WHO Model list of essential medicines: visions for the future.

The first version of the World Health Organization Model list of essential medicines contained 186 medicines in 1977 and has evolved to include 502 medicines in 2023. Over time, different articles criticized the methods and process for decisions; however, the list holds global relevance as a model list to over 150 national lists. Given the global use of the model list, reflecting on its future role is imperative to understand how the list should evolve and respond to the needs of Member States. In 2023, the model list Expert Committee recommended the World Health Organization (WHO) to initiate a process to revise the procedures for updating the model list and the criteria guiding decisions. Here, we offer an agenda outlining priority areas and a vision for an authoritative model list. The main areas include improving transparency and trustworthiness of the recommendations; strengthening connection to national lists; and continuing the debate on the principles that should guide the model list, in particular the role of cost and price of essential medicines. These reflections are intended to support efforts ensuring the continued impact of this policy tool.

La première version de la Liste modèle des médicaments essentiels de l'OMS, publiée par l'Organisation mondiale de la Santé, répertoriait 186 médicaments en 1977 et s'est enrichie jusqu'à en inclure 502 en 2023. Au fil du temps, différents articles ont critiqué ses méthodes et processus décisionnels; toutefois, elle reste importante au niveau mondial, servant de référence à plus de 150 listes nationales. Compte tenu de l'usage international qui en est fait, il est impératif de réfléchir à sa fonction future afin de comprendre comment elle peut évoluer et répondre aux besoins des États Membres. En 2023, le Comité d'experts chargé de la liste modèle a recommandé à l'OMS de se lancer dans la révision des procédures de mise à jour de cette liste, ainsi que des critères appliqués aux décisions. Dans le présent document, nous proposons un programme qui définit les priorités et les perspectives d'avenir pour que la liste fasse autorité. Parmi les principaux domaines abordés figurent l'amélioration de la transparence et de la fiabilité des recommandations, le renforcement des liens avec les listes nationales et la poursuite du débat sur les principes qui devraient orienter la liste modèle, en particulier le rôle joué par les coûts et les prix des médicaments essentiels. Ces réflexions ont pour but de soutenir les efforts permettant à cet instrument politique de conserver son impact.

La primera versión de la Lista Modelo OMS de Medicamentos Esenciales contenía 186 medicamentos en 1977 y ha evolucionado hasta incluir 502 medicamentos en 2023. Con el tiempo, diferentes artículos criticaron los métodos y el proceso de decisión; sin embargo, la lista conserva su relevancia mundial como lista modelo para más de 150 listas nacionales. Dado el uso global de la lista modelo, es imperativo reflexionar sobre su función futura para comprender cómo debe evolucionar la lista y responder a las necesidades de los Estados Miembros. En 2023, el Comité de Expertos de la lista modelo recomendó a la OMS que iniciara un proceso para revisar los procedimientos de actualización de la lista modelo y los criterios que guían las decisiones. En este documento, se ofrece un programa en el que se describen las áreas prioritarias y la visión de una lista modelo oficial. Entre las principales áreas se incluyen la mejora de la transparencia y la fiabilidad de las recomendaciones, el refuerzo de la conexión con las listas nacionales y la continuación del debate sobre los principios que deben guiar la lista modelo, en particular sobre la función del coste y el precio de los medicamentos esenciales. El objetivo de estas reflexiones es apoyar los esfuerzos que aseguren el impacto continuado de esta herramienta política.

Building sustainable capacity to adopt, adapt or develop child health guidelines, Malawi, Nigeria and South Africa.

Problem: Many national child health guidelines in Malawi, Nigeria and South Africa are outdated and score poorly on rigorous methods and stakeholder participation. Approach: In line with the World Health Organization's (WHO) emphasis on local guideline contextualization, the Global Evidence-Local Adaptation (GELA) project supported multistakeholder processes to adapt evidence-informed recommendations for child health in Malawi, Nigeria and South Africa. The GELA project team convened national steering groups, which conducted structured, iterative priority-setting exercises to identify priority topics. We identified appropriate source guidelines by systematically searching and screening available guidelines. We then matched recommendations in potential source guidelines to the relevant questions, and assessed the guidelines for timeliness and quality. Drawing on WHO's guideline process, we applied the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT process to develop contextualized recommendations from existing guidelines. If no source guideline or reviews were identified, we conducted new evidence syntheses. Local setting: Malawi, Nigeria and South Africa are countries with varying health priorities and systems, all transitioning to universal health coverage. Guideline structures differ between countries, with processes largely led from national health ministries. Relevant changes: National guideline groups, supported by GELA researchers and government-academic partners, developed five contextually-tailored child health recommendations. For most of these recommendations, additional evidence was required to inform contextually appropriate national decision-making. Formal capacity-building and on-the-job learning enhanced the competencies of national contributors and researchers in evidence-informed decision-making. Lessons learnt: Developing context-relevant recommendations requires considerable resources and time. Further investment in strengthening local capacity is needed for sustainable national guideline development.

