Daratumumab and antineoplastic therapy versus antineoplastic therapy only for adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma ineligible for transplant.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a haematological malignancy that is characterised by proliferation of malignant plasma cells in the bone marrow. For adults ineligible to receive high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant, the recommended treatment combinations in first-line therapy generally consist of combinations of alkylating agents, immunomodulatory drugs, and proteasome inhibitors. Daratumumab is a CD38-targeting, human IgG1k monoclonal antibody recently developed and approved for the treatment of people diagnosed with MM. Multiple myeloma cells uniformly over-express CD-38, a 46-kDa type II transmembrane glycoprotein, making myeloma cells a specific target for daratumumab. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of daratumumab in addition to antineoplastic therapy compared to antineoplastic therapy only for adults with newly diagnosed MM who are ineligible for transplant. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, EU Clinical Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and conference proceedings from 2010 to September 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared treatment with daratumumab added to antineoplastic therapy versus the same antineoplastic therapy alone in adult participants with a confirmed diagnosis of MM. We excluded quasi-randomised trials and trials with less than 80% adult participants, unless there were subgroup analyses of adults with MM. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the results of the search strategies for eligibility. We documented the process of study selection in a flowchart as recommended by the PRISMA statement. We evaluated the risk of bias in included studies with RoB 1 and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We followed standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: We included four open-label, two-armed randomised controlled trials (34 publications) involving a total of 1783 participants. The ALCYONE, MAIA, and OCTANS trials were multicentre trials conducted worldwide in middle- and high-income countries. The AMaRC 03-16 trial was conducted in one high-income country, Australia. The mean age of participants was 69 to 74 years, and the proportion of female participants was between 40% and 54%. All trials evaluated antineoplastic therapies with or without daratumumab. In the ALCYONE and OCTANS trials, daratumumab was combined with bortezomib and melphalan-prednisone. In the AMaRC 03-16 study, it was combined with bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone, and in the MAIA study, it was combined with lenalidomide and dexamethasone. None of the included studies was blinded (high risk of performance and detection bias). One study was published as abstract only, therefore the risk of bias for most criteria was unclear. The other three studies were published as full texts. Apart from blinding, the risk of bias was low for these studies. Overall survival Treatment with daratumumab probably increases overall survival when compared to the same treatment without daratumumab (hazard ratio (HR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.76, 2 studies, 1443 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After a follow-up period of 36 months, 695 per 1000 participants survived in the control group, whereas 792 per 1000 participants survived in the daratumumab group (95% CI 758 to 825). Progression-free survival Treatment with daratumumab probably increases progression-free survival when compared to treatment without daratumumab (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.58, 3 studies, 1663 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After a follow-up period of 24 months, progression-free survival was reached in 494 per 1000 participants in the control group versus 713 per 1000 participants in the daratumumab group (95% CI 664 to 760). Quality of life Treatment with daratumumab may result in a very small increase in quality of life after 12 months, evaluated on the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status scale (GHS), when compared to treatment without daratumumab (mean difference 2.19, 95% CI -0.13 to 4.51, 3 studies, 1096 participants, low-certainty evidence). The scale is from 0 to 100, with a higher value indicating a better quality of life. On-study mortality Treatment with daratumumab probably decreases on-study mortality when compared to treatment without daratumumab (risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.83, 3 studies, 1644 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After the longest follow-up available (12 to 72 months), 366 per 1000 participants in the control group and 264 per 1000 participants in the daratumumab group died (95% CI 227 to 304). Serious adverse events Treatment with daratumumab probably increases serious adverse events when compared to treatment without daratumumab (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.37, 3 studies, 1644 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After the longest follow-up available (12 to 72 months), 505 per 1000 participants in the control group versus 596 per 1000 participants in the daratumumab group experienced serious adverse events (95% CI 515 to 692). Adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade ≥ 3) Treatment with daratumumab probably results in little to no difference in adverse events (CTCAE grade ≥ 3) when compared to treatment without daratumumab (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.02, 3 studies, 1644 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After the longest follow-up available (12 to 72 months), 953 per 1000 participants in the control group versus 963 per 1000 participants in the daratumumab group experienced adverse events (CTCAE grade ≥ 3) (95% CI 943 to 972). Treatment with daratumumab probably increases the risk of infections (CTCAE grade ≥ 3) when compared to treatment without daratumumab (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.78, 3 studies, 1644 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). After the longest follow-up available (12 to 72 months), 224 per 1000 participants in the control group versus 340 per 1000 participants in the daratumumab group experienced infections (CTCAE grade ≥ 3) (95% CI 291 to 399). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall analysis of four studies showed a potential benefit for daratumumab in terms of overall survival and progression-free survival and a slight potential benefit in quality of life. Participants treated with daratumumab probably experience increased serious adverse events. There were likely no differences between groups in adverse events (CTCAE grade ≥ 3); however, there are probably more infections (CTCAE grade ≥ 3) in participants treated with daratumumab. We identified six ongoing studies which might strengthen the certainty of evidence in a future update of this review.

Bone-modifying agents for reducing bone loss in women with early and locally advanced breast cancer: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL)-inhibitors are amongst the bone-modifying agents used as supportive treatment in women with breast cancer who do not have bone metastases. These agents aim to reduce bone loss and the risk of fractures. Bisphosphonates have demonstrated survival benefits, particularly in postmenopausal women. OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the effects of different bone-modifying agents as supportive treatment to reduce bone mineral density loss and osteoporotic fractures in women with breast cancer without bone metastases and generate a ranking of treatment options using network meta-analyses (NMAs). SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies by electronically searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase until January 2023. We searched various trial registries and screened abstracts of conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing different bisphosphonates and RANKL-inihibitors with each other or against no further treatment or placebo for women with breast cancer without bone metastases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies and certainty of evidence using GRADE. Outcomes were bone mineral density, quality of life, overall fractures, overall survival and adverse events. We conducted NMAs and generated treatment rankings. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-seven trials (35,163 participants) fulfilled our inclusion criteria; 34 trials (33,793 participants) could be considered in the NMA (8 different treatment options). Bone mineral density We estimated that the bone mineral density of participants with no treatment/placebo measured as total T-score was -1.34. Evidence from the NMA (9 trials; 1166 participants) suggests that treatment with ibandronate (T-score -0.77; MD 0.57, 95% CI -0.05 to 1.19) may slightly increase bone mineral density (low certainty) and treatment with zoledronic acid (T-score -0.45; MD 0.89, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.16) probably slightly increases bone mineral density compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Risedronate (T-score -1.08; MD 0.26, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.84) may result in little to no difference compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). We are uncertain whether alendronate (T-score 2.36; MD 3.70, 95% CI -2.01 to 9.41) increases bone mineral density compared to no treatment/placebo (very low certainty). Quality of life No quantitative analyses could be performed for quality of life, as only three studies reported this outcome. All three studies showed only minimal differences between the respective interventions examined. Overall fracture rate We estimated that 70 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo had fractures. Evidence from the NMA (16 trials; 19,492 participants) indicates that treatment with clodronate or ibandronate (42 of 1000; RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.92; 40 of 1000; RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.86, respectively) decreases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (high certainty). Denosumab or zoledronic acid (51 of 1000; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.01; 55 of 1000; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.11, respectively) probably slightly decreases the number of fractures; and risedronate (39 of 1000; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.16) probably decreases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Pamidronate (106 of 1000; RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.06) probably increases the number of fractures compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Overall survival We estimated that 920 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo survived overall. Evidence from the NMA (17 trials; 30,991 participants) suggests that clodronate (924 of 1000; HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.17), denosumab (927 of 1000; HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.21), ibandronate (915 of 1000; HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34) and zoledronic acid (925 of 1000; HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.14) may result in little to no difference regarding overall survival compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). Additionally, we are uncertain whether pamidronate (905 of 1000; HR 1.20, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.78) decreases overall survival compared to no treatment/placebo (very low certainty). Osteonecrosis of the jaw We estimated that 1 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo developed osteonecrosis of the jaw. Evidence from the NMA (12 trials; 23,527 participants) suggests that denosumab (25 of 1000; RR 24.70, 95% CI 9.56 to 63.83), ibandronate (6 of 1000; RR 5.77, 95% CI 2.04 to 16.35) and zoledronic acid (9 of 1000; RR 9.41, 95% CI 3.54 to 24.99) probably increases the occurrence of osteonecrosis of the jaw compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Additionally, clodronate (3 of 1000; RR 2.65, 95% CI 0.83 to 8.50) may increase the occurrence of osteonecrosis of the jaw compared to no treatment/placebo (low certainty). Renal impairment We estimated that 14 of 1000 participants with no treatment/placebo developed renal impairment. Evidence from the NMA (12 trials; 22,469 participants) suggests that ibandronate (28 of 1000; RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.88) probably increases the occurrence of renal impairment compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). Zoledronic acid (21 of 1000; RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.58) probably increases the occurrence of renal impairment while clodronate (12 of 1000; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.39) and denosumab (11 of 1000; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.19) probably results in little to no difference regarding the occurrence of renal impairment compared to no treatment/placebo (moderate certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When considering bone-modifying agents for managing bone loss in women with early or locally advanced breast cancer, one has to balance between efficacy and safety. Our findings suggest that bisphosphonates (excluding alendronate and pamidronate) or denosumab compared to no treatment or placebo likely results in increased bone mineral density and reduced fracture rates. Our survival analysis that included pre and postmenopausal women showed little to no difference regarding overall survival. These treatments may lead to more adverse events. Therefore, forming an overall judgement of the best ranked bone-modifying agent is challenging. More head-to-head comparisons, especially comparing denosumab with any bisphosphonate, are needed to address gaps and validate the findings of this review.

