Comparative effects of pharmacological interventions for the acute and long-term management of insomnia disorder in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Behavioural, cognitive, and pharmacological interventions can all be effective for insomnia. However, because of inadequate resources, medications are more frequently used worldwide. We aimed to estimate the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for the acute and long-term treatment of adults with insomnia disorder. METHODS: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and websites of regulatory agencies from database inception to Nov 25, 2021, to identify published and unpublished randomised controlled trials. We included studies comparing pharmacological treatments or placebo as monotherapy for the treatment of adults (≥18 year) with insomnia disorder. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) framework. Primary outcomes were efficacy (ie, quality of sleep measured by any self-rated scale), treatment discontinuation for any reason and due to side-effects specifically, and safety (ie, number of patients with at least one adverse event) both for acute and long-term treatment. We estimated summary standardised mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. This study is registered with Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PU4QJ. FINDINGS: We included 170 trials (36 interventions and 47 950 participants) in the systematic review and 154 double-blind, randomised controlled trials (30 interventions and 44 089 participants) were eligible for the network meta-analysis. In terms of acute treatment, benzodiazepines, doxylamine, eszopiclone, lemborexant, seltorexant, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more efficacious than placebo (SMD range: 0·36-0·83 [CINeMA estimates of certainty: high to moderate]). Benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were more efficacious than melatonin, ramelteon, and zaleplon (SMD 0·27-0·71 [moderate to very low]). Intermediate-acting benzodiazepines, long-acting benzodiazepines, and eszopiclone had fewer discontinuations due to any cause than ramelteon (OR 0·72 [95% CI 0·52-0·99; moderate], 0·70 [0·51-0·95; moderate] and 0·71 [0·52-0·98; moderate], respectively). Zopiclone and zolpidem caused more dropouts due to adverse events than did placebo (zopiclone: OR 2·00 [95% CI 1·28-3·13; very low]; zolpidem: 1·79 [1·25-2·50; moderate]); and zopiclone caused more dropouts than did eszopiclone (OR 1·82 [95% CI 1·01-3·33; low]), daridorexant (3·45 [1·41-8·33; low), and suvorexant (3·13 [1·47-6·67; low]). For the number of individuals with side-effects at study endpoint, benzodiazepines, eszopiclone, zolpidem, and zopiclone were worse than placebo, doxepin, seltorexant, and zaleplon (OR range 1·27-2·78 [high to very low]). For long-term treatment, eszopiclone and lemborexant were more effective than placebo (eszopiclone: SMD 0·63 [95% CI 0·36-0·90; very low]; lemborexant: 0·41 [0·04-0·78; very low]) and eszopiclone was more effective than ramelteon (0.63 [0·16-1·10; very low]) and zolpidem (0·60 [0·00-1·20; very low]). Compared with ramelteon, eszopiclone and zolpidem had a lower rate of all-cause discontinuations (eszopiclone: OR 0·43 [95% CI 0·20-0·93; very low]; zolpidem: 0·43 [0·19-0·95; very low]); however, zolpidem was associated with a higher number of dropouts due to side-effects than placebo (OR 2·00 [95% CI 1·11-3·70; very low]). INTERPRETATION: Overall, eszopiclone and lemborexant had a favorable profile, but eszopiclone might cause substantial adverse events and safety data on lemborexant were inconclusive. Doxepin, seltorexant, and zaleplon were well tolerated, but data on efficacy and other important outcomes were scarce and do not allow firm conclusions. Many licensed drugs (including benzodiazepines, daridorexant, suvorexant, and trazodone) can be effective in the acute treatment of insomnia but are associated with poor tolerability, or information about long-term effects is not available. Melatonin, ramelteon, and non-licensed drugs did not show overall material benefits. These results should serve evidence-based clinical practice. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.

[School-based screening strategies to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in school: a systematic review of the literature]. / Strategie di screening per contenere la diffusione del COVID-19 nella scuola: una revisione sistematica della letteratura.

