity in the terminology used to describe NE and its diagnostic criteria creates difficulty in the design and interpretation of research and complicates communication with families. The DEFINE study aims to use a modified Delphi approach to form a consensus definition for NE, and diagnostic criteria. METHODS: Directed by an international steering group, we will conduct a systematic review of the literature to assess the terminology used in trials of NE, and with their guidance perform an online Real-time Delphi survey to develop a consensus diagnosis and criteria for NE. A consensus meeting will be held to agree on the final terminology and criteria, and the outcome disseminated widely. DISCUSSION: A clear and consistent consensus-based definition of NE and criteria for its diagnosis, achieved by use of a modified Delphi technique, will enable more comparability of research results and improved communication among professionals and with families. IMPACT: The terms Neonatal Encephalopathy and Hypoxic Ischaemic Encephalopathy tend to be used interchangeably in the literature to describe a term newborn with signs of encephalopathy at birth. This creates difficulty in communication with families and carers, and between medical professionals and researchers, as well as creating difficulty with performance of research. The DEFINE project will use a Real-time Delphi approach to create a consensus definition for the term 'Neonatal Encephalopathy'. A definition formed by this consensus approach will be accepted and utilised by the neonatal community to improve research, outcomes, and parental experience.

Midwife continuity of care models versus other models of care for childbearing women.

BACKGROUND: Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women globally and there is a need to establish whether there are differences in effectiveness between midwife continuity of care models and other models of care. This is an update of a review published in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of midwife continuity of care models with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (17 August 2022), as well as the reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife continuity of care models or other models of care during pregnancy and birth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion criteria, scientific integrity, and risk of bias, and carried out data extraction and entry. Primary outcomes were spontaneous vaginal birth, caesarean section, regional anaesthesia, intact perineum, fetal loss after 24 weeks gestation, preterm birth, and neonatal death. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies involving 18,533 randomised women. We assessed all studies as being at low risk of scientific integrity/trustworthiness concerns. Studies were conducted in Australia, Canada, China, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. The majority of the included studies did not include women at high risk of complications. There are three ongoing studies targeting disadvantaged women. Primary outcomes Based on control group risks observed in the studies, midwife continuity of care models, as compared to other models of care, likely increase spontaneous vaginal birth from 66% to 70% (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.07; 15 studies, 17,864 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), likelyreduce caesarean sections from 16% to 15% (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99; 16 studies, 18,037 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and likely result in little to no difference in intact perineum (29% in other care models and 31% in midwife continuity of care models, average RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.12; 12 studies, 14,268 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may belittle or no difference in preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (6% under both care models, average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16; 10 studies, 13,850 participants; low-certainty evidence). We arevery uncertain about the effect of midwife continuity of care models on regional analgesia (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 15 studies, 17,754 participants, very low-certainty evidence), fetal loss at or after 24 weeks gestation (average RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.13; 12 studies, 16,122 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and neonatal death (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.71; 10 studies, 14,718 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes When compared to other models of care, midwife continuity of care models likely reduce instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum) from 14% to 13% (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.96; 14 studies, 17,769 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduceepisiotomy 23% to 19% (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.91; 15 studies, 17,839 participants; low-certainty evidence). When compared to other models of care, midwife continuity of care models likelyresult in little to no difference inpostpartum haemorrhage (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.03; 11 studies, 14,407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and admission to special care nursery/neonatal intensive care unit (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.03; 13 studies, 16,260 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in induction of labour (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.00; 14 studies, 17,666 participants; low-certainty evidence), breastfeeding initiation (average RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12; 8 studies, 8575 participants; low-certainty evidence), and birth weight less than 2500 g (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 9 studies, 12,420 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of midwife continuity of care models compared to other models of care onthird or fourth-degree tear (average RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.49; 7 studies, 9437 participants; very low-certainty evidence), maternal readmission within 28 days (average RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.96; 1 study, 1195 participants; very low-certainty evidence), attendance at birth by a known midwife (average RR 9.13, 95% CI 5.87 to 14.21; 11 studies, 9273 participants; very low-certainty evidence), Apgar score less than or equal to seven at five minutes (average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.24; 13 studies, 12,806 participants; very low-certainty evidence) andfetal loss before 24 weeks gestation (average RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.01; 12 studies, 15,913 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No maternal deaths were reported across three studies. Although the observed risk of adverse events was similar between midwifery continuity of care models and other models, our confidence in the findings was limited. Our confidence in the findings was lowered by possible risks of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision of some estimates. There were no available data for the outcomes: maternal health status, neonatal readmission within 28 days, infant health status, and birth weight of 4000 g or more. Maternal experiences and cost implications are described narratively. Women receiving care from midwife continuity of care models, as opposed to other care models, generally reported more positive experiences during pregnancy, labour, and postpartum. Cost savings were noted in the antenatal and intrapartum periods in midwife continuity of care models. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Women receiving midwife continuity of care models were less likely to experience a caesarean section and instrumental birth, and may be less likely to experience episiotomy. They were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth and report a positive experience. The certainty of some findings varies due to possible risks of bias, inconsistencies, and imprecision of some estimates. Future research should focus on the impact on women with social risk factors, and those at higher risk of complications, and implementation and scaling up of midwife continuity of care models, with emphasis on low- and middle-income countries.

Challenges of using a Fitbit smart wearable among people with dementia.

OBJECTIVES: Limited research on using smart wearables such as Fitbit devices among people with dementia has shown favourable outcomes. The aim of this study was to explore the acceptability and feasibility of using a Fitbit Charge 3 among people with dementia, living in the community, who took part in the physical exercise component of the Comprehensive REsilience-building psychoSocial intervenTion pilot study. METHODS: A mixed methods study was conducted; Quantitative data relating to wear rates for the Fitbit were recorded and qualitative data were collected by group and individual interviews with the people with dementia and their caregiver about their experience of wearing/using the Fitbit in the study. RESULTS: Nine people with dementia and their caregiver completed the intervention. Only one participant wore the Fitbit consistently. Supporting set-up and use of the devices was time consuming and caregiver involvement was essential for day-to-day support: none of the people with dementia owned a smartphone. Few of them engaged with the Fitbit features, primarily only using it to check the time and only a minority wanted to keep the device beyond the intervention. DISCUSSION: When designing a study using smart wearables such as a Fitbit among people with dementia, consideration should be given to the following: the possible burden on caregivers supporting the use of the device; a lack of familiarity with this technology in the target population; dealing with missing data, and the involvement of the researcher in setting up and supporting use of the device.

Fetal scalp stimulation for assessing fetal well-being during labour.