Physical exercise for people with Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Physical exercise is effective in managing Parkinson's disease (PD), but the relative benefit of different exercise types remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of different types of physical exercise in adults with PD on the severity of motor signs, quality of life (QoL), and the occurrence of adverse events, and to generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking using network meta-analyses (NMAs). SEARCH METHODS: An experienced information specialist performed a systematic search for relevant articles in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and five other databases to 17 May 2021. We also searched trial registries, conference proceedings, and reference lists of identified studies up to this date. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one type of physical exercise for adults with PD to another type of exercise, a control group, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data. A third author was involved in case of disagreements. We categorized the interventions and analyzed their effects on the severity of motor signs, QoL, freezing of gait, and functional mobility and balance up to six weeks after the intervention using NMAs. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias using the risk of bias 2 (RoB 2) tool and rated the confidence in the evidence using the CINeMA approach for results on the severity of motor signs and QoL. We consulted a third review author to resolve any disagreements. Due to heterogeneous reporting of adverse events, we summarized safety data narratively and rated our confidence in the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 154 RCTs with a total of 7837 participants with mostly mild to moderate disease and no major cognitive impairment. The number of participants per study was small (mean 51, range from 10 to 474). The NMAs on the severity of motor signs and QoL included data from 60 (2721 participants), and 48 (3029 participants) trials, respectively. Eighty-five studies (5192 participants) provided safety data. Here, we present the main results. We observed evidence of beneficial effects for most types of physical exercise included in our review compared to a passive control group. The effects on the severity of motor signs and QoL are expressed as scores on the motor scale of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS-M) and the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire 39 (PDQ-39), respectively. For both scales, higher scores denote higher symptom burden. Therefore, negative estimates reflect improvement (minimum clinically important difference: -2.5 for UPDRS-M and -4.72 for PDQ-39). Severity of motor signs The evidence from the NMA (60 studies; 2721 participants) suggests that dance and gait/balance/functional training probably have a moderate beneficial effect on the severity of motor signs (dance: mean difference (MD) -10.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) -14.87 to -5.36; gait/balance/functional training: MD -7.50, 95% CI -11.39 to -3.48; moderate confidence), and multi-domain training probably has a small beneficial effect on the severity of motor signs (MD -5.90, 95% CI -9.11 to -2.68; moderate confidence). The evidence also suggests that endurance, aqua-based, strength/resistance, and mind-body training might have a small beneficial effect on the severity of motor signs (endurance training: MD -5.76, 95% CI -9.78 to -1.74; aqua-based training: MD -5.09, 95% CI -10.45 to 0.40; strength/resistance training: MD -4.96, 95% CI -9.51 to -0.40; mind-body training: MD -3.62, 95% CI -7.24 to 0.00; low confidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of "Lee Silverman Voice training BIG" (LSVT BIG) and flexibility training on the severity of motor signs (LSVT BIG: MD -6.70, 95% CI -16.48 to 3.08; flexibility training: MD 4.20, 95% CI -1.61 to 9.92; very low confidence). Quality of life The evidence from the NMA (48 studies; 3029 participants) suggests that aqua-based training probably has a large beneficial effect on QoL (MD -15.15, 95% CI -23.43 to -6.87; moderate confidence). The evidence also suggests that mind-body, gait/balance/functional, and multi-domain training and dance might have a small beneficial effect on QoL (mind-body training: MD -7.22, 95% CI -13.57 to -0.70; gait/balance/functional training: MD -6.17, 95% CI -10.75 to -1.59; multi-domain training: MD -5.29, 95% CI -9.51 to -1.06; dance: MD -3.88, 95% CI -10.92 to 3.00; low confidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of gaming, strength/resistance, endurance, and flexibility training on QoL (gaming: MD -8.99, 95% CI -23.43 to 5.46; strength/resistance training: MD -6.70, 95% CI -12.86 to -0.35; endurance training: MD -6.52, 95% CI -13.74 to 0.88; flexibility training: MD 1.94, 95% CI -10.40 to 14.27; very low confidence). Adverse events Only 85 studies (5192 participants) provided some kind of safety data, mostly only for the intervention groups. No adverse events (AEs) occurred in 40 studies and no serious AEs occurred in four studies. AEs occurred in 28 studies. The most frequently reported events were falls (18 studies) and pain (10 studies). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of physical exercise on the risk of adverse events (very low confidence). Across outcomes, we observed little evidence of differences between exercise types. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence of beneficial effects on the severity of motor signs and QoL for most types of physical exercise for people with PD included in this review, but little evidence of differences between these interventions. Thus, our review highlights the importance of physical exercise regarding our primary outcomes severity of motor signs and QoL, while the exact exercise type might be secondary. Notably, this conclusion is consistent with the possibility that specific motor symptoms may be treated most effectively by PD-specific programs. Although the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of exercise on the risk of adverse events, the interventions included in our review were described as relatively safe. Larger, well-conducted studies are needed to increase confidence in the evidence. Additional studies recruiting people with advanced disease severity and cognitive impairment might help extend the generalizability of our findings to a broader range of people with PD.

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

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

Persistent symptoms and risk factors predicting prolonged time to symptom-free after SARS­CoV­2 infection: an analysis of the baseline examination of the German COVIDOM/NAPKON-POP cohort.

PURPOSE: We aimed to assess symptoms in patients after SARS-CoV-2 infection and to identify factors predicting prolonged time to symptom-free. METHODS: COVIDOM/NAPKON-POP is a population-based prospective cohort of adults whose first on-site visits were scheduled ≥ 6 months after a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. Retrospective data including self-reported symptoms and time to symptom-free were collected during the survey before a site visit. In the survival analyses, being symptom-free served as the event and time to be symptom-free as the time variable. Data were visualized with Kaplan-Meier curves, differences were tested with log-rank tests. A stratified Cox proportional hazard model was used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of predictors, with aHR < 1 indicating a longer time to symptom-free. RESULTS: Of 1175 symptomatic participants included in the present analysis, 636 (54.1%) reported persistent symptoms after 280 days (SD 68) post infection. 25% of participants were free from symptoms after 18 days [quartiles: 14, 21]. Factors associated with prolonged time to symptom-free were age 49-59 years compared to < 49 years (aHR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56-0.87), female sex (aHR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65-0.93), lower educational level (aHR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64-0.93), living with a partner (aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66-0.99), low resilience (aHR 0.65, 95% CI 0.47-0.90), steroid treatment (aHR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05-0.90) and no medication (aHR 0.74, 95% CI 0.62-0.89) during acute infection. CONCLUSION: In the studied population, COVID-19 symptoms had resolved in one-quarter of participants within 18 days, and in 34.5% within 28 days. Over half of the participants reported COVID-19-related symptoms 9 months after infection. Symptom persistence was predominantly determined by participant's characteristics that are difficult to modify.