Exploring trial publication and research waste in COVID-19 randomised trials of hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids, and vitamin D: a meta-epidemiological cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The global research response to the COVID-19 pandemic was impressive, but also led to an infodemic and considerable research waste. Registered, but unpublished trials added to this noise. We aimed to determine the proportion of registered randomised trials of common COVID-19 treatments that were published and to describe the characteristics of these trials to examine the association between trial characteristics, publication status and research waste. METHODS: This meta-epidemiological cohort study used a sample of randomised trials of corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine or vitamin D as treatments for COVID-19, registered between 1 November 2019 and 31 December 2021 and available via the WHO ICTRP portal. We searched for the trials' published results up to 20 October 2022. We extracted the trial characteristics, analysing with descriptive statistics. We performed univariate logistic regression to examine the association between trials' characteristics and publication status, followed by multiple logistic regression using significant characteristics to assess the association between trial characteristics and publication status. RESULTS: We identified 357 eligible trials on ICTRP. Of these, 107 (30%) had published or made their results available publicly by 20 October 2022, while 250 (70%) had not been published or shared their results publicly. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that a larger target sample size was a significant positive predictor of publication with target sample sizes above 300 almost tripling the odds of publication (aOR: 2.75, 95% CI: 1.35 to 5.62). CONCLUSIONS: Less than one third of registered trials made their results public and our findings identified that many trialists had not updated their trial registry entry with the trial status, results or both. Failure to share trial results publicly is a disservice to patients, clinicians and policy makers and adds to research waste.

Ibuprofen for acute postoperative pain in children.

BACKGROUND: Children often require pain management following surgery to avoid suffering. Effective pain management has consequences for healing time and quality of life. Ibuprofen, a frequently used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) administered to children, is used to treat pain and inflammation in the postoperative period. OBJECTIVES: 1) To assess the efficacy and safety of ibuprofen (any dose) for acute postoperative pain management in children compared with placebo or other active comparators. 2) To compare ibuprofen administered at different doses, routes (e.g. oral, intravenous, etc.), or strategies (e.g. as needed versus as scheduled). SEARCH METHODS: We used standard Cochrane search methods. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and trials registries in August 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children aged 17 years and younger, treated for acute postoperative or postprocedural pain, that compared ibuprofen to placebo or any active comparator. We included RCTs that compared different administration routes, doses of ibuprofen and schedules. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We adhered to standard Cochrane methods for data collection and analysis. Our primary outcomes were pain relief reported by the child, pain intensity reported by the child, adverse events, and serious adverse events. We present results using risk ratios (RR) and standardised mean differences (SMD), with the associated confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 43 RCTs that enroled 4265 children (3935 children included in this review). We rated the overall risk of bias at the study level as high or unclear for 37 studies that had one or several unclear or high risk of bias judgements across the domains. We judged six studies as having a low risk of bias across all domains. Ibuprofen versus placebo (35 RCTs) No studies reported pain relief reported by the child or a third party, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen probably reduces child-reported pain intensity less than two hours postintervention compared to placebo (SMD -1.12, 95% CI -1.39 to -0.86; 3 studies, 259 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may reduce child-reported pain intensity, two hours to less than 24 hours postintervention (SMD -1.01, 95% CI -1.24 to -0.78; 5 studies, 345 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may result in little to no difference in adverse events compared to placebo (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.23; 5 studies, 384 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus paracetamol (21 RCTs) No studies reported pain relief reported by the child or a third party, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen likely reduces child-reported pain intensity less than two hours postintervention compared to paracetamol (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.02; 2 studies, 100 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may slightly reduce child-reported pain intensity two hours to 24 hours postintervention (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.02; 6 studies, 422 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen may result in little to no difference in adverse events (0 events in each group; 1 study, 44 children; low-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus morphine (1 RCT) No studies reported pain relief or pain intensity reported by the child or a third party, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen likely results in a reduction in adverse events compared to morphine (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.83; risk difference (RD) -0.25, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.09; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 4; 1 study, 154 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Ibuprofen versus ketorolac (1 RCT) No studies reported pain relief or pain intensity reported by the child, or serious adverse events. Ibuprofen may result in a reduction in adverse events compared to ketorolac (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.96; RD -0.29, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.04; NNTB 4; 1 study, 59 children; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite identifying 43 RCTs, we remain uncertain about the effect of ibuprofen compared to placebo or active comparators for some critical outcomes and in the comparisons between different doses, schedules and routes for ibuprofen administration. This is largely due to poor reporting on important outcomes such as serious adverse events, and poor study conduct or reporting that reduced our confidence in the results, along with small underpowered studies. Compared to placebo, ibuprofen likely results in pain reduction less than two hours postintervention, however, the efficacy might be lower at two hours to 24 hours. Compared to paracetamol, ibuprofen likely results in pain reduction up to 24 hours postintervention. We could not explore if there was a different effect in different kinds of surgeries or procedures. Ibuprofen likely results in a reduction in adverse events compared to morphine, and in little to no difference in bleeding when compared to paracetamol. We remain mostly uncertain about the safety of ibuprofen compared to other drugs.