BACKGROUND: Continuous fetal heart rate monitoring by cardiotocography (CTG) is used in labour for women with complicated pregnancies. Fetal heart rate abnormalities are common and may result in the decision to expedite delivery by caesarean section. Fetal scalp stimulation (FSS) is a second-line test of fetal well-being that may provide reassurance that the labour can continue. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate methods of FSS as second-line tests of intrapartum fetal well-being in cases of non-reassuring CTG. FSS and CTG were compared to CTG alone, and to CTG with fetal blood sampling (FBS). SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (which includes trials from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the WHO ICTRP and conference proceedings), ClinicalTrials.gov (18 October 2022), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any form of FSS to assess fetal well-being in labour. Quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and studies published in abstract form were also eligible for inclusion, but none were identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials, involving 377 women, met the inclusion criteria for this review. Both trials were conducted in hospital settings and included women with singleton, term (37+0 weeks or more) pregnancies, a cephalic presentation, and abnormal CTG. Follow-up was until hospital discharge after the birth. A pilot trial of 50 women in a high-income country (Ireland) compared CTG and digital fetal scalp stimulation (dFSS) with CTG and fetal blood sampling (FBS). A single-centre trial of 327 women in a lower middle-income country (India) compared CTG and manual fetal stimulation (abdominal or vaginal scalp stimulation) with CTG alone. The two included studies were at moderate or unclear risk of bias. Both trials provided clear information on allocation concealment but it was not possible to blind participants or health professionals in relation to the intervention. Although objective outcome measures were reported, outcome assessment was not blinded or blinding was unclear. dFSS and CTG versus FBS and CTG There were no perinatal deaths and data were not reported for neurodevelopmental disability at >/= 12 months. The risk of caesarean section (CS) may be lower with dFSS compared to FBS (risk ratio (RR) 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.92; 1 pilot trial, 50 women; very low-certainty evidence) but the evidence is very uncertain. There were no cases of neonatal encephalopathy reported. The evidence was also very uncertain between dFSS and FBS for assisted vaginal birth (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.75; very low-certainty evidence) and for the spontaneous vaginal birth rate (RR 2.33, 95% CI 0.68 to 8.01, very low-certainty evidence). Maternal acceptability of the procedures was not reported. FSS and CTG versus CTG alone Manual stimulation of the fetus was performed either abdominally (92/164) or vaginally (72/164). There were no perinatal deaths and data were not reported for neurodevelopmental disability at >/= 12 months. There may be little differences in the risk of CS on comparing manual fetal stimulation and CTG with CTG alone (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.18; 1 trial, 327 women; very low-certainty evidence), but again the evidence was very uncertain. There were no cases of neonatal encephalopathy reported. There may be no differences in the risk of assisted vaginal birth (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.60; very low-certainty evidence) or in the rates of spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.21, very low-certainty evidence), but again the evidence is very uncertain. Maternal acceptability of abdominal stimulation/FSS was not reported although 13 women withdrew consent after randomisation due to concerns about fetal well-being. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very low-certainty evidence available which makes it unclear whether stimulating the fetal scalp is a safe and effective way to confirm fetal well-being in labour. Evidence was downgraded based on limitations in study design and imprecision. Further high-quality studies of adequate sample size are required to evaluate this research question. In order to be generalisable, these trials should be conducted in different settings, including broad clinical criteria at both preterm and term gestational ages, and standardising the method of stimulation. There is an ongoing study (FIRSST) that will be incorporated into this review in a subsequent update.

Factors that impact on recruitment to vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 pandemic on 11 March 2020. Vaccine development and deployment were swiftly prioritised as a method to manage and control disease spread. The development of an effective vaccine relies on people's participation in randomised trials. Recruitment to vaccine trials is particularly challenging as it involves healthy volunteers who may have concerns around the potential risks and benefits associated with rapidly developed vaccines. OBJECTIVES: To explore the factors that influence a person's decision to participate in a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was June 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with an identifiable qualitative component. We included studies that explored the perspectives of adults aged 18 years or older who were invited to take part in vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed the title, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used a sampling frame to identify data-rich studies that represented a range of diseases and geographical spread. We used QSR NVivo to manage extracted data. We assessed methodological limitations using an adapted version of the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool for qualitative studies. We used the 'best-fit framework approach' to analyse and synthesise the evidence from our included studies. We then used the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) assessment to assess our confidence in each finding and develop implications for practice. MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 studies in our review. Most studies related to HIV vaccine trials. The other studies related to Ebola virus, tuberculosis, Zika virus and COVID-19. We developed 20 key findings, under three broad themes (with seven subthemes), that described the factors that people consider when deciding whether to take part in a vaccine trial for a pandemic or epidemic disease. Our GRADE-CERQual confidence was high in nine of the key findings, moderate in 10 key findings and low in one key finding. The main reason for downgrading review findings were concerns regarding the relevance and adequacy of the underlying data. As a result of the over-representation of HIV studies, our GRADE-CERQual assessment of some findings was downgraded in terms of relevance because the views described may not reflect those of people regarding vaccine trials for other pandemic or epidemic diseases. Adequacy relates to the degree of richness and quantity of data supporting a review finding. Moderate concerns about adequacy resulted in a downgrading of some review findings. Some factors were considered to be under the control of the trial team. These included how trial information was communicated and the inclusion of people in the community to help with trial information dissemination. Aspects of trial design were also considered under control of the trial team and included convenience of participation, provision of financial incentives and access to additional support services for those taking part in the trial. Other factors influencing people's decision to take part could be personal, from family, friends or wider society. From a personal perceptive, people had concerns about vaccine side effects, vaccine efficacy and possible impact on their daily lives (carer responsibilities, work, etc.). People were also influenced by their families, and the impact participation may have on relationships. The fear of stigma from society influenced the decision to take part. Also, from a societal perspective, the level of trust in governments' involvement in research and trial may influence a person's decision. Finally, the perceived rewards, both personal and societal, were influencing factors on the decision to participate. Personal rewards included access to a vaccine, improved health and improved disease knowledge, and a return to normality in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. Potential societal rewards included helping the community and contributing to science, often motivated by the memories of family and friends who had died from the disease. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies many of the factors that influence a person's decision to take part in a vaccine trial, and these reflect findings from reviews that examine trials more broadly. However, we also recognise some factors that become more important in connection with a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. These factors include the potential stigma of taking part, the possible adverse effects of a vaccine, the added motivation for helping society, the role of community leaders in trial dissemination, and the level of trust placed in governments and companies developing vaccines. These specific influences need to be considered by trial teams when designing, and communicating about, vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.