OBJECTIVES: to describe studies that evaluated the screening programmes implemented in the school during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: a systematic literature review was conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 Guidelines. Studies published until December 2021 were included. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed with validated scales. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were carried out by two authors independently. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: teachers and students belonging to schools of all levels, including universities. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: a. transmission-related outcomes (such as the number or proportion of cases, cumulative frequency, incidence); b. feasibility/acceptability of the screening strategies; c. socioeconomic outcomes (such as testing cost, number of days spent in school, quarantine). RESULTS: after having removed duplicate articles, 2,822 records were retrieved. Thirty-six studies were included (15 used an observational design and 21 modelling study). Regarding the former, the methodological quality has been rated as high in 2 studies, intermediate in 6 and low in 2; in the remaining ones, it was not evaluated because only descriptive. Screenings were quite different in terms of school study population, types of tests used, methods of submission and analysis, and level of incidence in the community at the time of implementation. Outcome indicators were also varied, a heterogeneity that, on the one hand, did not allow for meta-analysis of results and, on the other, allowed for testing the performance of the screenings in very different settings. All of the field studies claim that the screenings reduced SARS-CoV-2 exposure and infection among children, adolescents, and college students, curbing at-school transmission and helping to reduce the number of closing school days. Studies that evaluated the cost of the intervention emphasized its cost-effectiveness, while those that focused on the acceptability of the instrument showed a preference among children, adolescents, and parents for minimally invasive, self-administered tests with high sensitivity and lower frequency of repetition. Simulation-based studies are mostly based on compartmental and agent-based models. Their quality is quite high methodologically, although uncertainty quantification and external validation, aimed at verifying the model ability to reproduce observed data, are lacking in many cases. The contexts to which the simulations refer are all school-based, although 7 studies consider residential situations, which are poorly suited to the Italian context. All simulation-based models indicate the importance of planning repeated testing on asymptomatic individuals to limit contagion. However, the costs of these procedures can be high unless assessments are spaced out or pool testing procedures are used. Obtaining high student adherence to the screening programme is extremely important to maximize results. CONCLUSIONS: school-based screenings, especially when combined with other preventive measures, have been important public health tools to contain infections during COVID-19 waves and to ensure children's and adolescents' right to education and to prevent the fallout in physical and mental health (with strong equity consequences) associated with school closures.

School closures and mental health, wellbeing and health behaviours among children and adolescents during the second COVID-19 wave: a systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVES: to evaluate the impact of school closures, as a measure to contain the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection, on the psychological well-being of students of all levels starting from the 2020-2021 school year. DESIGN: a systematic literature review was conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 Guidelines. The literature search was conducted on 4 different databases: MedLine, Embase, PsycINFO, and L.OVE Platform. Quantitative observational studies published until 10.01.2022 were included. Studies conducted during the first pandemic wave, i.e., during the 2019-2020 school year and/or during the mandatory lockdown or confinement period, were excluded. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed with validated scales. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were carried out independently by two authors. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: children, adolescents, and young people attending all levels of education (including universities) and, for reasons related to COVID-19, having a suspension of "in presence" school or attending classes remotely. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: a. outcomes directly related to mental health: suicides, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations for psychiatric problems; anxiety and depression, emotional difficulties, feelings of loneliness and isolation; b. well-being outcomes: sleep quality, perceived well-being (by child/adolescent/youth or referred by parents); c. health-related behaviours: tobacco smoking, alcohol, drug use. Outcomes related to school/academic performance, physical health, and those related to parents were not considered. RESULTS: after having removed duplicate articles, 2,830 records were retrieved with the bibliographic search. Twelve studies (2 uncontrolled before-after studies and 10 cross sectional surveys) were included, involving a total of 27,787 participants. Three studies involved university students, 2 involved high school students, and the remaining involved a mixed population of students attending primary and middle schools. The studies were conducted between September 2020 and April 2021. The methodological quality was rated as high in five studies and intermediate in the remaining studies. Due to the high heterogeneity of outcome measures and statistical analyses performed among the included studies, it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis of the results of the considered publications. Nevertheless, the present review showed a clear signal of increase in mental health problems in relation to school closure or virtual instruction. In particular, results suggest evidence of association between school closure and risk of suicidal attempts or thoughts, mental health symptoms such as anxiety, depression, emotional disorders, psychological stress. Sleeping problems, drug and alcohol addiction were poorly studied. CONCLUSIONS: despite the limitations of the included studies and possible residual confounding and contamination due to restrictive measures and social isolation implemented during the pandemic, the available evidence confirms the negative impact on students' mental health associated with school closures and distance learning. Given the availability of vaccination also for young children, a long period of school closure should be avoided also in the case of the emergence of new pandemic waves.