Prioritising Cochrane reviews to be updated with health equity focus.

BACKGROUND: The prioritisation of updating published systematic reviews of interventions is vital to prevent research waste and ensure relevance to stakeholders. The consideration of health equity in reviews is also important to ensure interventions will not exacerbate the existing inequities of the disadvantaged if universally implemented. This study aimed to pilot a priority setting exercise based on systematic reviews of interventions published in the Cochrane Library, to identify and prioritise reviews to be updated with a focus on health equity. METHODS: We conducted a priority setting exercise with a group of 13 international stakeholders. We identified Cochrane reviews of interventions that showed a reduction in mortality, had at least one Summary of Findings table and that focused on one of 42 conditions with a high global burden of disease from the 2019 WHO Global Burden of Disease report. This included 21 conditions used as indicators of success of the United Nations Universal Health Coverage in attaining the Sustainable Development Goals. Stakeholders prioritised reviews that were relevant to disadvantaged populations, or to characteristics of potential disadvantage within the general population. RESULTS: After searching for Cochrane reviews of interventions within 42 conditions, we identified 359 reviews that assessed mortality and included at least one Summary of Findings table. These pertained to 29 of the 42 conditions; 13 priority conditions had no reviews with the outcome mortality. Reducing the list to only reviews showing a clinically important reduction in mortality left 33 reviews. Stakeholders ranked these reviews in order of priority to be updated with a focus on health equity. CONCLUSIONS: This project developed and implemented a methodology to set priorities for updating systematic reviews spanning multiple health topics with a health equity focus. It prioritised reviews that reduce overall mortality, are relevant to disadvantaged populations, and focus on conditions with a high global burden of disease. This approach to the prioritisation of systematic reviews of interventions that reduce mortality provides a template that can be extended to reducing morbidity, and the combination of mortality and morbidity as represented in Disability-Adjusted Life Years and Quality-Adjusted Life Years.

Polyclonal anti-thymocyte globulins for the prophylaxis of graft-versus-host disease after allogeneic stem cell or bone marrow transplantation in adults.

BACKGROUND: Allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (SCT) is an established treatment for many malignant and non-malignant haematological disorders. Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), a condition frequently occurring after an allogeneic SCT, is the result of host tissues being attacked by donor immune cells. It affects more than half of the patients after transplant either as acute and or chronic GVHD. One strategy for the prevention of GVHD is the administration of anti-thymocyte globulins (ATGs), a set of polyclonal antibodies directed against a variety of immune cell epitopes, leading to immunosuppression and immunomodulation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of ATG used for the prevention of GVHD in patients undergoing allogeneic SCT with regard to overall survival, incidence and severity of acute and chronic GVHD, incidence of relapse, non-relapse mortality, graft failure and adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, trial registers and conference proceedings on the 18th November 2022 along with reference checking and contacting study authors to identify additional studies. We did not apply language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the impact of ATG on GVHD prophylaxis in adults suffering from haematological diseases and undergoing allogeneic SCT. The selection criteria were modified from the previous version of this review. Paediatric studies and studies where patients aged < 18 years constituted more than 20 % of the total number were excluded. Treatment arms had to differ only in the addition of ATG to the standard GVHD prophylaxis regimen. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration for data collection, extraction and analyses. MAIN RESULTS: For this update we included seven new RCTs, leading to a total of ten studies investigating 1413 participants. All patients had a haematological condition which warranted an allogeneic SCT. The risk of bias was estimated as low for seven and unclear for three studies. ATG probably has little or no influence on overall survival (HR (hazard ratio) 0.93 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.13, nine studies, n = 1249, moderate-certainty evidence)). Estimated absolute effect: 430 surviving people per 1000 people not receiving ATG compared to 456 people surviving per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95 % CI 385 to 522 per 1000 people). ATG results in a reduction in acute GVHD II to IV with relative risk (RR) 0.68 (95 % CI 0.60 to 0.79, 10 studies, n = 1413, high-certainty evidence). Estimated absolute effect: 418 acute GVHD II to IV per 1000 people not receiving ATG compared to 285 per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95 % CI 251 to 331 per 1000 people). Addition of ATG results in a reduction of overall chronic GvHD with a RR of 0.53 (95 % CI 0.45 to 0.61, eight studies, n = 1273, high-certainty evidence). Estimated absolute effect: 506 chronic GVHD per 1000 people not receiving ATG compared to 268 per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95 % CI 228 to 369 per 1000 people). Further data on severe acute GVHD and extensive chronic GVHD are available in the manuscript. ATG probably slightly increases the incidence of relapse with a RR of 1.21 (95 % CI 0.99 to 1.49, eight studies,  n =1315, moderate-certainty evidence). Non relapse mortality is probably slightly or not affected by ATG with an HR of 0.86 (95 % CI 0.67 to 1.11, nine studies, n=1370, moderate-certainty evidence).   ATG prophylaxis may result in no increase in graft failure with a RR of 1.55 (95 % CI 0.54 to 4.44, eight studies, n = 1240, low-certainty evidence).  Adverse events could not be analysed due to the serious heterogeneity in the reporting between the studies, which limited comparability (moderate-certainty evidence) and are reported in a descriptive manner.   Subgroup analyses on ATG types, doses and donor type are available in the manuscript. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review suggests that the addition of ATG during allogeneic SCT probably has little or no influence on overall survival. ATG results in a reduction in the incidence and severity of acute and chronic GvHD. ATG intervention probably slightly increases the incidence of relapse and probably does not affect the non relapse mortality. Graft failure may not be affected by ATG prophylaxis. Analysis of data on adverse events was reported in a narrative manner. A limitation for the analysis was the imprecision in reporting between the studies thereby reducing the confidence in the certainty of evidence.