Interleukin-6 blocking agents for treating COVID-19: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It has been reported that people with COVID-19 and pre-existing autoantibodies against type I interferons are likely to develop an inflammatory cytokine storm responsible for severe respiratory symptoms. Since interleukin 6 (IL-6) is one of the cytokines released during this inflammatory process, IL-6 blocking agents have been used for treating people with severe COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To update the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to a placebo for people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Living OVerview of Evidence (L·OVE) platform, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify studies on 7 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of researchers independently conducted study selection, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for all critical and important outcomes. In this update we amended our protocol to update the methods used for grading evidence by establishing minimal important differences for the critical outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: This update includes 22 additional trials, for a total of 32 trials including 12,160 randomized participants all hospitalized for COVID-19 disease. We identified a further 17 registered RCTs evaluating IL-6 blocking agents without results available as of 7 June 2022.  The mean age range varied from 56 to 75 years; 66.2% (8051/12,160) of enrolled participants were men. One-third (11/32) of included trials were placebo-controlled. Twenty-two were published in peer-reviewed journals, three were reported as preprints, two trials had results posted only on registries, and results from five trials were retrieved from another meta-analysis. Eight were funded by pharmaceutical companies.  Twenty-six included studies were multicenter trials; four were multinational and 22 took place in single countries. Recruitment of participants occurred between February 2020 and June 2021, with a mean enrollment duration of 21 weeks (range 1 to 54 weeks). Nineteen trials (60%) had a follow-up of 60 days or more. Disease severity ranged from mild to critical disease. The proportion of participants who were intubated at study inclusion also varied from 5% to 95%. Only six trials reported vaccination status; there were no vaccinated participants included in these trials, and 17 trials were conducted before vaccination was rolled out. We assessed a total of six treatments, each compared to placebo or standard care. Twenty trials assessed tocilizumab, nine assessed sarilumab, and two assessed clazakizumab. Only one trial was included for each of the other IL-6 blocking agents (siltuximab, olokizumab, and levilimab). Two trials assessed more than one treatment. Efficacy and safety of tocilizumab and sarilumab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 At day (D) 28, tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement (tocilizumab: risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.11; 15 RCTs, 6116 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; sarilumab: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 2425 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For clinical improvement at ≥ D60, the certainty of evidence is very low for both tocilizumab (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.48; 1 RCT, 97 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and sarilumab (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.63; 2 RCTs, 239 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The effect of tocilizumab on the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score (WHO-CPS) of level 7 or above remains uncertain at D28 (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 13 RCTs, 2117 participants; low-certainty evidence) and that for sarilumab very uncertain (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.33; 5 RCTs, 886 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab reduces all cause-mortality at D28 compared to standard care/placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94; 18 RCTs, 7428 participants; high-certainty evidence). The evidence about the effect of sarilumab on this outcome is very uncertain (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30; 9 RCTs, 3305 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain for all cause-mortality at ≥ D60 for tocilizumab (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.04; 9 RCTs, 2775 participants; low-certainty evidence) and very uncertain for sarilumab (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; 6 RCTs, 3379 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab probably results in little to no difference in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 9 RCTs, 1811 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence about adverse events for sarilumab is uncertain (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.28; 4 RCT, 860 participants; low-certainty evidence).  The evidence about serious adverse events is very uncertain for tocilizumab (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; 16 RCTs; 2974 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and uncertain for sarilumab (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.21; 6 RCTs; 2936 participants; low-certainty evidence). Efficacy and safety of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab and levilimab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 The evidence about the effects of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab, and levilimab comes from only one or two studies for each blocking agent, and is uncertain or very uncertain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized people with COVID-19, results show a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on all-cause mortality in the short term and probably little or no difference in the risk of adverse events compared to standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, both tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28. Evidence for an effect of sarilumab and the other IL-6 blocking agents on critical outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. Most of the trials included in our review were done before the waves of different variants of concern and before vaccination was rolled out on a large scale. An additional 17 RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents are currently registered with no results yet reported. The number of pending studies and the number of participants planned is low. Consequently, we will not publish further updates of this review.

Early Metformin in Gestational Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Gestational diabetes is a common complication of pregnancy and the optimal management is uncertain. Objective: To test whether early initiation of metformin reduces insulin initiation or improves fasting hyperglycemia at gestation weeks 32 or 38. Design, Setting, and Participants: Double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 2 centers in Ireland (one tertiary hospital and one smaller regional hospital). Participants were enrolled from June 2017 through September 2022 and followed up until 12 weeks' postpartum. Participants comprised 510 individuals (535 pregnancies) diagnosed with gestational diabetes based on World Health Organization 2013 criteria. Interventions: Randomized 1:1 to either placebo or metformin (maximum dose, 2500 mg) in addition to usual care. Main Outcomes And Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose level of 5.1 mmol/L or greater at gestation weeks 32 or 38. Results: Among 510 participants (mean age, 34.3 years), 535 pregnancies were randomized. The primary composite outcome was not significantly different between groups and occurred in 150 pregnancies (56.8%) in the metformin group and 167 pregnancies (63.7%) in the placebo group (between-group difference, -6.9% [95% CI, -15.1% to 1.4%]; relative risk, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.78-1.02]; P = .13). Of 6 prespecified secondary maternal outcomes, 3 favored the metformin group, including time to insulin initiation, self-reported capillary glycemic control, and gestational weight gain. Secondary neonatal outcomes differed by group, with smaller neonates (lower mean birth weights, a lower proportion weighing >4 kg, a lower proportion in the >90% percentile, and smaller crown-heel length) in the metformin group without differences in neonatal intensive care needs, respiratory distress requiring respiratory support, jaundice requiring phototherapy, major congenital anomalies, neonatal hypoglycemia, or proportion with 5-minute Apgar scores less than 7. Conclusion and relevance: Early treatment with metformin was not superior to placebo for the composite primary outcome. Prespecified secondary outcome data support further investigation of metformin in larger clinical trials. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02980276; EudraCT: 2016-001644-19.

A pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a peer-delivered outreach community-based smoking cessation intervention for women living in disadvantaged communities in Ireland.

INTRODUCTION: The health of women in rural communities is adversely impacted by increased rates of tobacco use linked to socio-economic disadvantage (SED) and by limited access to services. We Can Quit (WCQ) is a smoking cessation programme delivered by trained lay women (community facilitators) in local communities, which was developed using a Community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) approach and tailored to women living in SED areas of Ireland. METHODS: The We Can Quit2 (WCQ2) pilot cluster randomised controlled trial with an inbuilt process evaluation was conducted in four matched pairs of urban and semi-rural SED districts (8-10,000 women per district) to assess feasibility. Districts were independently randomised to WCQ (group support +/- nicotine replacement therapy), or to individual support delivered by health professionals. RESULTS: Findings showed that that the WCQ outreach programme is acceptable and feasible to implement for smoking women living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. A secondary outcome of smoking abstinence (self-report + biochemical validation) demonstrated 27% abstinence in the intervention group versus 17% in usual care at end of programme. Low literacy was highlighted as a major barrier to participants' acceptability. DISCUSSION: The design of our project provides an affordable solution for governments in prioritising outreach smoking cessation in vulnerable populations in countries with rising rates of female lung cancer. Our community-based model using a CBPR approach empowers local women to become trained to deliver smoking cessation programmes within their own local communities. This provides a foundation to create a sustainable and equitable way to address tobacco use in rural communities.