Impact of antipsychotics in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The net health benefit of using antipsychotics in children and adolescents with ASD is unclear. This review was performed to provide the evidence necessary to inform the Italian national guidelines for the management of ASD. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antipsychotics versus placebo for the treatment of ASD in children and adolescents. For efficacy, acceptability and safety we considered outcomes evaluated by the guideline panel critical and important for decision-making. Continuous outcomes were analyzed by using standardized mean difference (SMD), and dichotomous outcomes by calculating the risk ratio (RR), with their 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Data were analyzed using a random effects model. We used the Cochrane tool to assess risk of bias of included studies. Certainty in the evidence of effects was assessed according to the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We included 21 RCTs with 1,309 participants, comparing antipsychotics to placebo. Antipsychotics were found effective on "restricted and repetitive interests and behaviors" (SMD - 0.21, 95% CI - 0.35 to - 0.07, moderate certainty), "hyperactivity, inattention, oppositional, disruptive behavior" (SMD - 0.67, 95% CI - 0.92 to - 0.42, moderate certainty), "social communication, social interaction" (SMD - 0.38, 95% CI - 0.59 to - 0.16, moderate certainty), "emotional dysregulation/irritability" (SMD - 0.71, 95% CI - 0.98 to - 0.43, low certainty), "global functioning, global improvement" (SMD - 0.64, 95% CI - 0.96 to - 0.33, low certainty), "obsessions, compulsions" (SMD - 0.30, 95% CI - 0.55 to - 0.06, moderate certainty). Antipsychotics were not effective on "self-harm" (SMD - 0.14, 95% CI - 0.58 to 0.30, very low certainty), "anxiety" (SMD - 0.38, 95% CI - 0.82 to 0.07, very low certainty). Antipsychotics were more acceptable in terms of dropout due to any cause (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.78, moderate certainty), but were less safe in terms of patients experiencing adverse events (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.32, moderate certainty), and serious adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.43, low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review and meta-analysis found antipsychotics for children and adolescents with ASD more efficacious than placebo in reducing stereotypies, hyperactivity, irritability and obsessions, compulsions, and in increasing social communication and global functioning. Antipsychotics were also found to be more acceptable, but less safe than placebo.

Equity, acceptability and feasibility of using polyunsaturated fatty acids in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: a rapid systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Some recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessed the efficacy and safety of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) for the treatment of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). To optimally inform the Italian guideline for the management of ASD in children and adolescents, we reviewed the impact on equity, acceptability and feasibility for developing a pilot recommendation for PUFAs. METHODS: We performed a rapid systematic review of observational and experimental studies on PUFAs for children and adolescents with ASD, extracting data on resources required, equity, acceptability, and feasibility of PUFAs. We followed the framework provided by the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and we assessed risk of bias and methodological quality of included studies. Results were synthesized both narratively and quantitatively to address clinically relevant questions on equity, acceptability, and feasibility. RESULTS: We found 14 papers related to equity. PUFAs did not seem to impact equity importantly. We did not find variation in effectiveness across subgroups and in a base case scenario, the cost of a 12 weeks cycle of therapy with 1.155 g/day of PUFAs was €65.51 euro. The acceptability of PUFAs was evaluated in 17 studies, 9 of which were RCTs. PUFAs were widely used among children and adolescents with ASD (18 to 51%), and 50% of parents considered nutritional supplementation as useful. Difficulty in swallowing capsules and bad taste were identified as possible causes of poor compliance, but treatment adherence, when measured in included RCTs, was judged to be good to excellent. Discontinuation due to any cause for PUFAs could not differ from placebo (low certainty of evidence). The feasibility of using PUFAs was assessed in 12 studies. PUFAs were probably sustainable, and no particular critical issue emerged from the feasibility assessment. However, the evidence appeared scarce and indirect. CONCLUSIONS: We found the administration of PUFAs in children and adolescents with ASD to be potentially equitable, acceptable and feasible. These results are limited by the limited number and quality of retrieved documents, and need to be viewed in light of efficacy and safety data to formulate clinical recommendations.