Early versus late tracheostomy in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: The role of early tracheostomy as an intervention for critically ill COVID-19 patients is unclear. Previous reports have described prolonged intensive care stays and difficulty weaning from mechanical ventilation in critically ill COVID-19 patients, particularly in those developing acute respiratory distress syndrome. Pre-pandemic evidence on the benefits of early tracheostomy is conflicting but suggests shorter hospital stays and lower mortality rates compared to late tracheostomy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of early tracheostomy compared to late tracheostomy in critically ill COVID-19 patients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, which comprises CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv, as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 14 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI) evaluating early tracheostomy compared to late tracheostomy during SARS-CoV-2 infection in critically ill adults irrespective of gender, ethnicity, or setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs and the ROBINS-I tool for NRSIs. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for outcomes of our prioritized categories: mortality, clinical status, and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay. As the timing of tracheostomy was very heterogeneous among the included studies, we applied GRADE only to studies that defined early tracheostomy as 10 days or less, which was chosen according to clinical relevance. MAIN RESULTS: We included one RCT with 150 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and 24 NRSIs with 6372 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. All participants were admitted to the ICU, orally intubated and mechanically ventilated. The RCT was a multicenter, parallel, single-blinded study conducted in Sweden. Of the 24 NRSIs, which were mostly conducted in high- and middle-income countries, eight had a prospective design and 16 a retrospective design. We did not find any ongoing studies. RCT-based evidence We judged risk of bias for the RCT to be of low or some concerns regarding randomization and measurement of the outcome. Early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in overall mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.29; RD 67 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 178 fewer to 108 more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). As an indicator of improvement of clinical status, early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in duration to liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation (MD 1.50 days fewer, 95%, CI 5.74 days fewer to 2.74 days more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). As an indicator of worsening clinical status, early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in the incidence of adverse events of any grade (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.13; RD 47 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 164 fewer to 102 more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence); little to no difference in the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.23 to 5.20; RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI 30 fewer to 162 more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported need for renal replacement therapy. Early tracheostomy may result in little benefit to no difference in ICU length of stay (MD 0.5 days fewer, 95% CI 5.34 days fewer to 4.34 days more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). NRSI-based evidence We considered risk of bias for NRSIs to be critical because of possible confounding, study participant enrollment into the studies, intervention classification and potentially systematic errors in the measurement of outcomes. We are uncertain whether early tracheostomy (≤ 10 days) increases or decreases overall mortality (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.00; RD 143 more per 1000, 95% CI 174 less to 1218 more; I2 = 79%; 2 studies, 719 participants) or duration to liberation from mechanical ventilation (MD 1.98 days fewer, 95% CI 0.16 days fewer to 4.12 more; 1 study, 50 participants), because we graded the certainty of evidence as very low. Three NRSIs reported ICU length of stay for 519 patients with early tracheostomy (≤ 10 days) as a median value, which we could not include in the meta-analyses. We are uncertain whether early tracheostomy (≤ 10 days) increases or decreases the ICU length of stay, because we graded the certainty of evidence as very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-certainty evidence that early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in overall mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation compared with late tracheostomy. In terms of clinical improvement, early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in duration to liberation from mechanical ventilation compared with late tracheostomy. We are not certain about the impact of early tracheostomy on clinical worsening in terms of the incidence of adverse events, need for renal replacement therapy, ventilator-associated pneumonia, or the length of stay in the ICU. Future RCTs should provide additional data on the benefits and harms of early tracheostomy for defined main outcomes of COVID-19 research, as well as of comparable diseases, especially for different population subgroups to reduce clinical heterogeneity, and report a longer observation period. Then it would be possible to draw conclusions regarding which patient groups might benefit from early intervention. Furthermore, validated scoring systems for more accurate predictions of the need for prolonged mechanical ventilation should be developed and used in new RCTs to ensure safer indication and patient safety. High-quality (prospectively registered) NRSIs should be conducted in the future to provide valuable answers to clinical questions. This could enable us to draw more reliable conclusions about the potential benefits and harms of early tracheostomy in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is an antiviral medicine approved for the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This led to widespread implementation, although the available evidence remains inconsistent. This update aims to fill current knowledge gaps by identifying, describing, evaluating, and synthesising all evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of remdesivir on clinical outcomes in COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of remdesivir and standard care compared to standard care plus/minus placebo on clinical outcomes in patients treated for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv) as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies, without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 31 May 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included RCTs evaluating remdesivir and standard care for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to standard care plus/minus placebo irrespective of disease severity, gender, ethnicity, or setting. We excluded studies that evaluated remdesivir for the treatment of other coronavirus diseases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for outcomes that were reported according to our prioritised categories: all-cause mortality, in-hospital mortality, clinical improvement (being alive and ready for discharge up to day 28) or worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to day 28), quality of life, serious adverse events, and adverse events (any grade). We differentiated between non-hospitalised individuals with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 and hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs with 11,218 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and a mean age of 53.6 years, of whom 5982 participants were randomised to receive remdesivir. Most participants required low-flow oxygen at baseline. Studies were mainly conducted in high- and upper-middle-income countries. We identified two studies that are awaiting classification and five ongoing studies. Effects of remdesivir in hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19 With moderate-certainty evidence, remdesivir probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.06; risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 6 more; 4 studies, 7142 participants), day 60 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; RD 35 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 73 fewer to 12 more; 1 study, 1281 participants), or in-hospital mortality at up to day 150 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.03; RD 11 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 25 fewer to 5 more; 1 study, 8275 participants). Remdesivir probably increases the chance of clinical improvement at up to day 28 slightly (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.17; RD 68 more per 1000, 95% CI 37 more to 105 more; 4 studies, 2514 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It probably decreases the risk of clinical worsening within 28 days (hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.82; RD 135 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 198 fewer to 69 fewer; 2 studies, 1734 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Remdesivir may make little or no difference to the rate of adverse events of any grade (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.18; RD 23 more per 1000, 95% CI 46 fewer to 104 more; 4 studies, 2498 participants; low-certainty evidence), or serious adverse events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.07; RD 44 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 96 fewer to 19 more; 4 studies, 2498 participants; low-certainty evidence). We considered risk of bias to be low, with some concerns for mortality and clinical course. We had some concerns for safety outcomes because participants who had died did not contribute information. Without adjustment, this leads to an uncertain amount of missing values and the potential for bias due to missing data. Effects of remdesivir in non-hospitalised individuals with mild COVID-19 One of the nine RCTs was conducted in the outpatient setting and included symptomatic people with a risk of progression. No deaths occurred within the 28 days observation period. We are uncertain about clinical improvement due to very low-certainty evidence. Remdesivir probably decreases the risk of clinical worsening (hospitalisation) at up to day 28 (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.75; RD 46 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 57 fewer to 16 fewer; 562 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not find any data for quality of life. Remdesivir may decrease the rate of serious adverse events at up to 28 days (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.70; RD 49 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 60 fewer to 20 fewer; 562 participants; low-certainty evidence), but it probably makes little or no difference to the risk of adverse events of any grade (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.10; RD 42 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 111 fewer to 46 more; 562 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We considered risk of bias to be low for mortality, clinical improvement, and safety outcomes. We identified a high risk of bias for clinical worsening. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence up to 31 May 2022, remdesivir probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality or in-hospital mortality of individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19. The hospitalisation rate was reduced with remdesivir in one study including participants with mild to moderate COVID-19. It may be beneficial in the clinical course for both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients, but certainty remains limited. The applicability of the evidence to current practice may be limited by the recruitment of participants from mostly unvaccinated populations exposed to early variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus at the time the studies were undertaken.  Future studies should provide additional data on the efficacy and safety of remdesivir for defined core outcomes in COVID-19 research, especially for different population subgroups.

Interventions for improving health literacy in migrants.

BACKGROUND: Health literacy (HL) is a determinant of health and important for autonomous decision-making. Migrants are at high risk for limited HL. Improving HL is important for equitable promotion of migrants' health. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions for improving HL in migrants. To assess whether female or male migrants respond differently to the identified interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We ran electronic searches to 2 February 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL. We also searched trial registries. We used a study filter for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (RCT classifier). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and cluster-RCTs addressing HL either as a concept or its components (access, understand, appraise, apply health information). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane and followed the PRISMA-E guidelines. Outcome categories were: a) HL, b) quality of life (QoL), c) knowledge, d) health outcomes, e) health behaviour, f) self-efficacy, g) health service use and h) adverse events. We conducted meta-analysis where possible, and reported the remaining results as a narrative synthesis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 28 RCTs and six cluster-RCTs (8249 participants), all conducted in high-income countries. Participants were migrants with a wide range of conditions. All interventions were adapted to culture, language and literacy. We did not find evidence that HL interventions cause harm, but only two studies assessed adverse events (e.g. anxiety). Many studies reported results for short-term assessments (less than six weeks after total programme completion), reported here. For several comparisons, there were also findings at later time points, which are presented in the review text. Compared with no HL intervention (standard care/no intervention) or an unrelated HL intervention (similar intervention but different information topic) Self-management programmes (SMP) probably improve self-efficacy slightly (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.50; 2 studies, 333 participants; moderate certainty). SMP may improve HIV-related HL (understanding (mean difference (MD) 4.25, 95% CI 1.32 to 7.18); recognition of HIV terms (MD 3.32, 95% CI 1.28 to 5.36)) (1 study, 69 participants). SMP may slightly improve health behaviours (3 studies, 514 participants), but may have little or no effect on knowledge (2 studies, 321 participants) or subjective health status (MD 0.38, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.89; 1 study, 69 participants) (low certainty). We are uncertain of the effects of SMP on QoL, health service use or adverse events due to a lack of evidence. HL skills building courses (HLSBC) may improve knowledge (MD 10.87, 95% CI 5.69 to 16.06; 2 studies, 111 participants) and any generic HL (SMD 0.48, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.75; 2 studies, 229 participants), but may have little or no effect on depression literacy (MD 0.17, 95% CI -1.28 to 1.62) or any health behaviour (2 studies, 229 participants) (low certainty). We are uncertain if HLSBC improve QoL, health outcomes, health service use, self-efficacy or adverse events, due to very low-certainty or a lack of evidence. Audio-/visual education without personal feedback (AVE) probably improves depression literacy (MD 8.62, 95% CI 7.51 to 9.73; 1 study, 202 participants) and health service use (MD -0.59, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.07; 1 study, 157 participants), but probably has little or no effect on health behaviour (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.25; 1 study, 135 participants) (moderate certainty). AVE may improve self-efficacy (MD 3.51, 95% CI 2.53 to 4.49; 1 study, 133 participants) and may slightly improve knowledge (MD 8.44, 95% CI -2.56 to 19.44; 2 studies, 293 participants) and intention to seek depression treatment (MD 1.8, 95% CI 0.43 to 3.17), with little or no effect on depression (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.10) (low certainty). No evidence was found for QoL and adverse events. Adapted medical instruction may improve understanding of health information (3 studies, 478 participants), with little or no effect on medication adherence (MD 0.5, 95% CI -0.1 to 1.1; 1 study, 200 participants) (low certainty). No evidence was found for QoL, health outcomes, knowledge, health service use, self-efficacy or adverse events. Compared with written information on the same topic SMP probably improves health numeracy slightly (MD 0.7, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.25) and probably improves print literacy (MD 9, 95% CI 2.9 to 15.1; 1 study, 209 participants) and self-efficacy (SMD 0.47, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.64; 4 studies, 552 participants) (moderate certainty). SMP may improve any disease-specific HL (SMD 0.67, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.07; 4 studies, 955 participants), knowledge (MD 11.45, 95% CI 4.75 to 18.15; 6 studies, 1101 participants) and some health behaviours (4 studies, 797 participants), with little or no effect on health information appraisal (MD 1.15, 95% CI -0.23 to 2.53; 1 study, 329 participants) (low certainty). We are uncertain whether SMP improves QoL, health outcomes, health service use or adverse events, due to a lack of evidence or low/very low-certainty evidence. AVE probably has little or no effect on diabetes HL (MD 2, 95% CI -0.15 to 4.15; 1 study, 240 participants), but probably improves information appraisal (MD -9.88, 95% CI -12.87 to -6.89) and application (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.77) (1 study, 608 participants; moderate certainty). AVE may slightly improve knowledge (MD 8.35, 95% CI -0.32 to 17.02; low certainty). No short-term evidence was found for QoL, depression, health behaviour, self-efficacy, health service use or adverse events. AVE compared with another AVE We are uncertain whether narrative videos are superior to factual knowledge videos as the evidence is of very low certainty. Gender differences Female migrants' diabetes HL may improve slightly more than that of males, when receiving AVE (MD 5.00, 95% CI 0.62 to 9.38; 1 study, 118 participants), but we do not know whether female or male migrants benefit differently from other interventions due to very low-certainty or a lack of evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Adequately powered studies measuring long-term effects (more than six months) of HL interventions in female and male migrants are needed, using well-validated tools and representing various healthcare systems.