Peer-Delivery of a Gender-Specific Smoking Cessation Intervention for Women Living in Disadvantaged Communities in Ireland We Can Quit2 (WCQ2)-A Pilot Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: We Can Quit" (WCQ) is community-based stop-smoking program delivered by trained community facilitators, based on the socio-ecological framework and developed using a Community-based Participatory Research approach, targeting women living in socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED) areas of Ireland. AIMS AND METHODS: The We Can Quit2 (WCQ2) pilot trial assessed the feasibility of WCQ. A pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial with a process evaluation WCQ2, was conducted in four matched pairs of SED districts (8-10 000 women per district). Districts were independently randomized to WCQ (group support + nicotine replacement therapy), or to individual support delivered by health professionals. Participants were adult women smokers interested in quitting, who were living or working in trial districts. Recruitment of districts and 194 women in four waves (49 women per wave); retention at 12 weeks and 6 months; fidelity to intervention delivery and acceptability of trial-related processes were assessed. Validated smoking abstinence at 12-week and 6-month post-intervention was recorded, missing data assumed as continued smoking. RESULTS: Eight districts were recruited. 125/188 (66.5%) eligible women consented. The 49 women target was reached in wave4. Retention at 12 weeks was (Intervention [I]: 55.4%; Control [C]: 51.7%), at 6 months (I: 47.7%; C: 46.7%). Smoking abstinence at 12 weeks was (I: 23.1%, [95% CI: 14.5 to 34.7]; C: 13%, [95% CI: 6.9 to 24.1]). 83.8% of session activities were delivered. Trial-related processes were acceptable to facilitators. Low literacy was highlighted as a barrier for participants' acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: WCQ was feasible to deliver by trained facilitators and indicated a positive direction in abstinence rates. Low literacy will need to be addressed in a future trial design. IMPLICATIONS: This pilot trial showed that a stop-smoking intervention tailored to a group of women smokers living in SED areas which was delivered by trained local women within their local communities was feasible. Furthermore, although not formally compared, more WCQ women were abstinent from smoking at the end of treatment. The results are relevant to enhance the design of a fully powered effectiveness trial, and provide important evidence on the barriers to deliver a tailored smoking cessation service to SED women smokers in Ireland.

Developing an online, searchable database to systematically map and organise current literature on retention research (ORRCA2).

BACKGROUND: Addressing recruitment and retention challenges in trials is a key priority for methods research, but navigating the literature is difficult and time-consuming. In 2016, ORRCA (www.orrca.org.uk) launched a free, searchable database of recruitment research that has been widely accessed and used to support the update of systematic reviews and the selection of recruitment strategies for clinical trials. ORRCA2 aims to create a similar database to map the growing volume and importance of retention research. METHODS: Searches of Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection and the Cochrane Library, restricted to English language and publications up to the end of 2017. Hand searches of key systematic reviews were undertaken and randomised evaluations of recruitment interventions within the ORRCA database on 1 October 2020 were also reviewed for any secondary retention outcomes. Records were screened by title and abstract before obtaining the full text of potentially relevant articles. Studies reporting or evaluating strategies, methods and study designs to improve retention within healthcare research were eligible. Case reports describing retention challenges or successes and studies evaluating participant reported reasons for withdrawal or losses were also included. Studies assessing adherence to treatments, attendance at appointments outside of research and statistical analysis methods for missing data were excluded. Eligible articles were categorised into one of the following evidence types: randomised evaluations, non-randomised evaluations, application of retention strategies without evaluation and observations of factors affecting retention. Articles were also mapped against a retention domain framework. Additional data were extracted on research outcomes, methods and host study context. RESULTS: Of the 72,904 abstracts screened, 4,364 full texts were obtained, and 1,167 articles were eligible. Of these, 165 (14%) were randomised evaluations, 99 (8%) non-randomised evaluations, 319 (27%) strategies without evaluation and 584 (50%) observations of factors affecting retention. Eighty-four percent (n = 979) of studies assessed the numbers of participants retained, 27% (n = 317) assessed demographic differences between retained and lost participants, while only 4% (n = 44) assessed the cost of retention strategies. The most frequently reported domains within the 165 studies categorised as 'randomised evaluations of retention strategies' were participant monetary incentives (32%), participant reminders and prompts (30%), questionnaire design (30%) and data collection location and method (26%). CONCLUSION: ORRCA2 builds on the success of ORRCA extending the database to organise the growing volume of retention research. Less than 15% of articles were randomised evaluations of retention strategies. Mapping of the literature highlights several areas for future research such as the role of research sites, clinical staff and study design in enhancing retention. Future studies should also include cost-benefit analysis of retention strategies.

Interleukin-1 blocking agents for treating COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Interleukin-1 (IL-1) blocking agents have been used for treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), on the premise that their immunomodulatory effect might be beneficial in people with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of IL-1 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo on effectiveness and safety outcomes in people with COVID-19. We will update this assessment regularly. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L-OVE Platform (search date 5 November 2021). These sources are maintained through regular searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, trial registers and other sources. We also checked the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, Retraction Watch (search date 3 November 2021). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-1 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed Cochrane methodology. The protocol was amended to reduce the number of outcomes considered. Two researchers independently screened and extracted data and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the critical outcomes of clinical improvement (Day 28; ≥ D60); WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above (i.e. the proportion of participants with mechanical ventilation +/- additional organ support OR death) (D28; ≥ D60); all-cause mortality (D28; ≥ D60); incidence of any adverse events; and incidence of serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four RCTs of anakinra (three published in peer-reviewed journals, one reported as a preprint) and two RCTs of canakinumab (published in peer-reviewed journals). All trials were multicentre (2 to 133 centres). Two trials stopped early (one due to futility and one as the trigger for inferiority was met). The median/mean age range varied from 58 to 68 years; the proportion of men varied from 58% to 77%. All participants were hospitalised; 67% to 100% were on oxygen at baseline but not intubated; between 0% and 33% were intubated at baseline. We identified a further 16 registered trials with no results available, of which 15 assessed anakinra (four completed, four terminated, five ongoing, three not recruiting) and one (completed) trial assessed canakinumab. Effectiveness of anakinra for people with COVID-19 Anakinra probably results in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28 (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.20; 3 RCTs, 837 participants; absolute effect: 59 more per 1000 (from 22 fewer to 147 more); moderate-certainty evidence. The evidence is uncertain about an effect of anakinra on 1) the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above at D28 (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.22; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 55 fewer per 1000 (from 107 fewer to 37 more); low-certainty evidence) and ≥ D60 (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.96; 1 RCT, 606 participants; absolute effect: 47 fewer per 1000 (from 72 fewer to 4 fewer) low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at D28 (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.39; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 32 fewer per 1000 (from 68 fewer to 40 more); low-certainty evidence).  The evidence is very uncertain about an effect of anakinra on 1) the proportion of participants with clinical improvement at ≥ D60 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 115 participants; absolute effect: 59 fewer per 1000 (from 186 fewer to 102 more); very low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.56; 4 RCTs, 1633 participants; absolute effect: 8 more per 1000 (from 84 fewer to 147 more); very low-certainty evidence). Safety of anakinra for people with COVID-19 Anakinra probably results in little or no increase in adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 14 more per 1000 (from 43 fewer to 78 more); moderate-certainty evidence).  The evidence is uncertain regarding an effect of anakinra on serious adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.56; 2 RCTs, 722 participants; absolute effect: 12 fewer per 1000 (from 104 fewer to 138 more); low-certainty evidence). Effectiveness of canakinumab for people with COVID-19 Canakinumab probably results in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28 (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 42 more per 1000 (from 33 fewer to 116 more); moderate-certainty evidence).  The evidence of an effect of canakinumab is uncertain on 1) the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above at D28 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.20; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 35 fewer per 1000 (from 69 fewer to 25 more); low-certainty evidence); and 2) all-cause mortality at D28 (RR:0.75; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.42); 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 20 fewer per 1000 (from 48 fewer to 33 more); low-certainty evidence).  The evidence is very uncertain about an effect of canakinumab on all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.91; 1 RCT, 45 participants; absolute effect: 112 fewer per 1000 (from 210 fewer to 227 more); very low-certainty evidence). Safety of canakinumab for people with COVID-19 Canakinumab probably results in little or no increase in adverse events (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21; 1 RCT, 454 participants; absolute effect: 11 more per 1000 (from 74 fewer to 111 more); moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence of an effect of canakinumab on serious adverse events is uncertain (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.13; 2 RCTs, 499 participants; absolute effect: 44 fewer per 1000 (from 94 fewer to 28 more); low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we did not find evidence for an important beneficial effect of IL-1 blocking agents. The evidence is uncertain or very uncertain for several outcomes. Sixteen trials of anakinra and canakinumab with no results are currently registered, of which four are completed, and four terminated. The findings of this review are updated on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com).

Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Different forms of vaccines have been developed to prevent the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent COVID-19 disease. Several are in widespread use globally.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines (as a full primary vaccination series or a booster dose) against SARS-CoV-2. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L·OVE platform (last search date 5 November 2021). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, and Retraction Watch. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID-19 vaccines to placebo, no vaccine, other active vaccines, or other vaccine schedules. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for all except immunogenicity outcomes.  We synthesized data for each vaccine separately and presented summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).  MAIN RESULTS: We included and analyzed 41 RCTs assessing 12 different vaccines, including homologous and heterologous vaccine schedules and the effect of booster doses. Thirty-two RCTs were multicentre and five were multinational. The sample sizes of RCTs were 60 to 44,325 participants. Participants were aged: 18 years or older in 36 RCTs; 12 years or older in one RCT; 12 to 17 years in two RCTs; and three to 17 years in two RCTs. Twenty-nine RCTs provided results for individuals aged over 60 years, and three RCTs included immunocompromized patients. No trials included pregnant women. Sixteen RCTs had two-month follow-up or less, 20 RCTs had two to six months, and five RCTs had greater than six to 12 months or less. Eighteen reports were based on preplanned interim analyses. Overall risk of bias was low for all outcomes in eight RCTs, while 33 had concerns for at least one outcome. We identified 343 registered RCTs with results not yet available.  This abstract reports results for the critical outcomes of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, severe and critical COVID-19, and serious adverse events only for the 10 WHO-approved vaccines. For remaining outcomes and vaccines, see main text. The evidence for mortality was generally sparse and of low or very low certainty for all WHO-approved vaccines, except AD26.COV2.S (Janssen), which probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants; high-certainty evidence). Confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (ModernaTx), ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), Ad26.COV2.S, BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm-Beijing), and BBV152 (Bharat Biotect) reduce the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (vaccine efficacy (VE): BNT162b2: 97.84%, 95% CI 44.25% to 99.92%; 2 RCTs, 44,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 93.20%, 95% CI 91.06% to 94.83%; 2 RCTs, 31,632 participants; ChAdOx1: 70.23%, 95% CI 62.10% to 76.62%; 2 RCTs, 43,390 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 66.90%, 95% CI 59.10% to 73.40%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 78.10%, 95% CI 64.80% to 86.30%; 1 RCT, 25,463 participants; BBV152: 77.80%, 95% CI 65.20% to 86.40%; 1 RCT, 16,973 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) probably reduces the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE 82.91%, 95% CI 50.49% to 94.10%; 3 RCTs, 42,175 participants). There is low-certainty evidence for CoronaVac (Sinovac) for this outcome (VE 69.81%, 95% CI 12.27% to 89.61%; 2 RCTs, 19,852 participants). Severe or critical COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 result in a large reduction in incidence of severe or critical disease due to COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE: BNT162b2: 95.70%, 95% CI 73.90% to 99.90%; 1 RCT, 46,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 98.20%, 95% CI 92.80% to 99.60%; 1 RCT, 28,451 participants; AD26.COV2.S: 76.30%, 95% CI 57.90% to 87.50%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBV152: 93.40%, 95% CI 57.10% to 99.80%; 1 RCT, 16,976 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 probably reduces the incidence of severe or critical COVID-19 (VE 100.00%, 95% CI 86.99% to 100.00%; 1 RCT, 25,452 participants). Two trials reported high efficacy of CoronaVac for severe or critical disease with wide CIs, but these results could not be pooled. Serious adverse events (SAEs) mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca)/SII-ChAdOx1 (Serum Institute of India), Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 probably result in little or no difference in SAEs compared to placebo (RR: mRNA-1273: 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 34,072 participants; ChAdOx1/SII-ChAdOx1: 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07; 7 RCTs, 58,182 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants); BBV152: 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; 1 RCT, 25,928 participants). In each of these, the likely absolute difference in effects was fewer than 5/1000 participants. Evidence for SAEs is uncertain for BNT162b2, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, and NVX-CoV2373 compared to placebo (RR: BNT162b2: 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; 2 RCTs, 46,107 participants; CoronaVac: 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 23,139 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06; 1 RCT, 26,924 participants; NVX-CoV2373: 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 4 RCTs, 38,802 participants). For the evaluation of heterologous schedules, booster doses, and efficacy against variants of concern, see main text of review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, and for some, there is high-certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com). Implications for practice Due to the trial exclusions, these results cannot be generalized to pregnant women, individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, or immunocompromized people. Most trials had a short follow-up and were conducted before the emergence of variants of concern. Implications for research Future research should evaluate the long-term effect of vaccines, compare different vaccines and vaccine schedules, assess vaccine efficacy and safety in specific populations, and include outcomes such as preventing long COVID-19. Ongoing evaluation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against emerging variants of concern is also vital.

Clinical practice guidelines for recurrent miscarriage in high-income countries: a systematic review.