Impact of polyunsaturated fatty acids on patient-important outcomes in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) claimed PUFAs to be effective for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) but international guidelines have not considered yet this body of evidence. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of PUFAs in children and adolescents with ASD, for the Italian national guidelines on the management of ASD in children and adolescents. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing PUFAs versus placebo or a healthy diet for the treatment of ASD in children and adolescents. The outcomes considered were deemed by the guideline panel to be highly relevant to children and adolescents with ASD and to their caregivers. The outcomes included hyperactivity, quality of sleep, self-harm, aggression, irritability, anxiety, attention, adaptive functioning, social interaction, restricted and repetitive interests and behavior, communication, hyperactivity and disruptive behaviors coexistent with core symptoms. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed with the Cochrane tool, and the rating of the confidence in the effect estimates according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: We included 9 studies with 405 participants. The strength of evidence ranged from low to very low. Six studies included preschoolers and school-age children, three studies included both children and adolescents. The majority of participants were males (83.8%), with a mean age of 6.7 years. PUFAs were superior compared to placebo in reducing anxiety in individuals with ASD (SMD -1.01, 95% CI - 1.86 to - 0.17; very low certainty of evidence). Moreover, PUFAs worsened quality of sleep compared to a healthy diet (SMD 1.11, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.00; very low certainty of evidence). PUFAs were not better than placebo in reducing aggression, hyperactivity, adaptive functioning, irritability, restricted and repetitive interests and behaviors and communication. Effects on some critical outcomes such as sleep, self-harm and disruptive behavior are currently unknown. The main limitations were the small number of participants included in the RCTs and the dosage which varied greatly (from 200 mg/day to 1540 mg/day), making it difficult to address causal inference. CONCLUSIONS: PUFAs did not show evidence of effect in children and adolescents with ASD and the certainty of evidence as measured with the GRADE was low to very low. Further research is needed on this topic because the available evidence is inconclusive.

Acceptability, equity, and feasibility of using antipsychotics in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether the administration of antipsychotics to children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) is acceptable, equitable, and feasible. METHODS: We performed a systematic review to support a multidisciplinary panel in formulating a recommendation on antipsychotics, for the development of the Italian national guidelines for the management of ASD. A comprehensive search strategy was performed to find data related to intervention acceptability, health equity, and implementation feasibility. We used quantitative data from randomized controlled trials to perform a meta-analysis assessing the acceptability and tolerability of antipsychotics, and we estimated the certainty of the effect according to the GRADE approach. We extracted data from systematic reviews, primary studies, and grey literature, and we assessed the risk of bias and methodological quality of the published studies. RESULTS: Antipsychotics were acceptable (dropouts due to any cause: RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48-0.78, moderate certainty of evidence) and well tolerated (dropouts due to adverse events: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.55-1.79, low certainty of evidence) by children and adolescents with ASD. Parents and clinicians did not raise significant issues concerning acceptability. We did not find studies reporting evidence of reduced equity for antipsychotics in disadvantaged subgroups of children and adolescents with ASD. Workloads, cost barriers, and inadequate monitoring of metabolic adverse events were indirect evidence of concerns for feasibility. CONCLUSION: Antipsychotics in children and adolescents with ASD were likely acceptable and possibly feasible. We did not find evidence of concern for equity.