Newborn and child health national and provincial clinical practice guidelines in South Africa, Nigeria and Malawi: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Low and middle-income countries remain disproportionately affected by high rates of child mortality. Clinical practice guidelines are essential clinical tools supporting implementation of effective, safe, and cost-effective healthcare. High-quality evidence-based guidelines play a key role in improving clinical management to impact child mortality. We aimed to identify and assess the quality of guidelines for newborn and child health published in South Africa, Nigeria and Malawi in the last 5 years (2017-2022). METHODS: We searched relevant websites (June-July 2022), for publicly available national and subnational de novo or adapted guidelines, addressing newborn and child health in the three countries. Pairs of reviewers independently extracted information from eligible guidelines (scope, topic, target population and users, responsible developers, stakeholder consultation process, adaptation description, assessment of evidence certainty). We appraised guideline quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. RESULTS: We identified 40-guidelines from the three countries. Of these, 8/40 reported being adopted from a parent guideline. More guidelines (n = 19) provided guidance on communicable diseases than on non-communicable diseases (n = 8). Guidelines were most often developed by national health ministries (n = 30) and professional societies (n = 14). Eighteen guidelines reported on stakeholder consultation; with Nigeria (10/11) and Malawi (3/6) faring better than South Africa (5/23) in reporting this activity. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used in 1/7 guidelines that reported assessing certainty of evidence. Overall guidelines scored well on two AGREE II domains: scope and purpose median (IQR) score 68% (IQR 47-83), and clarity of presentation 81% (67-94). Domains critical for ensuring credible guidance scored below 20%: rigour of development 11% (4-32) and editorial independence 6% (0-27). CONCLUSION: National ministries and professional societies drive guideline activities in Malawi, Nigeria and South Arica. However, the methods and reporting do not adhere to global standards. We found low AGREE II scores for rigour of guideline development and editorial independence and limited use of GRADE or adaptation methods. This undermines the credibility of available guidelines to support evidence-informed care. Our findings highlight the importance of ongoing efforts to strengthen partnerships, capacity, and support for guideline development.

Evaluating the impact of the global evidence, local adaptation (GELA) project for enhancing evidence-informed guideline recommendations for newborn and young child health in three African countries: a mixed-methods protocol.

BACKGROUND: Poverty-related diseases (PRD) remain amongst the leading causes of death in children under-5 years in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) based on the best available evidence are key to strengthening health systems and helping to enhance equitable health access for children under five. However, the CPG development process is complex and resource-intensive, with substantial scope for improving the process in SSA, which is the goal of the Global Evidence, Local Adaptation (GELA) project. The impact of research on PRD will be maximized through enhancing researchers and decision makers' capacity to use global research to develop locally relevant CPGs in the field of newborn and child health. The project will be implemented in three SSA countries, Malawi, South Africa and Nigeria, over a 3-year period. This research protocol is for the monitoring and evaluation work package of the project. The aim of this work package is to monitor the various GELA project activities and evaluate the influence these may have on evidence-informed decision-making and guideline adaptation capacities and processes. The specific project activities we will monitor include (1) our ongoing engagement with local stakeholders, (2) their capacity needs and development, (3) their understanding and use of evidence from reviews of qualitative research and, (4) their overall views and experiences of the project. METHODS: We will use a longitudinal, mixed-methods study design, informed by an overarching project Theory of Change. A series of interconnected qualitative and quantitative data collections methods will be used, including knowledge translation tracking sheets and case studies, capacity assessment online surveys, user testing and in-depth interviews, and non-participant observations of project activities. Participants will comprise of project staff, members of the CPG panels and steering committees in Malawi, South Africa and Nigeria, as well as other local stakeholders in these three African countries. DISCUSSION: Ongoing monitoring and evaluation will help ensure the relationship between researchers and stakeholders is supported from the project start. This can facilitate achievement of common goals and enable researchers in South Africa, Malawi and Nigeria to make adjustments to project activities to maximize stakeholder engagement and research utilization. Ethical approval has been provided by South African Medical Research Council Human Research Ethics Committee (EC015-7/2022); The College of Medicine Research and Ethics Committee, Malawi (P.07/22/3687); National Health Research Ethics Committee of Nigeria (01/01/2007).

Using a priority setting exercise to identify priorities for guidelines on newborn and child health in South Africa, Malawi, and Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: Sub-Saharan Africa is the region with the highest under-five mortality rate globally. Child healthcare decisions should be based on rigorously developed evidence-informed guidelines. The Global Evidence, Local Adaptation (GELA) project is enhancing capacity to use global research to develop locally relevant guidelines for newborn and child health in South Africa (SA), Malawi, and Nigeria. The first step in this process was to identify national priorities for newborn and child health guideline development, and this paper describes our approach. METHODS: We followed a good practice method for priority setting, including stakeholder engagement, online priority setting surveys and consensus meetings, conducted separately in South Africa, Malawi and Nigeria. We established national Steering Groups (SG), comprising 10-13 members representing government, academia, and other stakeholders, identified through existing contacts and references, who helped prioritise initial topics identified by research teams and oversaw the process. Various stakeholders were consulted via online surveys to rate the importance of topics, with results informing consensus meetings with SGs where final priority topics were agreed. RESULTS: Based on survey results, nine, 10 and 11 topics were identified in SA, Malawi, and Nigeria respectively, which informed consensus meetings. Through voting and discussion within meetings, and further engagement after the meetings, the top three priority topics were identified in each country. In SA, the topics concerned anemia prevention in infants and young children and post-discharge support for caregivers of preterm and LBW babies. In Malawi, they focused on enteral nutrition in critically ill children, diagnosis of childhood cancers in the community, and caring for neonates. In Nigeria, the topics focused on identifying pre-eclampsia in the community, hand hygiene compliance to prevent infections, and enteral nutrition for LBW and preterm infants. CONCLUSIONS: Through dynamic and iterative stakeholder engagement, we identified three priority topics for guideline development on newborn and child health in SA, Malawi and Nigeria. Topics were specific to contexts, with no overlap, which highlights the importance of contextualised priority setting as well as of the relationships with key decisionmakers who help define the priorities.

Improving social justice in observational studies: protocol for the development of a global and Indigenous STROBE-equity reporting guideline.