Recurrent miscarriage affects 1-2% of women of reproductive age, depending on the definition used. A systematic review was conducted to identify, appraise and describe clinical practice guidelines (CPG) published since 2000 for the investigation, management, and/or follow-up of recurrent miscarriage within high-income countries. Six major databases, eight guideline repositories and the websites of 11 professional organizations were searched to identify potentially eligible studies. The quality of eligible CPG was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) Tool. A narrative synthesis was conducted to describe, compare and contrast the CPG and recommendations therein. Thirty-two CPG were included, from which 373 recommendations concerning first-trimester recurrent miscarriage were identified across four sub-categories: structure of care (42 recommendations, nine CPG), investigations (134 recommendations, 23 CPG), treatment (153 recommendations, 24 CPG), and counselling and supportive care (46 recommendations, nine CPG). Most CPG scored 'poor' on applicability (84%) and editorial independence (69%); and to a lesser extent stakeholder involvement (38%) and rigour of development (31%). Varying levels of consensus were found across CPG, with some conflicting recommendations. Greater efforts are required to improve the quality of evidence underpinning CPG, the rigour of their development and the inclusion of multi-disciplinary perspectives, including those with lived experience of recurrent miscarriage.

Psychological interventions for treating foot ulcers, and preventing their recurrence, in people with diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic foot ulceration (DFU) can be defined as a full-thickness wound below the ankle and is a major complication of diabetes mellitus. Despite best practice, many wounds fail to heal, and when they do, the risk of recurrence of DFU remains high. Beliefs about personal control, or influence, on ulceration are associated with better engagement with self-care in DFU. Psychological interventions aim to reduce levels of psychological distress and empower people to engage in self-care, and there is some evidence to suggest that they can impact positively on the rate of wound healing. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of psychological interventions on healing and recurrence of DFU. SEARCH METHODS: In September 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycINFO and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and reviewed reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that evaluated psychological interventions compared with standard care, education or another psychological intervention. Our primary outcomes were the proportion of wounds completely healed; time to complete wound healing; time to recurrence and number of recurrences. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors independently screened titles and abstracts of the studies identified by the search strategy for eligibility. Three authors independently screened all potentially relevant studies using the inclusion criteria and carried out data extraction, assessment of risk of bias and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We identified seven trials that met the inclusion criteria with a total of 290 participants: six RCTs and one quasi-RCT. The studies were conducted in Australia, the USA, the UK, Indonesia, Norway and South Africa. Three trials used a counselling-style intervention and one assessed an intervention designed to enhance an understanding of well-being. One RCT used a biofeedback relaxation training intervention and one used a psychosocial intervention based on cognitive behavioural therapy. A quasi-RCT assessed motivation and tailored the intervention accordingly. Due to the heterogeneity of the trials identified, pooling of data was judged inappropriate, and we therefore present a narrative synthesis. Comparisons were (1) psychological intervention compared with standard care and (2) psychological intervention compared with another psychological intervention. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between psychological intervention and standard care for people with diabetic foot ulceration in the proportion of wounds completely healed (two trials, data not pooled, first trial RR 6.25, 95% CI 0.35 to 112.5; 16 participants, second trial RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.39; 60 participants), in foot ulcer recurrence after one year (two trials, data not pooled, first trial RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.41; 41 participants, second trial RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.05 to 7.90; 13 participants) or in health-related quality of life (one trial, MD 5.52, 95% CI -5.80 to 16.84; 56 participants). This is based on very low-certainty evidence which we downgraded for very serious study limitations, risk of bias and imprecision. We are uncertain whether there is a difference in the proportion of wounds completely healed in people with diabetic foot ulceration depending on whether they receive a psychological intervention compared with another psychological intervention (one trial, RR 2.33, 95% CI 0.92 to 5.93; 16 participants). This is based on very low-certainty evidence from one study which we downgraded for very serious study limitations, risk of bias and imprecision. Time to complete wound healing was reported in two studies but not in a way that was suitable for inclusion in this review. One trial reported self-efficacy and two trials reported quality of life, but only one reported quality of life in a manner that enabled us to extract data for this review. No studies explored the other primary outcome (time to recurrence) or secondary outcomes (amputations (major or distal) or cost). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are unable to determine whether psychological interventions are of any benefit to people with an active diabetic foot ulcer or a history of diabetic foot ulcers to achieve complete wound healing or prevent recurrence. This is because there are few trials of psychological interventions in this area. Of the trials we included, few measured all of our outcomes of interest and, where they did so, we judged the evidence, using GRADE criteria, to be of very low certainty.

Physiological track-and-trigger/early warning systems for use in maternity care.

BACKGROUND: A considerable challenge for maternity care providers is recognising clinical deterioration early in pregnant women. Professional bodies recommend the use of clinical assessment protocols or evaluation tools, commonly referred to as physiological track-and-trigger systems (TTS) or early warning systems (EWS), as a means of helping maternity care providers recognise actual or potential clinical deterioration early. TTS/EWS are clinician-administered (midwife, obstetrician), bedside physiological assessment protocols, charts or tools designed to record routinely assessed clinical parameters; that is, blood pressure, temperature, heart rate, urine output and mental/neurological alertness. In general, these systems involve the application of scores or alert indicators to the observed physiological parameters based on their prespecified limits of normality. The overall system score or alert limit is then used to assist the maternity care provider identify a need to escalate care. This, in turn, may allow for earlier intervention(s) to alter the course of the emerging critical illness and ultimately reduce or avoid mortality and morbidity sequelae. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of maternal physiological TTS/EWS on pregnancy, labour and birth, postpartum (up to 42 days) and neonatal outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (28 May 2021), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (7 June 2021), OpenGrey, the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (7 June 2021), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-RCTs, comparing physiological TTS/EWS with no system or another system. Participants were women who were pregnant or had given birth within the previous 42 days, at high risk and low risk for pregnancy, labour and birth, and postpartum complications. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (VS and MN) independently assessed all identified papers for inclusion and performed risk of bias assessments. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus. Data extraction was also conducted independently by two review authors (VS and MN) and checked for accuracy. We used the summary odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to present the results for dichotomous data and the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI to present the results for continuous data. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies, a parallel RCT involving 700 women and a stepped-wedge cluster trial involving 536,233 women. Both studies were published in 2019, and both were conducted in low-resource settings. The interventions were the 'Saving Mothers Score' (SMS) and the CRADLE Vital Sign Alert (VSA) device, and both interventions were compared with standard care. Both studies had low or unclear risk of bias on all seven risk of bias criteria. Evidence certainty, assessed using GRADE, ranged from very low to moderate certainty, mainly due to other bias as well as inconsistency and imprecision. For women randomised to TTS/EWS compared to standard care there is probably little to no difference in maternal death (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.11; 1 study, 536,233 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Use of TTS/EWS compared to standard care may reduce total haemorrhage (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.69; 1 study, 700 participants; low-certainty evidence). For women randomised to TTS/EWS compared to standard care there may be little to no difference in sepsis (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.80; 1 study, 700 participants; low-certainty evidence), eclampsia (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.03; 2 studies, 536,933 participants; low-certainty evidence) and HELLP (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.40; 1 study, 700 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and probably little to no difference in maternal admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) (OR 0.78, 95% CI  0.53 to 1.15; 2 studies, 536,933 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Use of TTS/EWS compared to standard care may reduce a woman's length of hospital stay (MD -1.21, 95% CI -1.78 to -0.64; 1 study, 700 participants; low-certainty evidence) but may result in little to no difference in neonatal death (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.84; 1 study, 700 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cost-effectiveness measures were not measured in either of the two studies.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Use of TTS/EWS in maternity care may be helpful in reducing some maternal outcomes such as haemorrhage and maternal length of hospital stay, possibly through early identification of clinical deterioration and escalation of care. The evidence suggests that the use of TTS/EWS compared to standard care probably results in little to no difference in maternal death and may result in little to no difference in neonatal death. Both of the included studies were conducted in low-resource settings where the use of TTS/EWS might potentially confer a different effect to TTS/EWS use in high-resource settings. Further high-quality trials in high- and middle-resource settings, as well as in discrete populations of high- and low-risk women, are required.