Quality improvement strategies at primary care level to reduce inequalities in diabetes care: an equity-oriented systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that disparities exist in diabetes prevalence, access to diabetes care, diabetes-related complications, and the quality of diabetes care. A wide range of interventions has been implemented and evaluated to improve diabetes care. We aimed to review trials of quality improvement (QI) interventions aimed to reduce health inequities among people with diabetes in primary care and to explore the extent to which experimental studies addressed and reported equity issues. METHODS: Pubmed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomized controlled studies published between January 2005 and May 2016. We adopted the PROGRESS Plus framework, as a tool to explore differential effects of QI interventions across sociodemographic and economic factors. RESULTS: From 1903 references fifty-eight randomized trials met the inclusion criteria (with 17.786 participants), mostly carried out in USA. The methodological quality was good for all studies. Almost all studies reported the age, gender/sex and race distribution of study participants. The majority of trials additionally used at least one further PROGRESS-Plus factor at baseline, with education being the most commonly used, followed by income (55%). Large variation was observed between these studies for type of interventions, target populations, and outcomes evaluated. Few studies examined differential intervention effects by PROGRESS-plus factors. Existing evidence suggests that some QI intervention delivered in primary care can improve diabetes-related health outcomes in social disadvantaged population subgroups such as ethnic minorities. However, we found very few studies comparing health outcomes between population subgroups and reporting differential effect estimates of QI interventions. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides evidence that QI interventions for people with diabetes is feasible to implement and highly acceptable. However, more research is needed to understand their effective components as well as the adoption of an equity-oriented approach in conducting primary studies. Moreover, a wider variety of socio-economic characteristics such as social capital, place of residence, occupation, education, and religion should be addressed.

[Systematic review of safeness and therapeutic efficacy of cannabis in patients with multiple sclerosis, neuropathic pain, and in oncological patients treated with chemotherapy]. / Revisione sistematica sull'efficacia terapeutica e la sicurezza della cannabis per i pazienti affetti da sclerosi multipla, dolore neuropatico cronico e pazienti oncologici che assumono chemioterapie.

BACKGROUND: medical cannabis refers to the use of cannabis or cannabinoids as medical therapy to treat disease or alleviate symptoms. In the United States, 23 states and Washington DC (May 2015) have introduced laws to permit the medical use of cannabis. Within the European Union, medicinal cannabis laws and praxis vary wildly between Countries. OBJECTIVES: to provide evidence for benefits and harms of cannabis (including extracts and tinctures) treatment for adults in the following indications: control of spasticity and pain in patients with multiple sclerosis; control of pain in patients with chronic neuropathic pain; control of nausea and vomiting in adults with cancer receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and EMBASE from inception to September 2016. We also searched for on-going studies via ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal. All searches included also non-English language literature. All relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the safety and efficacy of cannabis (including extracts and tinctures) compared with placebo or other pharmacological agents were included. Three authors independently evaluated the titles and abstracts of studies identified in the literature searches for their eligibility. For studies considered eligible, we retrieved full texts. Three investigators independently extracted data. For the assessment of the quality of evidence, we used the standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane and GRADE working Group. RESULTS: 41 trials (4,550 participants) were included; 15 studies considered efficacy and safety of cannabis for patients with multiple sclerosis, 12 for patients with chronic pain, and 14 for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy. The included studies were published between 1975 and 2015, and the majority of them were conducted in Europe. We judged almost 50% of these studies to be at low risk of bias. The large majority (80%) of the comparisons were with placebo; only 8 studies included patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy comparing cannabis with other antiemetic drugs. Concerning the efficacy of cannabis (compared with placebo) in patients with multiple sclerosis, confidence in the estimate was high in favour of cannabis for spasticity (numerical rating scale and visual analogue scale, but not the Ashworth scale) and pain. For chronic and neuropathic pain (compared with placebo), there was evidence of a small effect; however, confidence in the estimate is low and these results could not be considered conclusive. There is uncertainty whether cannabis, including extracts and tinctures, compared with placebo or other antiemetic drugs reduces nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer requiring chemotherapy, although the confidence in the estimate of the effect was low or very low. In the included studies, many adverse events were reported and none of the studies assessed the development of abuse or dependence. CONCLUSIONS: there is incomplete evidence of the efficacy and safety of medical use of cannabis in the clinical contexts considered in this review. Furthermore, for many of the outcomes considered, the confidence in the estimate of the effect was again low or very low. To give conclusive answers to the efficacy and safety of cannabis used for medical purposes in the clinical contexts considered, further studies are needed, with higher quality, larger sample sizes, and possibly using the same diagnostic tools for evaluating outcomes of interest.