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

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

Exercise interventions for adults with cancer receiving radiation therapy alone.

BACKGROUND: Radiation therapy (RT) is given to about half of all people with cancer. RT alone is used to treat various cancers at different stages. Although it is a local treatment, systemic symptoms may occur. Cancer- or treatment-related side effects can lead to a reduction in physical activity, physical performance, and quality of life (QoL). The literature suggests that physical exercise can reduce the risk of various side effects of cancer and cancer treatments, cancer-specific mortality, recurrence of cancer, and all-cause mortality. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of exercise plus standard care compared with standard care alone in adults with cancer receiving RT alone. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL, conference proceedings and trial registries up to 26 October 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people who were receiving RT without adjuvant systemic treatment for any type or stage of cancer. We considered any type of exercise intervention, defined as a planned, structured, repetitive, objective-oriented physical activity programme in addition to standard care. We excluded exercise interventions that involved physiotherapy alone, relaxation programmes, and multimodal approaches that combined exercise with other non-standard interventions such as nutritional restriction. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology and the GRADE approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence. Our primary outcome was fatigue and the secondary outcomes were QoL, physical performance, psychosocial effects, overall survival, return to work, anthropometric measurements, and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: Database searching identified 5875 records, of which 430 were duplicates. We excluded 5324 records and the remaining 121 references were assessed for eligibility. We included three two-arm RCTs with 130 participants. Cancer types were breast and prostate cancer. Both treatment groups received the same standard care, but the exercise groups also participated in supervised exercise programmes several times per week while undergoing RT. Exercise interventions included warm-up, treadmill walking (in addition to cycling and stretching and strengthening exercises in one study), and cool-down. In some analysed endpoints (fatigue, physical performance, QoL), there were baseline differences between exercise and control groups. We were unable to pool the results of the different studies owing to substantial clinical heterogeneity. All three studies measured fatigue. Our analyses, presented below, showed that exercise may reduce fatigue (positive SMD values signify less fatigue; low certainty). • Standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 1.64; 37 participants (fatigue measured with Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI)) • SMD 2.42, 95% CI 1.71 to 3.13; 54 participants (fatigue measured with BFI) • SMD 1.44, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.42; 21 participants (fatigue measured with revised Piper Fatigue Scale) All three studies measured QoL, although one provided insufficient data for analysis. Our analyses, presented below, showed that exercise may have little or no effect on QoL (positive SMD values signify better QoL; low certainty). • SMD 0.40, 95% CI -0.26 to 1.05; 37 participants (QoL measured with Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate) • SMD 0.47, 95% CI -0.40 to 1.34; 21 participants (QoL measured with World Health Organization QoL questionnaire (WHOQOL-BREF)) All three studies measured physical performance. Our analyses of two studies, presented below, showed that exercise may improve physical performance, but we are very unsure about the results (positive SMD values signify better physical performance; very low certainty) • SMD 1.25, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.97; 37 participants (shoulder mobility and pain measured on a visual analogue scale) • SMD⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ 3.13 (95% CI 2.32 to 3.95; 54 participants (physical performance measured with the six-minute walk test) Our analyses of data from the third study showed that exercise may have little or no effect on physical performance measured with the stand-and-sit test, but we are very unsure about the results (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.86, positive SMD values signify better physical performance; 21 participants; very low certainty). Two studies measured psychosocial effects. Our analyses (presented below) showed that exercise may have little or no effect on psychosocial effects, but we are very unsure about the results (positive SMD values signify better psychosocial well-being; very low certainty). • SMD 0.48, 95% CI -0.18 to 1.13; 37 participants (psychosocial effects measured on the WHOQOL-BREF social subscale) • SMD 0.29, 95% CI -0.57 to 1.15; 21 participants (psychosocial effects measured with the Beck Depression Inventory) Two studies recorded adverse events related to the exercise programmes and reported no events. We estimated the certainty of the evidence as very low. No studies reported adverse events unrelated to exercise. No studies reported the other outcomes we intended to analyse (overall survival, anthropometric measurements, return to work). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence on the effects of exercise interventions in people with cancer who are receiving RT alone. While all included studies reported benefits for the exercise intervention groups in all assessed outcomes, our analyses did not consistently support this evidence. There was low-certainty evidence that exercise improved fatigue in all three studies. Regarding physical performance, our analysis showed very low-certainty evidence of a difference favouring exercise in two studies, and very low-certainty evidence of no difference in one study. We found very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between the effects of exercise and no exercise on quality of life or psychosocial effects. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for possible outcome reporting bias, imprecision due to small sample sizes in a small number of studies, and indirectness of outcomes. In summary, exercise may have some beneficial outcomes in people with cancer who are receiving RT alone, but the evidence supporting this statement is of low certainty. There is a need for high-quality research on this topic.