Hybrid repair versus conventional open repair for aortic arch dissection.

BACKGROUND: A dissection of the aorta is a separation or tear of the intima from the media. This tear allows blood to flow not only through the original aortic flow channel (known as the true lumen), but also through a second channel between the intima and media (known as the false lumen). Aortic dissection is a life-threatening condition which can be rapidly fatal. There is debate on the optimal surgical approach for aortic arch dissection. People with ascending aortic dissection have poor rates of survival. Currently open surgical repair is regarded as the standard treatment for aortic arch dissection. We intend to review the role of hybrid and open repair in aortic arch dissection. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of a hybrid technique of treatment over conventional open repair in the management of aortic arch dissection. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 8 February 2021. We also undertook reference checking for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs), which compared the effects of hybrid repair techniques versus open surgical repair of aortic arch dissection. Outcomes of interest were dissection-related mortality and all-cause mortality, neurological deficit, cardiac injury, respiratory compromise, renal ischaemia, false lumen thrombosis (defined by partial or complete thrombosis) and mesenteric ischaemia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all records identified by the literature searches to identify those that met our inclusion criteria. We planned to undertake data collection and analysis in accordance with recommendations described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We planned to assess the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one ongoing study and two unpublished studies that met the inclusion criteria for the review. Due to a lack of study data, we could not compare the outcomes of hybrid repair to conventional open repair for aortic arch dissection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review revealed one ongoing RCT and two unpublished RCTs evaluating hybrid versus conventional open repair for aortic arch surgery. Observational data suggest that hybrid repair for aortic arch dissection could potentially be favourable, but conclusions can not be drawn from these studies, which are highly selective, and are based on the clinical status of the patient, the presence of comorbidities and the skills of the operators. However, a conclusion about its definitive benefit over conventional open surgical repair cannot be made from this review without published RCTs or CCTs. Future RCTs or CCTs need to have adequate sample sizes and follow-up, and assess clinically-relevant outcomes, in order to determine the optimal treatment for people with aortic arch dissection. It must be noted that this may not be feasible, due to the reasons mentioned.

Hybrid repair versus conventional open repair for thoracic aortic arch aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic aortic arch aneurysms (TAAs) can be a life-threatening condition due to the potential risk of rupture. Treatment is recommended when the risk of rupture is greater than the risk of surgical complications. Depending on the cause, size and growth rate of the TAA, treatment may vary from close observation to emergency surgery. Aneurysms of the thoracic aorta can be managed by a number of surgical techniques. Open surgical repair (OSR) of aneurysms involves either partial or total replacement of the aorta, which is dependent on the extent of the diseased segment of the aorta. During OSR, the aneurysm is replaced with a synthetic graft. Hybrid repair (HR) involves a combination of open surgery with endovascular aortic stent graft placement. Hybrid repair requires varying degrees of invasiveness, depending on the number of supra-aortic branches that require debranching. The hybrid technique that combines supra-aortic vascular debranching with stent grafting of the aortic arch has been introduced as a therapeutic alternative. However, the short- and long-term outcomes of HR remain unclear, due to technical difficulties and complications as a result of the angulation of the aortic arch as well as handling of the arch during surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of HR versus conventional OSR for the treatment of TAAs. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 22 March 2021. We also searched references of relevant articles retrieved from the electronic search for additional citations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered for inclusion in the review all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing HR to OSR for TAAs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts obtained from the literature search to identify those that met the inclusion criteria. We retrieved the full text of studies deemed as potentially relevant by at least one review author. The same review authors screened the full-text articles independently for inclusion or exclusion. MAIN RESULTS: No RCTs or CCTs met the inclusion criteria for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the lack of RCTs or CCTs, we were unable to determine the safety and effectiveness of HR compared to OSR in people with TAAs, and we are unable to provide high-certainty evidence on the optimal surgical intervention for this cohort of patients. High-quality RCTs or CCTs are necessary, addressing the objective of this review.

Palliative care interventions in advanced dementia.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is a chronic, progressive and ultimately fatal neurodegenerative disease. Advanced dementia is characterised by profound cognitive impairment, inability to communicate verbally and complete functional dependence. Usual care of people with advanced dementia is not underpinned universally by a palliative approach. Palliative care has focused traditionally on care of people with cancer, but for more than a decade, there have been calls worldwide to extend palliative care services to include all people with life-limiting illnesses in need of specialist care, including people with dementia. This review is an updated version of a review first published in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of palliative care interventions in advanced dementia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register on 7 October 2020. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of several major healthcare databases, trial registries and grey literature sources. We ran additional searches across MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), four other databases and two trial registries on 7 October 2020 to ensure that the searches were as comprehensive and as up-to-date as possible. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled trials (nRCTs), controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating the impact of palliative care interventions for adults with advanced dementia of any type. Participants could be people with advanced dementia, their family members, clinicians or paid care staff. We included clinical interventions and non-clinical interventions. Comparators were usual care or another palliative care intervention. We did not exclude studies based on outcomes measured. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors (SW, EM, PC) independently assessed all potential studies identified in the search against the review inclusion criteria. Two authors independently extracted data from eligible studies. Where appropriate, we estimated pooled treatment effects in a fixed-effect meta-analysis. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Nine studies (2122 participants) met the review inclusion criteria. Two studies were individually-randomised RCTs, six were cluster-randomised RCTs and one was a controlled before-and-after study. We conducted two separate comparisons: organisation and delivery of care interventions versus usual care (six studies, 1162 participants) and advance care planning interventions versus usual care (three studies, 960 participants). Two studies were carried out in acute hospitals and seven in nursing homes or long-term care facilities. For both comparisons, we found the included studies to be sufficiently similar to conduct meta-analyses. Changes to the organisation and delivery of care for people with advanced dementia may increase comfort in dying (MD 1.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.64; 5 studies, 335 participants; very low certainty evidence). However, the evidence is very uncertain and unlikely to be clinically significant. These changes may also increase the likelihood of having a palliative care plan in place (RR 5.84, 95% CI 1.37 to 25.02; 1 study, 99 participants; I2 = 0%; very low certainty evidence), but again the evidence is very uncertain. Such interventions probably have little effect on the use of non-palliative interventions (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.72; 2 studies, 292 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). They may also have little or no effect on documentation of advance directives (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.50 to 4.25; 2 studies, 112 participants; I2 = 52%; very low certainty evidence), or whether discussions take place about advance care planning (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.18; 1 study, 193 participants; I2 = 0%; very low certainty evidence) and goals of care (RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.54; 1 study, 13 participants; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). No included studies assessed adverse effects. Advance care planning interventions for people with advanced dementia probably increase the documentation of advance directives (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.41; 2 studies, 384; moderate certainty evidence) and the number of discussions about goals of care (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.59; 2 studies, 384 participants; moderate certainty evidence). They may also slightly increase concordance with goals of care (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.79; 1 study, 63 participants; low certainty evidence). On the other hand, they may have little or no effect on perceived symptom management (MD -1.80, 95% CI -6.49 to 2.89; 1 study, 67 participants; very low certainty evidence) or whether advance care planning discussions occur (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.24; 1 study, 67 participants; low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on palliative care interventions in advanced dementia is limited in quantity and certainty. When compared to usual care, changes to the organisation and delivery of care for people with advanced dementia may lead to improvements in comfort in dying, but the evidence for this was of very low certainty. Advance care planning interventions, compared to usual care, probably increase the documentation of advance directives and the occurrence of discussions about goals of care, and may also increase concordance with goals of care. We did not detect other effects. The uncertainty in the evidence across all outcomes in both comparisons is mainly driven by imprecision of effect estimates and risk of bias in the included studies.