Volume and health outcomes: evidence from systematic reviews and from evaluation of Italian hospital data. / Volumi di attività ed esiti delle cure: prove scientifiche in letteratura ed evidenze empiriche in Italia.

BACKGROUND Improving quality and effectiveness of healthcare is one of the priorities of health policies. Hospital or physician volume represents a measurable variable with an impact on effectiveness of healthcare. An Italian law calls for the definition of «qualitative, structural, technological, and quantitative standards of hospital care¼. There is a need for an evaluation of the available scientific evidence in order to identify qualitative, structural, technological, and quantitative standards of hospital care, including the volume of care above or below which the public and private hospitals may be accredited (or not) to provide specific healthcare interventions. OBJECTIVES To identify conditions/interventions for which an association between volume and outcome has been investigated. To identify conditions/interventions for which an association between volume and outcome has been proved. To analyze the distribution of Italian health providers by volume of activity. To measure the association between volume of care and outcomes of the health providers of the Italian National Health Service (NHS). METHODS Systematic review An overview of systematic reviews was performed searching PubMed, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library up to November 2016. Studies were evaluated by 2 researchers independently; quality assessment was performed using the AMSTAR checklist. For each health condition and outcome, if available, total number of studies, participants, high volume cut-off values, and metanalysis have been reported. According to the considered outcomes, health topics were classified into 3 groups: positive association: a positive association was demonstrated in the majority of studies/participants and/or a pooled measure (metanalysis) with positive results was reported; lack of association: both studies and/or metanalysis showed no association; no sufficient evidence of association: both results of single studies and metanalysis do not allow to draw firm conclusions on the association between volume and outcome. Analysis of the distribution of Italian hospitals by volume of activity and the association between volume of activity and outcomes: the Italian National Outcome evaluation Programme 2016 The analyses were performed using the Hospital Information System and the National Tax Register (year 2015). For each condition, the number of hospitals by volume of activity was calculated. Hospitals with a volume lower than 3-5 cases/year were excluded. For conditions with more than 1,500 cases/year and frequency of outcome ≥1%, the association between volume of care and outcome was analyzed estimating risk-adjusted outcomes. RESULTS Bibliographic searches identified 80 reviews, evaluating 48 different clinical areas. The main outcome considered was intrahospital/30-day mortality. The other outcomes vary depending on the type of condition or intervention in study. The relationship between hospital volume and outcomes was considered in 47 out of 48 conditions: 34 conditions showed evidence of a positive association; • 14 conditions consider cancer surgery for bladder, breast, colon, rectum, colon rectum, oesophagus, kidney, liver, lung, ovaries, pancreas, prostate, stomach, head and neck; • 11 conditions consider cardiocerebrovascular area: nonruptured and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, acute myocardial infarction, brain aneurysm, carotid endarterectomy, coronary angioplasty, coronary artery bypass, paediatric heart surgery, revascularization of lower limbs, stroke, subarachnoid haemorrhage; • 2 conditions consider orthopaedic area: knee arthroplasty, hip fracture; • 7 conditions consider other areas: AIDS, bariatric surgery, cholecystectomy, intensive care unit, neonatal intensive care unit, sepsis, and traumas; for 3 conditions, no association was demonstrated: hip arthroplasty, dialysis, and thyroidectomy. for the remaining 10 conditions, the available evidence does not allow to draw firm conclusions about the association between hospital volume and considered outcomes: surgery for testicular cancer and intracranial tumours, paediatric oncology, aortofemoral bypass, cardiac catheterization, appendectomy, colectomy, inguinal hernia, respiratory failure, and hysterectomy. The relationship between volume of clinician/surgeon and outcomes was assessed only through the literature re view; to date, it is not possible to analyze this association for Italian health provider hospitals, since information on the clinician/surgeon on the hospital discharge chart is missing. The literature found a positive association for 21 conditions: 9 consider surgery for cancer: bladder, breast, colon, colon rectum, pancreas, prostate, rectum, stomach, and head and neck; 5 consider the cardiocerebrovascular area: ruptured and nonruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, carotid endarterectomy, paediatric