BACKGROUND: Addressing persistent and pervasive health inequities is a global moral imperative, which has been highlighted and magnified by the societal and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Observational studies can aid our understanding of the impact of health and structural oppression based on the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, age and other factors, as they frequently collect this data. However, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline, does not provide guidance related to reporting of health equity. The goal of this project is to develop a STROBE-Equity reporting guideline extension. METHODS: We assembled a diverse team across multiple domains, including gender, age, ethnicity, Indigenous background, disciplines, geographies, lived experience of health inequity and decision-making organizations. Using an inclusive, integrated knowledge translation approach, we will implement a five-phase plan which will include: (1) assessing the reporting of health equity in published observational studies, (2) seeking wide international feedback on items to improve reporting of health equity, (3) establishing consensus amongst knowledge users and researchers, (4) evaluating in partnership with Indigenous contributors the relevance to Indigenous peoples who have globally experienced the oppressive legacy of colonization, and (5) widely disseminating and seeking endorsement from relevant knowledge users. We will seek input from external collaborators using social media, mailing lists and other communication channels. DISCUSSION: Achieving global imperatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., SDG 10 Reduced inequalities, SDG 3 Good health and wellbeing) requires advancing health equity in research. The implementation of the STROBE-Equity guidelines will enable a better awareness and understanding of health inequities through better reporting. We will broadly disseminate the reporting guideline with tools to enable adoption and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies, using diverse strategies tailored to specific audiences.

Diclofenac for acute postoperative pain in children.

BACKGROUND: Many children undergo various surgeries, which often lead to acute postoperative pain. This pain influences recovery and quality of life. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), specifically cyclo-oxygenase (COX) inhibitors such as diclofenac, can be used to treat pain and reduce inflammation. There is uncertainty regarding diclofenac's benefits and harms compared to placebo or other drugs for postoperative pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of diclofenac (any dose) for acute postoperative pain management in children compared with placebo, other active comparators, or diclofenac administered by different routes (e.g. oral, rectal, etc.) or strategies (e.g. 'as needed' versus 'as scheduled'). SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and trial registries on 11 April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children under 18 years of age undergoing surgery that compared diclofenac (delivered in any dose and route) to placebo or any active pharmacological intervention. We included RCTs comparing different administration routes of diclofenac and different strategies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were: pain relief (PR) reported by the child, defined as the proportion of children reporting 50% or better postoperative pain relief; pain intensity (PI) reported by the child; adverse events (AEs); and serious adverse events (SAEs). We presented results using risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MD), and standardised mean differences (SMD), with the associated confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 RCTs with 2250 children. All surgeries were done using general anaesthesia. Most studies (27) included children above age three. Only two studies had an overall low risk of bias; 30 had an unclear or high risk of bias in one or several domains. Diclofenac versus placebo (three studies) None of the included studies reported on PR or PI. We are very uncertain about the benefits and harms of diclofenac versus placebo on nausea/vomiting (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.80; 2 studies, 100 children) and any reported bleeding (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.34 to 26.45; 2 studies, 100 children), both very low-certainty evidence. None of the included studies reported SAEs. Diclofenac versus opioids (seven studies) We are very uncertain if diclofenac reduces PI at 2 to 24 hours postoperatively compared to opioids (median pain intensity 0.3 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.0 to 2.5) for diclofenac versus median 0.7 (IQR 0.1 to 2.4) in the opioid group; 1 study, 50 children; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on PR or PI for other time points. Diclofenac probably results in less nausea/vomiting compared to opioids (41.0% in opioids, 31.0% in diclofenac; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96; 7 studies, 463 participants), and probably increases any reported bleeding (5.4% in opioids, 16.5% in diclofenac; RR 3.06, 95% CI 1.31 to 7.13; 2 studies, 222 participants), both moderate-certainty evidence. None of the included studies reported SAEs. Diclofenac versus paracetamol (10 studies) None of the included studies assessed child-reported PR. Compared to paracetamol, we are very uncertain if diclofenac: reduces PI at 0 to 2 hours postoperatively (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.15; 2 studies, 180 children); reduces PI at 2 to 24 hours postoperatively (SMD -0.64, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.39; 3 studies, 300 children); reduces nausea/vomiting (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.87; 5 studies, 348 children); reduces bleeding events (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.62; 5 studies, 332 participants); or reduces SAEs (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.22; 1 study, 60 children). The evidence certainty was very low for all outcomes. Diclofenac versus bupivacaine (five studies) None of the included studies reported on PR or PI. Compared to bupivacaine, we are very uncertain about the effect of diclofenac on nausea/vomiting (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.78; 3 studies, 128 children) and SAEs (RR 4.52, 95% CI 0.23 to 88.38; 1 study, 38 children), both very low-certainty evidence. Diclofenac versus active pharmacological comparator (10 studies) We are very uncertain about the benefits and harms of diclofenac versus any other active pharmacological comparator (dexamethasone, pranoprofen, fluorometholone, oxybuprocaine, flurbiprofen, lignocaine), and for different routes and delivery of diclofenac, due to few and small studies, no reporting of key outcomes, and very low-certainty evidence for the reported outcomes. We are unable to draw any meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We remain uncertain about the efficacy of diclofenac compared to placebo, active comparators, or by different routes of administration, for postoperative pain management in children. This is largely due to authors not reporting on clinically important outcomes; unclear reporting of the trials; or poor trial conduct reducing our confidence in the results. We remain uncertain about diclofenac's safety compared to placebo or active comparators, except for the comparison of diclofenac with opioids: diclofenac probably results in less nausea and vomiting compared with opioids, but more bleeding events. For healthcare providers managing postoperative pain, diclofenac is a COX inhibitor option, along with other pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Healthcare providers should weigh the benefits and risks based on what is known of their respective pharmacological effects, rather than known efficacy. For surgical interventions in which bleeding or nausea and vomiting are a concern postoperatively, the risks of adverse events using opioids or diclofenac for managing pain should be considered.