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

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

Physical exercise for people with Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Physical exercise is effective in managing Parkinson's disease (PD), but the relative benefit of different exercise types remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of different types of physical exercise in adults with PD on the severity of motor signs, quality of life (QoL), and the occurrence of adverse events, and to generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking using network meta-analyses (NMAs). SEARCH METHODS: An experienced information specialist performed a systematic search for relevant articles in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and five other databases to 17 May 2021. We also searched trial registries, conference proceedings, and reference lists of identified studies up to this date. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one type of physical exercise for adults with PD to another type of exercise, a control group, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data. A third author was involved in case of disagreements.  We categorized the interventions and analyzed their effects on the severity of motor signs, QoL, freezing of gait, and functional mobility and balance up to six weeks after the intervention using NMAs. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias using the risk of bias 2 (RoB 2) tool and rated the confidence in the evidence using the CINeMA approach for results on the severity of motor signs and QoL. We consulted a third review author to resolve any disagreements. Due to heterogeneous reporting of adverse events, we summarized safety data narratively and rated our confidence in the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 156 RCTs with a total of 7939 participants with mostly mild to moderate disease and no major cognitive impairment. The number of participants per study was small (mean 51, range from 10 to 474). The NMAs on the severity of motor signs and QoL included data from 71 (3196 participants), and 55 (3283 participants) trials, respectively. Eighty-five studies (5192 participants) provided safety data. Here, we present the main results. We observed evidence of beneficial effects for most types of physical exercise included in our review compared to a passive control group. The effects on the severity of motor signs and QoL are expressed as scores on the motor scale of the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS-M) and the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire 39 (PDQ-39), respectively. For both scales, higher scores denote higher symptom burden. Therefore, negative estimates reflect improvement (minimum clinically important difference: -2.5 for UPDRS-M and -4.72 for PDQ-39). Severity of motor signs The evidence from the NMA (71 studies; 3196 participants) suggests that dance has a moderate beneficial effect on the severity of motor signs (mean difference (MD) -10.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) -15.54 to -4.96; high confidence), and aqua-based, gait/balance/functional, and multi-domain training might have a moderate beneficial effect on the severity of motor signs (aqua-based: MD -7.77, 95% CI -13.27 to -2.28; gait/balance/functional: MD -7.37, 95% CI -11.39 to -3.35; multi-domain: MD -6.97, 95% CI -10.32 to -3.62; low confidence). The evidence also suggests that mind-body training and endurance training might have a small beneficial effect on the severity of motor signs (mind-body: MD -6.57, 95% CI -10.18 to -2.81; endurance: MD -6.43, 95% CI -10.72 to -2.28; low confidence). Flexibility training might have a trivial or no effect on the severity of motor signs (MD 2.01, 95% CI -4.82 to 8.98; low confidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of strength/resistance training and "Lee Silverman Voice training BIG" (LSVT BIG) on the severity of motor signs (strength/resistance: MD -6.97, 95% CI -11.93 to -2.01; LSVT BIG: MD -5.49, 95% CI -14.74 to 3.62; very low confidence). Quality of life The evidence from the NMA (55 studies; 3283 participants) suggests that aqua-based training probably has a large beneficial effect on QoL (MD -14.98, 95% CI -23.26 to -6.52; moderate confidence). The evidence also suggests that endurance training might have a moderate beneficial effect, and that gait/balance/functional and multi-domain training might have a small beneficial effect on QoL (endurance: MD -9.16, 95% CI -15.68 to -2.82; gait/balance/functional: MD -5.64, 95% CI -10.04 to -1.23; multi-domain: MD -5.29, 95% CI -9.34 to -1.06; low confidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of mind-body training, gaming, strength/resistance training, dance, LSVT BIG, and flexibility training on QoL (mind-body: MD -8.81, 95% CI -14.62 to -3.00; gaming: MD -7.05, 95% CI -18.50 to 4.41; strength/resistance: MD -6.34, 95% CI -12.33 to -0.35; dance: MD -4.05, 95% CI -11.28 to 3.00; LSVT BIG: MD 2.29, 95% CI -16.03 to 20.44; flexibility: MD 1.23, 95% CI -11.45 to 13.92; very low confidence). Adverse events Only 85 studies (5192 participants) provided some kind of safety data, mostly only for the intervention groups. No adverse events (AEs) occurred in 40 studies and no serious AEs occurred in four studies. AEs occurred in 28 studies. The most frequently reported events were falls (18 studies) and pain (10 studies). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of physical exercise on the risk of adverse events (very low confidence). Across outcomes, we observed little evidence of differences between exercise types. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence of beneficial effects on the severity of motor signs and QoL for most types of physical exercise for people with PD included in this review, but little evidence of differences between these interventions. Thus, our review highlights the importance of physical exercise regarding our primary outcomes severity of motor signs and QoL, while the exact exercise type might be secondary. Notably, this conclusion is consistent with the possibility that specific motor symptoms may be treated most effectively by PD-specific programs. Although the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of exercise on the risk of adverse events, the interventions included in our review were described as relatively safe. Larger, well-conducted studies are needed to increase confidence in the evidence. Additional studies recruiting people with advanced disease severity and cognitive impairment might help extend the generalizability of our findings to a broader range of people with PD.

Hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIVIG) contains polyclonal antibodies, which can be prepared from large amounts of pooled convalescent plasma or prepared from animal sources through immunisation. They are being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This review was previously part of a parent review addressing convalescent plasma and hIVIG for people with COVID-19 and was split to address hIVIG and convalescent plasma separately. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of hIVIG therapy for the treatment of people with COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Research Database, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform and Medline and Embase from 1 January 2019 onwards. We carried out searches on 31 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated hIVIG for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies that evaluated standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used RoB 2. We rated the certainty of evidence, using the GRADE approach, for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, improvement and worsening of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), quality of life, adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs with 947 participants, of whom 688 received hIVIG prepared from humans, 18 received heterologous swine glyco-humanised polyclonal antibody, and 241 received equine-derived processed and purified F(ab')2 fragments. All participants were hospitalised with moderate-to-severe disease, most participants were not vaccinated (only 12 participants were vaccinated). The studies were conducted before or during the emergence of several SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. There are no data for people with COVID-19 with no symptoms (asymptomatic) or people with mild COVID-19. We identified a further 10 ongoing studies evaluating hIVIG. Benefits of hIVIG prepared from humans We included data on one RCT (579 participants) that assessed the benefits and harms of hIVIG 0.4 g/kg compared to saline placebo. hIVIG may have little to no impact on all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.44; absolute effect 77 per 1000 with placebo versus 61 per 1000 (33 to 111) with hIVIG; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on worsening of clinical status at day 7 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.23; very low-certainty evidence). It probably has little to no impact on improvement of clinical status on day 28 (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.08; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not identify any studies that reported quality-of-life outcomes, so we do not know if hIVIG has any impact on quality of life. Harms of hIVIG prepared from humans hIVIG may have little to no impact on adverse events at any grade on day 1 (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.18; 431 per 1000; 1 study 579 participants; low-certainty evidence). Patients receiving hIVIG probably experience more adverse events at grade 3-4 severity than patients who receive placebo (RR 4.09, 95% CI 1.39 to 12.01; moderate-certainty evidence). hIVIG may have little to no impact on the composite outcome of serious adverse events or death up to day 28 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence). We also identified additional results on the benefits and harms of other dose ranges of hIVIG, not included in the summary of findings table, but summarised in additional tables. Benefits of animal-derived polyclonal antibodies We included data on one RCT (241 participants) to assess the benefits and harms of receptor-binding domain-specific polyclonal F(ab´)2 fragments of equine antibodies (EpAbs) compared to saline placebo. EpAbs may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.37; absolute effect 114 per 1000 with placebo versus 68 per 1000 (30 to 156) ; low-certainty evidence). EpAbs may reduce worsening of clinical status up to day 28 (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.18; absolute effect 203 per 1000 with placebo versus 136 per 1000 (77 to 240); low-certainty evidence). It may have some effect on improvement of clinical status on day 28 (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.17; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any studies that reported quality-of-life outcomes, so we do not know if EpAbs have any impact on quality of life. Harms of animal-derived polyclonal antibodies EpAbs may have little to no impact on the number of adverse events at any grade up to 28 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.31; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events at grade 3-4 severity were not reported. Individuals receiving EpAbs may experience fewer serious adverse events than patients receiving placebo (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.19; low-certainty evidence). We also identified additional results on the benefits and harms of other animal-derived polyclonal antibody doses, not included in the summary of findings table, but summarised in additional tables. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We included data from five RCTs that evaluated hIVIG compared to standard therapy, with participants with moderate-to-severe disease. As the studies evaluated different preparations (from humans or from various animals) and doses, we could not pool them. hIVIG prepared from humans may have little to no impact on mortality, and clinical improvement and worsening. hIVIG may increase grade 3-4 adverse events. Studies did not evaluate quality of life. RBD-specific polyclonal F(ab´)2 fragments of equine antibodies may reduce mortality and serious adverse events, and may reduce clinical worsening. However, the studies were conducted before or during the emergence of several SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and prior to widespread vaccine rollout. As no studies evaluated hIVIG for participants with asymptomatic infection or mild disease, benefits for these individuals remains uncertain. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.