heart surgery, and revascularization of the lower limbs; 2 consider the orthopaedic area: knee and hip arthroplasty; 5 consider other areas: AIDS, bariatric surgery, hysterectomy, intensive care unit, and thyroidectomy. The analysis of the distribution of Italian hospitals concerned the 34 conditions for which the systematic review has shown a positive volume-outcome association. For the following, it was possible to conduct the analysis of the association using national data: unruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, coronary angioplasty, hip arthroplasty, knee arthroplasty, coronary artery bypass, cancer surgery (colon, liver, breast, pancreas, lung, prostate, kidney, and stomach), laparoscopic cholecystectomy, hip fracture, stroke, acute myocardial infarction. For these conditions, the association between volume and outcome of care was observed. For laparoscopic cholecystectomy and surgery of the breast and stomach cancer, the association between the volume of the discharge (o dismissal) operating unit and the outcome was analyzed. The outcomes differ depending on the condition studied. The shape of the relationship is variable among different conditions, with heterogeneous slope of the curves. DISCUSSION For many conditions, the overview of systematic reviews has shown a strong evidence of association between higher volumes and better outcomes. The quality of the available reviews can be considered good for the consistency of the results between the studies and for the strength of the association; however, this does not mean that the included studies are of good quality. Analyzing national data, potential confounders, including age and comorbidities, have been considered. The systematic review of the literature does not permit to identify predefined volume thresholds. The analysis of national data shows a strong improvement in outcomes in the first part of the curve (from very low to higher volumes) for most conditions. In some cases, the improvement in outcomes remains gradual or constant with the increasing volume of care; in other, the analysis could allow the identification of threshold values beyond which the outcome does not further improve. However, a good knowledge of the relationship between effectiveness of treatments and costs, the geographical distribution and the accessibility to healthcare services are necessary to choose the minimum volumes of care, under which specific health procedures could not been provided in the NHS. Some potential biases due to the use of information systems data should also be considered. The different way of coding among hospitals could lead to a different selection of cases for some conditions. Regarding the definition of the exposure (volume of care), a possible bias could result from misclassification of health providers with high volume of activity. Performing the intervention in different departments/ units of the same hospital would result in an overestimation of the volume of care measured for hospital rather than for department/unit. For the conditions with a further fragmentation within the same structure, the association between volumes of discharge department and outcomes has also been evaluated. In this case, the two curves were different. The limit is to attribute the outcome to the discharge unit, which in case of surgery may not be the intervention unit. A similar bias could occur if the main determinant of the outcome of treatment was the caseload of each surgeon. The results of the analysis may be biased when different operators in the same hospital/unit carried out the same procedure. In any case, the observed association between volumes and outcome is very strong, and it is unlikely to be attributable to biases of the study design. Another aspect on which there is still little evidence is the interaction between volume of the hospital and of the surgeon. A MEDICARE study suggests that in some conditions, especially for specialized surgery, the effect of the surgeon's volume of activity is different depending on the structure volume, whereas it would not differ for some less specialized surgery conditions. The data here presented still show extremely fragmented volumes of both clinical and surgical areas, with a predominance of very low volume structures. Health systems operate, by definition, in a context of limited resources, especially when the amount of resources to allocate to the health system is reduced. In such conditions, the rationalization of the organization of health services based on the volume of care may make resources available to improve the effectiveness of interventions. The identification and certification of services and providers with high volume of activity can help to reduce differences in the access to non-effective procedures. To produce additional evidence to guide the reorganization of the national healthcare system, it will be necessary to design further primary studies to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of policies aimed at concentrating interventions in structures with high volumes of activity.