Infrastructure, policy and regulatory interventions to increase physical activity to prevent cardiovascular diseases and diabetes: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Noncommunicable diseases are major contributors to morbidity and mortality worldwide. Modifying the risk factors for these conditions, such as physical inactivity, is thus essential. Addressing the context or circumstances in which physical activity occurs may promote physical activity at a population level. We assessed the effects of infrastructure, policy or regulatory interventions for increasing physical activity. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase and clinicaltrials.gov to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-after (CBAs) studies, and interrupted time series (ITS) studies assessing population-level infrastructure or policy and regulatory interventions to increase physical activity. We were interested in the effects of these interventions on physical activity, body weight and related measures, blood pressure, and CVD and type 2 diabetes morbidity and mortality, and on other secondary outcomes. Screening and data extraction was done in duplicate, with risk of bias was using an adapted Cochrane risk of bias tool. Due to high levels of heterogeneity, we synthesised the evidence based on effect direction. RESULTS: We included 33 studies, mostly conducted in high-income countries. Of these, 13 assessed infrastructure changes to green or other spaces to promote physical activity and 18 infrastructure changes to promote active transport. The effects of identified interventions on physical activity, body weight and blood pressure varied across studies (very low certainty evidence); thus, we remain very uncertain about the effects of these interventions. Two studies assessed the effects of policy and regulatory interventions; one provided free access to physical activity facilities and showed that it may have beneficial effects on physical activity (low certainty evidence). The other provided free bus travel for youth, with intervention effects varying across studies (very low certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from 33 studies assessing infrastructure, policy and regulatory interventions for increasing physical activity showed varying results. The certainty of the evidence was mostly very low, due to study designs included and inconsistent findings between studies. Despite this drawback, the evidence indicates that providing access to physical activity facilities may be beneficial; however this finding is based on only one study. Implementation of these interventions requires full consideration of contextual factors, especially in low resource settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018093429.

Models of integrated care for multi-morbidity assessed in systematic reviews: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of multi-morbidity is increasing globally. Integrated models of care present a potential intervention to improve patient and health system outcomes. However, the intervention components and concepts within different models of care vary widely and their effectiveness remains unclear. We aimed to describe and map the definitions, characteristics, components, and reported effects of integrated models of care in systematic reviews (SRs). METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of SRs according to pre-specified methods (PROSPERO 2019 CRD42019119265). Eligible SRs assessed integrated models of care at primary health care level for adults and children with multi-morbidity. We searched in PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos, and Health Systems Evidence up to 3 May 2022. Two authors independently assessed eligibility of SRs and extracted data. We identified and described common components of integrated care across SRs. We extracted findings of the SRs as presented in the conclusions and reported on these verbatim. RESULTS: We included 22 SRs, examining data from randomised controlled trials and observational studies conducted across the world. Definitions and descriptions of models of integrated care varied considerably. However, across SRs, we identified and described six common components of integrated care: (1) chronic conditions addressed, (2) where services were provided, (3) the type of services provided, (4) healthcare professionals involved in care, (5) coordination and organisation of care and (6) patient involvement in care. We observed differences in the components of integrated care according to the income setting of the included studies. Some SRs reported that integrated care was beneficial for health and process outcomes, while others found no difference in effect when comparing integrated care to other models of care. CONCLUSIONS: Integrated models of care were heterogeneous within and across SRs. Information that allows the identification of effective components of integrated care was lacking. Detailed, standardised and transparent reporting of the intervention components and their effectiveness on health and process outcomes is needed.

A Framework for the Development of Living Practice Guidelines in Health Care.

BACKGROUND: Living practice guidelines are increasingly being used to ensure that recommendations are responsive to rapidly emerging evidence. OBJECTIVE: To develop a framework that characterizes the processes of development of living practice guidelines in health care. DESIGN: First, 3 background reviews were conducted: a scoping review of methods papers, a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and an analytic review of selected living practice guidelines. Second, the core team drafted the first version of the framework. Finally, the core team refined the framework through an online survey and online discussions with a multidisciplinary international group of stakeholders. SETTING: International. PARTICIPANTS: Multidisciplinary group of 51 persons who have experience with guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: Not applicable. RESULTS: A major principle of the framework is that the unit of update in a living guideline is the individual recommendation. In addition to providing definitions, the framework addresses several processes. The planning process should address the organization's adoption of the living methodology as well as each specific guideline project. The production process consists of initiation, maintenance, and retirement phases. The reporting should cover the evidence surveillance time stamp, the outcome of reassessment of the body of evidence (when applicable), and the outcome of revisiting a recommendation (when applicable). The dissemination process may necessitate the use of different venues, including one for formal publication. LIMITATION: This study does not provide detailed or practical guidance for how the described concepts would be best implemented. CONCLUSION: The framework will help guideline developers in planning, producing, reporting, and disseminating living guideline projects. It will also help research methodologists study the processes of living guidelines. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Developing, implementing, and monitoring tailored strategies for integrated knowledge translation in five sub-Saharan African countries.