First-line therapy for adults with advanced renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Since the approval of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, angiogenesis inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, the treatment landscape for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has changed fundamentally. Today, combined therapies from different drug categories have a firm place in a complex first-line therapy. Due to the large number of drugs available, it is necessary to identify the most effective therapies, whilst considering their side effects and impact on quality of life (QoL). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the benefits and harms of first-line therapies for adults with advanced RCC, and to produce a clinically relevant ranking of therapies. Secondary objectives were to maintain the currency of the evidence by conducting continuous update searches, using a living systematic review approach, and to incorporate data from clinical study reports (CSRs). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, conference proceedings and relevant trial registries up until 9 February 2022. We searched several data platforms to identify CSRs. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating at least one targeted therapy or immunotherapy for first-line treatment of adults with advanced RCC. We excluded trials evaluating only interleukin-2 versus interferon-alpha as well as trials with an adjuvant treatment setting. We also excluded trials with adults who received prior systemic anticancer therapy if more than 10% of participants were previously treated, or if data for untreated participants were not separately extractable. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All necessary review steps (i.e. screening and study selection, data extraction, risk of bias and certainty assessments) were conducted independently by at least two review authors. Our outcomes were overall survival (OS), QoL, serious adverse events (SAEs), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), the number of participants who discontinued study treatment due to an AE, and the time to initiation of first subsequent therapy. Where possible, analyses were conducted for the different risk groups (favourable, intermediate, poor) according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium Score (IMDC) or the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) criteria. Our main comparator was sunitinib (SUN). A hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) lower than 1.0 is in favour of the experimental arm. MAIN RESULTS: We included 36 RCTs and 15,177 participants (11,061 males and 4116 females). Risk of bias was predominantly judged as being 'high' or 'some concerns' across most trials and outcomes. This was mainly due to a lack of information about the randomisation process, the blinding of outcome assessors, and methods for outcome measurements and analyses. Additionally, study protocols and statistical analysis plans were rarely available. Here we present the results for our primary outcomes OS, QoL, and SAEs, and for all risk groups combined for contemporary treatments: pembrolizumab + axitinib (PEM+AXI), avelumab + axitinib (AVE+AXI), nivolumab + cabozantinib (NIV+CAB), lenvatinib + pembrolizumab (LEN+PEM), nivolumab + ipilimumab (NIV+IPI), CAB, and pazopanib (PAZ). Results per risk group and results for our secondary outcomes are reported in the summary of findings tables and in the full text of this review. The evidence on other treatments and comparisons can also be found in the full text. Overall survival (OS) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI (HR 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.07, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.00, moderate certainty) probably improve OS, compared to SUN, respectively. LEN+PEM may improve OS (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.03, low certainty), compared to SUN. There is probably little or no difference in OS between PAZ and SUN (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.32, moderate certainty), and we are uncertain whether CAB improves OS when compared to SUN (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.64, very low certainty). The median survival is 28 months when treated with SUN. Survival may improve to 43 months with LEN+PEM, and probably improves to: 41 months with NIV+IPI, 39 months with PEM+AXI, and 31 months with PAZ. We are uncertain whether survival improves to 34 months with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB. Quality of life (QoL) One RCT measured QoL using FACIT-F (score range 0 to 52; higher scores mean better QoL) and reported that the mean post-score was 9.00 points higher (9.86 lower to 27.86 higher, very low certainty) with PAZ than with SUN. Comparison data were not available for PEM+AXI, AVE+AXI, NIV+CAB, LEN+PEM, NIV+IPI, and CAB. Serious adverse events (SAEs) Across risk groups, PEM+AXI probably increases slightly the risk for SAEs (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.85, moderate certainty) compared to SUN. LEN+PEM (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.19, moderate certainty) and NIV+IPI (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.97, moderate certainty) probably increase the risk for SAEs, compared to SUN, respectively. There is probably little or no difference in the risk for SAEs between PAZ and SUN (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.31, moderate certainty). We are uncertain whether CAB reduces or increases the risk for SAEs (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.43, very low certainty) when compared to SUN. People have a mean risk of 40% for experiencing SAEs when treated with SUN. The risk increases probably to: 61% with LEN+PEM, 57% with NIV+IPI, and 52% with PEM+AXI. It probably remains at 40% with PAZ. We are uncertain whether the risk reduces to 37% with CAB. Comparison data were not available for AVE+AXI and NIV+CAB. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Findings concerning the main treatments of interest comes from direct evidence of one trial only, thus results should be interpreted with caution. More trials are needed where these interventions and combinations are compared head-to-head, rather than just to SUN. Moreover, assessing the effect of immunotherapies and targeted therapies on different subgroups is essential and studies should focus on assessing and reporting relevant subgroup data. The evidence in this review mostly applies to advanced clear cell RCC.

Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have low certainty evidence for our primary outcomes. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