Interleukin-6 blocking agents for treating COVID-19: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Interleukin 6 (IL-6) blocking agents have been used for treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Their immunosuppressive effect might be valuable in patients with COVID-19 characterised by substantial immune system dysfunction by controlling inflammation and promoting disease tolerance. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or with placebo on efficacy and safety outcomes in COVID-19. We will update this assessment regularly. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (up to 11 February 2021) and the L-OVE platform, and Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify trials up to 26 February 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 blocking agents compared with standard care alone or with placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. The protocol was amended to reduce the number of outcomes considered. Two review authors independently collected data and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence with the GRADE approach for the critical outcomes such as clinical improvement (defined as hospital discharge or improvement on the scale used by trialists to evaluate clinical progression or recovery) (day (D) 28 / ≥ D60); WHO Clinical Progression Score of level 7 or above (i.e. the proportion of participants with mechanical ventilation +/- additional organ support OR death) (D28 / ≥ D60); all-cause mortality (D28 / ≥ D60); incidence of any adverse events; and incidence of serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 RCTs with available data including one platform trial comparing tocilizumab and sarilumab with standard of care. These trials evaluated tocilizumab (nine RCTs including two platform trials; seven were reported as peer-reviewed articles, two as preprints; 6428 randomised participants); and two sarilumab (one platform trial reported as peer reviewed article, one reported as preprint, 880 randomised participants). All trials included were multicentre trials. They were conducted in Brazil, China, France, Italy, UK, USA, and four were multi-country trials. The mean age range of participants ranged from 56 to 65 years; 4572 (66.3%) of trial participants were male. Disease severity ranged from mild to critical disease. The reported proportion of participants on oxygen at baseline but not intubated varied from 56% to 100% where reported. Five trials reported the inclusion of intubated patients at baseline. We identified a further 20 registered RCTs of tocilizumab compared to placebo/standard care (five completed without available results, five terminated without available results, eight ongoing, two not recruiting); 11 RCTs of sarilumab (two completed without results, three terminated without available results, six ongoing); six RCTs of clazakisumab (five ongoing, one not recruiting); two RCTs of olokizumab (one completed, one not recruiting); one of siltuximab (ongoing) and one RCT of levilimab (completed without available results). Of note, three were cancelled (2 tocilizumab, 1 clazakisumab). One multiple-arm RCT evaluated both tocilizumab and sarilumab compared to standard of care, one three-arm RCT evaluated tocilizumab and siltuximab compared to standard of care and consequently they appear in each respective comparison. Tocilizumab versus standard care alone or with placebo a. Effectiveness of tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 Tocilizumab probably results in little or no increase in the outcome of clinical improvement at D28 (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13; I2 = 40.9%; 7 RCTs, 5585 participants; absolute effect: 31 more with clinical improvement per 1000 (from 0 fewer to 67 more); moderate-certainty evidence). However, we cannot exclude that some subgroups of patients could benefit from the treatment. We did not obtain data for longer-term follow-up (≥ D60). The effect of tocilizumab on the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score of level of 7 or above is uncertain at D28 (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.74; I2 = 64.4%; 3 RCTs, 712 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not obtain data for longer-term follow-up (≥ D60). Tocilizumab reduces all-cause mortality at D28 compared to standard care alone or placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; I2 = 0.0%; 8 RCTs, 6363 participants; absolute effect: 32 fewer deaths per 1000 (from 52 fewer to 9 fewer); high-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests uncertainty around the effect on mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.40; I2 = 0.0%; 2 RCTs, 519 participants; low-certainty evidence). b. Safety of tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of tocilizumab on adverse events (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.72; I2 = 86.4%; 7 RCTs, 1534 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Nevertheless, tocilizumab probably results in slightly fewer serious adverse events than standard care alone or placebo (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.06; I2 = 0.0%; 8 RCTs, 2312 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Sarilumab versus standard care alone or with placebo The evidence is uncertain about the effect of sarilumab on all-cause mortality at D28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.36; 2 RCTs, 880 participants; low certainty), on all-cause mortality at ≥ D60 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.0; 1 RCT, 420 participants; low certainty), and serious adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.77; 2 RCTs, 880 participants; low certainty). It is unlikely that sarilumab results in an important increase of adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.25; 1 RCT, 420 participants; moderate certainty). However, an increase cannot be excluded No data were available for other critical outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: On average, tocilizumab reduces all-cause mortality at D28 compared to standard care alone or placebo and probably results in slightly fewer serious adverse events than standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, tocilizumab probably results in little or no increase in the outcome clinical improvement (defined as hospital discharge or improvement measured by trialist-defined scales) at D28. The impact of tocilizumab on other outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. With the data available, we were not able to explore heterogeneity. Individual patient data meta-analyses are needed to be able to identify which patients are more likely to benefit from this treatment. Evidence for an effect of sarilumab is uncertain and evidence for other anti-IL6 agents is unavailable. Thirty-nine RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents with no results are currently registered, of which nine are completed and seven trials were terminated with no results available. The findings of this review will be updated as new data are made available on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com).