BACKGROUND: Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) through strategic, continuous engagement with decision-makers represents an approach to bridge research, policy and practice. The Collaboration for Evidence-based Healthcare and Public Health in Africa (CEBHA +), comprising research institutions in Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda, South Africa, Uganda and Germany, developed and implemented tailored IKT strategies as part of its multifaceted research on prevention and care of non-communicable diseases and road traffic injuries. The objective of this article is to describe the CEBHA + IKT approach and report on the development, implementation and monitoring of site-specific IKT strategies. METHODS: We draw on findings derived from the mixed method IKT evaluation (conducted in 2020-2021), and undertook document analyses and a reflective survey among IKT implementers. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively and qualitative data were analysed using content analysis. The authors used the TIDieR checklist to report results in a structured manner. RESULTS: Preliminary IKT evaluation data (33 interviews with researchers and stakeholders from policy and practice, and 31 survey responses), 49 documents, and eight responses to the reflective survey informed this article. In each of the five African CEBHA + countries, a site-specific IKT strategy guided IKT implementation, tailored to the respective national context, engagement aims, research tasks, and individuals involved. IKT implementers undertook a variety of IKT activities at varying levels of engagement that targeted a broad range of decision-makers and other stakeholders, particularly during project planning, data interpretation, and output dissemination. Throughout the project, the IKT teams continued to tailor IKT strategies informally and modified the IKT approach by responding to ad hoc engagements and involving non-governmental organisations, universities, and communities. Challenges to using systematic, formalised IKT strategies arose in particular with respect to the demand on time and resources, leading to the modification of monitoring processes. CONCLUSION: Tailoring of the CEBHA + IKT approach led to the inclusion of some atypical IKT partners and to greater responsiveness to unexpected opportunities for decision-maker engagement. Benefits of using systematic IKT strategies included clarity on engagement aims, balancing of existing and new strategic partnerships, and an enhanced understanding of research context, including site-specific structures for evidence-informed decision-making.

Circumcision devices versus standard surgical techniques in adolescent and adult male circumcisions: a Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of device-based circumcisions compared with standard surgical techniques in adolescent and adult males (10 years old and above). METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions to the language of publication or publication status. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of device-based circumcisions compared to standard surgical dissection-based circumcision conducted by health professionals in a medical setting. We reported study results as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs) using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and a random-effects model. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to evaluate the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome. RESULTS: A total of 18 trials met the inclusion criteria. These trials did not report severe adverse events (AEs; 11 trials, 3472 participants). There may be a slight increase in moderate AEs for devices compared to surgical techniques (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.55-3.10; I2 = 68%; 10 trials, 3370 participants; low-certainty evidence); this corresponds to eight more (ranging from 15 fewer to 84 more) moderate AEs per 1000 participants. We are uncertain about the difference in mild AEs between groups when devices are used compared to surgical techniques (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.44-2.72; I2 = 91%; 10 trials, 3370 participants; very low-certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: We found no serious AEs using a circumcision device compared to surgical techniques. Still, they may slightly increase moderate AEs, and it is unclear whether there is a difference in mild AEs. High-quality trials evaluating this intervention are needed to provide further certainty regarding the rates of AEs. Clinicians, patients, and policymakers can use these results combined with their contextual factors to inform the best approach that suits their healthcare settings.

Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

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

Health Technology Assessment in Support of National Health Insurance in South Africa.

South Africa has embarked on major health policy reform to deliver universal health coverage through the establishment of National Health Insurance (NHI). The aim is to improve access, remove financial barriers to care, and enhance care quality. Health technology assessment (HTA) is explicitly identified in the proposed NHI legislation and will have a prominent role in informing decisions about adoption and access to health interventions and technologies. The specific arrangements and approach to HTA in support of this legislation are yet to be determined. Although there is currently no formal national HTA institution in South Africa, there are several processes in both the public and private healthcare sectors that use elements of HTA to varying extents to inform access and resource allocation decisions. Institutions performing HTAs or related activities in South Africa include the National and Provincial Departments of Health, National Treasury, National Health Laboratory Service, Council for Medical Schemes, medical scheme administrators, managed care organizations, academic or research institutions, clinical societies and associations, pharmaceutical and devices companies, private consultancies, and private sector hospital groups. Existing fragmented HTA processes should coordinate and conform to a standardized, fit-for-purpose process and structure that can usefully inform priority setting under NHI and for other decision makers. This transformation will require comprehensive and inclusive planning with dedicated funding and regulation, and provision of strong oversight mechanisms and leadership.

Circumcision devices versus standard surgical techniques in adolescent and adult male circumcisions.