ANTECEDENTES: El plasma de convaleciente podría reducir la mortalidad en pacientes con enfermedades respiratorias víricas, y se está investigando como posible tratamiento para la enfermedad por coronavirus 2019 (covid­19). Se requiere un profundo conocimiento del conjunto de evidencia actual sobre los beneficios y riesgos de esta intervención. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar la efectividad y seguridad de la transfusión de plasma de convaleciente en el tratamiento de las personas con covid­19; y mantener la vigencia de la evidencia con un enfoque de revisión sistemática continua. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Para identificar estudios en curso y completados, se realizaron búsquedas en la base de datos COVID­19 de la OMS: literatura global sobre la enfermedad por coronavirus, MEDLINE, Embase, el Registro Cochrane de Estudios de covid­19 y la Plataforma COVID­19 L*OVE de Epistemonikos. Se realizaron búsquedas mensuales hasta el 3 de marzo de 2022. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se incluyeron ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) que evaluaron el plasma de convaleciente para la covid­19, independientemente de la gravedad de la enfermedad, la edad, el sexo o el origen étnico. Se excluyeron los estudios que incluyeron poblaciones con otras enfermedades por coronavirus, como el síndrome respiratorio agudo grave (SARS) o el síndrome respiratorio de Oriente Medio (MERS), así como los estudios que evaluaron la inmunoglobulina estándar. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Se siguió la metodología estándar de Cochrane. Para evaluar el sesgo en los estudios incluidos se utilizó la herramienta RoB 2. Se utilizó el método GRADE para evaluar la certeza de la evidencia para los siguientes desenlaces: mortalidad por todas las causas hasta el día 28, empeoramiento y mejoría del estado clínico (para personas con enfermedad moderada a grave), ingreso hospitalario o muerte, resolución de los síntomas de covid­19 (para personas con enfermedad leve), calidad de vida, eventos adversos de grado 3 o 4 y eventos adversos graves. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: En esta cuarta versión actualizada de la revisión se incluyeron 33 ECA con 24 861 participantes, de los cuales 11 432 recibieron plasma de convaleciente. De ellos, 9 estudios son unicéntricos y 24 multicéntricos. Se realizaron 14 estudios en América, 8 en Europa, 3 en el Sudeste Asiático, 2 en África, 2 en el Pacífico occidental, 3 en el Mediterráneo oriental y 1 en varias regiones. Se identificaron otros 49 estudios en curso que evaluaron el plasma de convaleciente, y 33 estudios que informaban de que se habían completado. Personas con un diagnóstico confirmado de covid­19 y enfermedad de moderada a grave El uso de plasma de convaleciente se investigó en 29 ECA con 22 728 participantes con enfermedad moderada a grave. En 23 ECA con 22 020 participantes se comparó el plasma de convaleciente con el placebo o la atención habitual sola, en 5 se comparó con plasma estándar y en 1, con inmunoglobulina humana. Se evalúan subgrupos sobre detección de anticuerpos, aparición de síntomas, grupos de ingresos de países y varias comorbilidades en el texto completo. Plasma de convaleciente versus placebo o atención habitual sola El plasma de convaleciente no reduce la mortalidad por todas las causas hasta el día 28 (razón de riesgos [RR] 0,98; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 0,92 a 1,03; 220 por cada 1000; 21 ECA, 19 021 participantes; evidencia de certeza alta). Tiene poca o ninguna repercusión en la necesidad de ventilación mecánica invasiva o la muerte (RR 1,03; IC del 95%: 0,97 a 1,11; 296 por cada 1000; seis ECA, 14 477 participantes; evidencia de certeza alta) y no tiene ningún efecto en si los participantes reciben el alta hospitalaria (RR 1,00; IC de 95%: 0,97 a 1,02; 665 por cada 1000; seis ECA, 12 721 participantes; evidencia de certeza alta). El plasma de convaleciente podría tener poca o ninguna repercusión en la calidad de vida (DM 1,00; IC del 95%: ­2,14 a 4,14; un ECA, 483 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). El plasma de convaleciente podría tener poco o ningún efecto en el riesgo de eventos adversos de grado 3 y 4 (RR 1,17; IC del 95%: 0,96 a 1,42; 212 por cada 1000; seis ECA, 2392 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). Es probable que tenga poco o ningún efecto sobre el riesgo de eventos adversos graves (RR 1,14; IC del 95%: 0,91 a 1,44; 135 por cada 1000; seis ECA, 3901 participantes; evidencia de certeza moderada). Plasma de convaleciente versus plasma estándar No se sabe si el plasma de convaleciente reduce o aumenta la mortalidad por cualquier causa hasta el día 28 (RR 0,73; IC del 95%: 0,45 a 1,19; 129 por cada 1000; cuatro ECA, 484 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja). No se sabe si el plasma de convaleciente reduce o aumenta la necesidad de ventilación mecánica invasiva o la muerte (RR 5,59; IC del 95%: 0,29 a 108,38; 311 por cada 1000; un estudio, 34 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja) ni si reduce o aumenta el riesgo de eventos adversos graves (RR 0,80; IC 95%: 0,55 a 1,15; 236 por cada 1000; tres ECA, 327 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja). No se identificó ningún estudio que informara sobre otros desenlaces clave. Plasma de convaleciente versus inmunoglobulina humana El plasma de convaleciente podría tener poco o ningún efecto sobre la mortalidad por cualquier causa hasta el día 28 (RR 1,07; IC del 95%: 0,76 a 1,50; 464 por cada 1000; un estudio, 190 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). No se identificó ningún estudio que informara sobre otros desenlaces clave. Personas con un diagnóstico confirmado de infección por SARS­CoV­2 y enfermedad leve Se identificaron dos ECA, con 536 participantes, que compararon el plasma de convaleciente con placebo o atención habitual sola y dos ECA, con 1597 participantes con enfermedad leve, que compararon el plasma de convaleciente con plasma estándar. Plasma de convaleciente versus placebo o atención habitual sola No se sabe si el plasma de convaleciente reduce la mortalidad por cualquier causa hasta el día 28 (odds ratio [OR] 0,36; IC del 95%: 0,09 a 1,46; 8 por cada 1000; dos ECA, 536 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja). Podría tener poco o ningún efecto en el ingreso hospitalario o la muerte a los 28 días (RR 1,05; IC del 95%: 0,60 a 1,84; 117 por cada 1000; un ECA, 376 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja), en el tiempo hasta la resolución de los síntomas de covid­19 (cociente de riesgos instantáneos [CRI] 1,05; IC del 95%: 0,85 a 1,30; 483 por cada 1000; un ECA, 376 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja), en el riesgo de eventos adversos de grados 3 y 4 (RR 1,29; IC del 95%: 0,75 a 2,19; 144 por cada 1000; un ECA, 376 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja) y en el riesgo de eventos adversos graves (RR 1,14; IC del 95%: 0,66 a 1,94; 133 por cada 1000; un ECA, 376 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). No se identificó ningún estudio que informara sobre otros desenlaces clave. Plasma de convaleciente versus plasma estándar No se sabe si el plasma de convaleciente reduce la mortalidad por cualquier causa hasta el día 28 (OR 0,30; IC del 95%: 0,05 a 1,75; 2 por cada 1000; dos ECA, 1597 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja). Es probable que reduzca el ingreso hospitalario o la muerte a los 28 días (RR 0,49; IC del 95%: 0,31 a 0,75; 36 por cada 1000; dos ECA, 1595 participantes; evidencia de certeza moderada). El plasma de convaleciente podría tener poco o ningún efecto sobre la resolución inicial de los síntomas hasta el día 28 (RR 1,12; IC del 95%: 0,98 a 1,27; un ECA, 416 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). No se identificó ningún estudio que informara sobre otros desenlaces clave. Esta es una revisión sistemática continua. Cada mes se busca nueva evidencia y se actualiza la revisión cuando se identifica evidencia nueva relevante. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Para la comparación del plasma de convaleciente versus placebo o la atención habitual sola, existe evidencia de certeza alta de que el plasma de convaleciente para personas con enfermedad moderada a grave no reduce la mortalidad y tiene poco o ningún efecto en la mejoría o el empeoramiento clínico. Es probable que tenga poco o ningún efecto en los eventos adversos graves. Para las personas con enfermedad leve, existe evidencia de certeza baja para los desenlaces principales. Hay 49 estudios en curso y 33 estudios que declaran estar completados en un registro de ensayos. La publicación de los estudios en curso podría resolver algunas de las incertidumbres en torno al tratamiento con plasma de convaleciente para personas con enfermedad asintomática o leve.

Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have very-low to low certainty evidence for most primary outcomes and moderate certainty for hospital admission or death. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

The effectiveness of clinical guideline implementation strategies in oncology-a systematic review.

IMPORTANCE: Guideline recommendations do not necessarily translate into changes in clinical practice behaviour or better patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to identify recent clinical guideline implementation strategies in oncology and to determine their effect primarily on patient-relevant outcomes and secondarily on healthcare professionals' adherence. METHODS: A systematic search of five electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, GIN, CENTRAL, CINAHL) was conducted on 16 december 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) assessing the effectiveness of guideline implementation strategies on patient-relevant outcomes (overall survival, quality of life, adverse events) and healthcare professionals' adherence outcomes (screening, referral, prescribing, attitudes, knowledge) in the oncological setting were targeted. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the ROBINS-I tool were used for assessing the risk of bias. Certainty in the evidence was evaluated according to GRADE recommendations. This review was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with the identification number CRD42021268593. FINDINGS: Of 1326 records identified, nine studies, five cluster RCTs and four controlled before-and after studies, were included in the narrative synthesis. All nine studies assess the effect of multi-component interventions in 3577 cancer patients and more than 450 oncologists, nurses and medical staff. PATIENT-LEVEL: Educational meetings combined with materials, opinion leaders, audit and feedback, a tailored intervention or academic detailing may have little to no effect on overall survival, quality of life and adverse events of cancer patients compared to no intervention, however, the evidence is either uncertain or very uncertain. PROVIDER-LEVEL: Multi-component interventions may increase or slightly increase guideline adherence regarding screening, referral and prescribing behaviour of healthcare professionals according to guidelines, but the certainty in evidence is low. The interventions may have little to no effect on attitudes and knowledge of healthcare professionals, still, the evidence is very uncertain. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Knowledge and skill accumulation through team-oriented or online educational training and dissemination of materials embedded in multi-component interventions seem to be the most frequently researched guideline implementation strategies in oncology recently. This systematic review provides an overview of recent guideline implementation strategies in oncology, encourages future implementation research in this area and informs policymakers and professional organisations on the development and adoption of implementation strategies.

Clinical Practice Guidelines From the Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB): COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma.

DESCRIPTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 convalescent plasma (CCP) has emerged as a potential treatment of COVID-19. However, meta-analysis data and recommendations are limited. The Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB) developed clinical practice guidelines for the appropriate use of CCP. METHODS: These guidelines are based on 2 living systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating CCP from 1 January 2019 to 26 January 2022. There were 33 RCTs assessing 21 916 participants. The results were summarized using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method. An expert panel reviewed the data using the GRADE framework to formulate recommendations. RECOMMENDATION 1 (OUTPATIENT): The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for outpatients with COVID-19 who are at high risk for disease progression (weak recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2 (INPATIENT): The AABB recommends against CCP transfusion for unselected hospitalized persons with moderate or severe disease (strong recommendation, high-certainty evidence). This recommendation does not apply to immunosuppressed patients or those who lack antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. RECOMMENDATION 3 (INPATIENT): The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who do not have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detected at admission (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 4 (INPATIENT): The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and preexisting immunosuppression (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 5 (PROPHYLAXIS): The AABB suggests against prophylactic CCP transfusion for uninfected persons with close contact exposure to a person with COVID-19 (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE STATEMENT: CCP is most effective when transfused with high neutralizing titers to infected patients early after symptom onset.