BACKGROUND: Medical circumcisions are among the most common surgical procedures performed in males. The usual indications are phimosis (inability to completely retract the foreskin and expose the glans due to a congenital or acquired constriction of the prepuce), paraphimosis (when the foreskin is not pulled back over the glans after retraction resulting in a tight constricting band which causes swelling of the distal penis and acute discomfort), balanoposthitis (erythema and edema of the prepuce and glans) and balanitis (inflammation is confined to the glans; the foreskin is usually non-retractile). Circumcision devices have been developed to shorten the operative time, simplify techniques, and improve safety and cosmetic outcomes. The devices generally aim to crush the foreskin while simultaneously creating hemostasis, the foreskin is then excised or allowed to slough off. Their use is supposedly safer and easier to replicate than the standard dissection techniques. There are at least 20 devices for male circumcision on the market, yet their effectiveness has not been reviewed to date. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of device-based circumcisions compared with standard surgical techniques in adolescent and adult males (10 years old and above). SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions to the language of publication or publication status. We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Web of Science, trials registries, grey literature sources and conference proceedings up to 16 April 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials of device-based circumcisions (crush or ligature circumcision devices) compared to standard surgical dissection-based circumcision conducted by health professionals in a medical setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and extracted data from the included studies. We classified adverse events into serious, moderate or mild. We reported study results as risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) using 95% confidence intervals (CI) and a random-effects model. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen trials met the inclusion criteria. Trials were conducted in China, South Africa, Kenya and Zambia, Mozambique, Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe. Primary outcomes Serious adverse events: there were no serious adverse events in either treatment arm (11 trials, 3472 participants). Moderate adverse events: there may be a slight increase in moderate adverse events when devices are used compared to standard surgical techniques (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.10; I²= 68%; 10 trials, 3370 participants; low-certainty evidence); this corresponds to 8 more (ranging from 15 fewer to 84 more) moderate adverse events per 1000 participants. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for study limitations and imprecision. Secondary outcomes Mild adverse events: we are uncertain about the difference in mild adverse events between groups when devices are used compared to standard surgical techniques (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.72; I² = 91%; 10 trials, 3370 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for study limitations, imprecision and unexplained inconsistency. Operative time: operative time is probably about 17 minutes shorter when using a device rather than standard surgical techniques, which constitutes a clinically meaningful decrease in a procedure (MD -17.26 minutes, 95% CI -19.96 to -14.57; I² = 99%; 14 trials, 4812 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for serious study limitations. The standard surgical technique generally takes about 24 minutes. There may be less postoperative pain during the first 24 hours when circumcision devices are used compared to standard surgical techniques (measured using a visual analog scale [VAS]; MD 1.30 cm lower, 95% CI 2.37 lower to 0.22 lower; I² = 99%; 9 trials, 3022 participants; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for study limitations and unexplained heterogeneity. There may be little or no difference in postoperative pain experienced during the first seven days when compared with standard surgical techniques (measured using a VAS; MD 0.11 cm higher, 95% CI 0.89 lower to 1.11 higher; I² = 94%; 4 trials, 1430 participants; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for study limitations and unexplained inconsistency. A higher score on the VAS indicates greater pain. Participants may slightly prefer circumcision devices compared to standard surgical techniques (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.37; I² = 97%; 15 trials, 4501 participants; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for study limitations and unexplained inconsistency. We recorded satisfaction as a dichotomous outcome. Higher rates reflected greater satisfaction. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found that there were no serious adverse events reported when using a circumcision device compared to standard surgical techniques, but they may slightly increase moderate adverse effects, and it is unclear whether there is a difference in mild adverse effects. Use of circumcision devices probably reduces the time of the procedure by about 17 minutes, a clinically meaningful time saving. For patients, use of the circumcision device may result in lower pain scores during the first 24 hours and patients may be slightly more satisfied with it compared with standard surgical techniques. Clinicians, patients and policymakers can use these results in conjunction with their own contextual factors to inform the approach that best suits their healthcare settings. High-quality trials evaluating this intervention are needed to provide further certainty regarding the rates of adverse effects and postoperative pain of using devices compared to standard approaches.

Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in substantial mortality. Some specialists proposed chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for treating or preventing the disease. The efficacy and safety of these drugs have been assessed in randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of chloroquine (CQ) or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for 1) treating people with COVID-19 on death and time to clearance of the virus; 2) preventing infection in people at risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure; 3) preventing infection in people exposed to SARS-CoV-2. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com), and the COVID-19-specific resources www.covid-nma.com and covid-19.cochrane.org, for studies of any publication status and in any language. We performed all searches up to 15 September 2020. We contacted researchers to identify unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine in people with COVID-19, people at risk of COVID-19 exposure, and people exposed to COVID-19. Adverse events (any, serious, and QT-interval prolongation on electrocardiogram) were also extracted. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility of search results, extracted data from the included studies, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We contacted study authors for clarification and additional data for some studies. We used risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model for outcomes where pooling of effect estimates was appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: 1. Treatment of COVID-19 disease We included 12 trials involving 8569 participants, all of whom were adults. Studies were from China (4); Brazil, Egypt, Iran, Spain, Taiwan, the UK, and North America (each 1 study); and a global study in 30 countries (1 study). Nine were in hospitalized patients, and three from ambulatory care. Disease severity, prevalence of comorbidities, and use of co-interventions varied substantially between trials. We found potential risks of bias across all domains for several trials. Nine trials compared HCQ with standard care (7779 participants), and one compared HCQ with placebo (491 participants); dosing schedules varied. HCQ makes little or no difference to death due to any cause (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.19; 8208 participants; 9 trials; high-certainty evidence). A sensitivity analysis using modified intention-to-treat results from three trials did not influence the pooled effect estimate.  HCQ may make little or no difference to the proportion of people having negative PCR for SARS-CoV-2 on respiratory samples at day 14 from enrolment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.10; 213 participants; 3 trials; low-certainty evidence). HCQ probably results in little to no difference in progression to mechanical ventilation (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.37; 4521 participants; 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). HCQ probably results in an almost three-fold increased risk of adverse events (RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.49 to 5.64; 1394 participants; 6 trials; moderate-certainty evidence), but may make little or no difference to the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.79; 1004 participants; 6 trials; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of HCQ on time to clinical improvement or risk of prolongation of QT-interval on electrocardiogram (very low-certainty evidence). One trial (22 participants) randomized patients to CQ versus lopinavir/ritonavir, a drug with unknown efficacy against SARS-CoV-2, and did not report any difference for clinical recovery or adverse events. One trial compared HCQ combined with azithromycin against standard care (444 participants). This trial did not detect a difference in death, requirement for mechanical ventilation, length of hospital admission, or serious adverse events. A higher risk of adverse events was reported in the HCQ-and-azithromycin arm; this included QT-interval prolongation, when measured. One trial compared HCQ with febuxostat, another drug with unknown efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 (60 participants). There was no difference detected in risk of hospitalization or change in computed tomography (CT) scan appearance of the lungs; no deaths were reported. 2. Preventing COVID-19 disease in people at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 Ongoing trials are yet to report results for this objective. 3. Preventing COVID-19 disease in people who have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 One trial (821 participants) compared HCQ with placebo as a prophylactic agent in the USA (around 90% of participants) and Canada. Asymptomatic adults (66% healthcare workers; mean age 40 years; 73% without comorbidity) with a history of exposure to people with confirmed COVID-19 were recruited. We are very uncertain about the effect of HCQ on the primary outcomes, for which few events were reported: 20/821 (2.4%) developed confirmed COVID-19 at 14 days from enrolment, and 2/821 (0.2%) were hospitalized due to COVID-19 (very low-certainty evidence). HCQ probably increases the risk of adverse events compared with placebo (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.83 to 3.11; 700 participants; 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence). HCQ may result in little or no difference in serious adverse events (no RR: no participants experienced serious adverse events; low-certainty evidence). One cluster-randomized trial (2525 participants) compared HCQ with standard care for the prevention of COVID-19 in people with a history of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in Spain. Most participants were working or residing in nursing homes; mean age was 49 years. There was no difference in the risk of symptomatic confirmed COVID-19 or production of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 between the two study arms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: HCQ for people infected with COVID-19 has little or no effect on the risk of death and probably no effect on progression to mechanical ventilation. Adverse events are tripled compared to placebo, but very few serious adverse events were found. No further trials of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for treatment should be carried out. These results make it less likely that the drug is effective in protecting people from infection, although this is not excluded entirely. It is probably sensible to complete trials examining prevention of infection, and ensure these are carried out to a high standard to provide unambiguous results.

Health economic evidence in clinical guidelines in South Africa: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-informed clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are useful tools to inform transparent healthcare decision-making. Consideration of health economic evidence (HEE) during CPG development in a structured manner remains a challenge globally and locally. This study explored the views, current practice, training needs and challenges faced by CPG developers in the production and use of HEE for CPGs in South Africa. METHODS: This mixed-methods study comprised an online survey and a focus group discussion. The survey was piloted and subsequently sent to CPG role players - evidence reviewers, CPG panellists, academics involved with training in relevant disciplines like health economics and public health, implementers and funders. The focus group participants hold strategic roles in CPG development and health economic activities nationally. The survey evaluated mean values, measures of variability, and percentages for Likert scales, while narrative components were thematically analysed. Focus group data were manually coded, thematically analysed and verified. RESULTS: The survey (n = 55 respondents to 245 surveys distributed) and one focus group (n = 5 participants from 10 people invited) occurred between October 2018 and February 2019. We found the most consistent reason why HEE should inform CPG decisions was 'making more efficient use of limited financial resources'. This was explained by numerous context and methodological barriers. Focus groups participants noted that consideration of complex HEE are not achievable without bolstering skills in applying evidence-based medicine principles. Further concerns include lack of clarity of standard methods; inequitable and opaque topic selection across private and public sectors; inadequate skills of CPG panel members to use HEE; and the ability of health economists to communicate results in accessible ways. Overall, in the absence of clarity about process and methods, politics and interests may drive CPG decisions about which interventions to implement. CONCLUSIONS: HEE should ideally be considered in CPG decisions in South Africa. However, this will remain hampered until the CPG community agree on methods and processes for using HEE in CPGs. Focused investment by national government to address the challenges identified by the study is imperative for a better return on investment as National Health Insurance moves forward.

Mixed method evaluation of the CEBHA+ integrated knowledge translation approach: a protocol.

BACKGROUND: The Collaboration for Evidence-based Healthcare and Public Health in Africa (CEBHA+) is a research consortium concerned with the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of non-communicable diseases. CEBHA+ seeks to engage policymakers and practitioners throughout the research process in order to build lasting relationships, enhance evidence uptake, and create long-term capacity among partner institutions in Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda, South Africa and Uganda in collaboration with two German universities. This integrated knowledge translation (IKT) approach includes the formal development, implementation and evaluation of country specific IKT strategies. METHODS: We have conceptualised the CEBHA+ IKT approach as a complex intervention in a complex system. We will employ a comparative case study (CCS) design and mixed methods to facilitate an in-depth evaluation. We will use quantitative surveys, qualitative interviews, quarterly updates, and a policy document analysis to capture the process and outcomes of IKT across the African CEBHA+ partner sites. We will conduct an early stage (early 2020) and a late-stage evaluation (early 2022), triangulate the data collected with various methods at each site and subsequently compare our findings across the five sites. DISCUSSION: Evaluating a complex intervention such as the CEBHA+ IKT approach is complicated, even more so when undertaken across five diverse countries. Despite conceptual, methodological and practical challenges, our comparative case study addresses important evidence gaps: While involving decision-makers in the research process is gaining traction worldwide, we still know very little regarding (i) whether this approach really makes a difference to evidence uptake, (ii) the mechanisms that make IKT successful, and (iii) relevant differences across socio-cultural contexts. The evaluation described here is intended to provide relevant insights on all of these aspects, notably in countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, and is expected to contribute to the science of IKT overall.