A pharmacoeconomic analysis from Italian guidelines for the management of prolactinomas.

Background: Prolactinoma, the most common pituitary adenoma, is usually treated with dopamine agonist (DA) therapy like cabergoline. Surgery is second-line therapy, and radiotherapy is used if surgical treatment fails or in relapsing macroprolactinoma. Objective: This study aimed to provide economic evidence for the management of prolactinoma in Italy, using a cost-of-illness and cost-utility analysis that considered various treatment options, including cabergoline, bromocriptine, temozolomide, radiation therapy, and surgical strategies. Methods: The researchers conducted a systematic literature review for each research question on scientific databases and surveyed a panel of experts for each therapeutic procedure's specific drivers that contributed to its total cost. Results: The average cost of the first year of treatment was €2,558.91 and €3,287.40 for subjects with microprolactinoma and macroprolactinoma, respectively. Follow-up costs from the second to the fifth year after initial treatment were €798.13 and €1,084.59 per year in both groups. Cabergoline had an adequate cost-utility profile, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €3,201.15 compared to bromocriptine, based on a willingness-to-pay of €40,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in the reference economy. Endoscopic surgery was more cost-effective than cabergoline, with an ICER of €44,846.64. Considering a willingness-to-pay of €40,000/QALY, the baseline findings show cabergoline to have high cost utility and endoscopic surgery just a tad above that. Conclusions: Due to the favorable cost-utility profile and safety of surgical treatment, pituitary surgery should be considered more frequently as the initial therapeutic approach. This management choice could lead to better outcomes and an appropriate allocation of healthcare resources.

Italian Guidelines for the Management of Sporadic Primary Hyperparathyroidism.

AIM: This guideline (GL) is aimed at providing a clinical practice reference for the management of sporadic primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) in adults. PHPT management in pregnancy was not considered. METHODS: This GL has been developed following the methods described in the Manual of the Italian National Guideline System. For each question, the panel appointed by Associazione Medici Endocrinology (AME) and Società Italiana dell'Osteoporosi, del Metabolismo Minerale e delle Malattie dello Scheletro (SIOMMMS) identified potentially relevant outcomes, which were then rated for their impact on therapeutic choices. Only outcomes classified as "critical" and "important" were considered in the systematic review of evidence. Those classified as "critical" were considered for the clinical practice recommendations. RESULTS: The present GL provides recommendations about the roles of pharmacological and surgical treatment for the clinical management of sporadic PHPT. Parathyroidectomy is recommended in comparison to surveillance or pharmacologic treatment in any adult (outside of pregnancy) or elderly subject diagnosed with sporadic PHPT who is symptomatic or meets any of the following criteria: • Serum calcium levels >1 mg/dL above the upper limit of normal range. • Urinary calcium levels >4 mg/kg/day. • Osteoporosis disclosed by DXA examination and/or any fragility fracture. • Renal function impairment (eGFR <60 mL/min). • Clinic or silent nephrolithiasis. • Age ≤50 years. Monitoring and treatment of any comorbidity or complication of PHPT at bone, kidney, or cardiovascular level are suggested for patients who do not meet the criteria for surgery or are not operated on for any reason. Sixteen indications for good clinical practice are provided in addition to the recommendations. CONCLUSION: The present GL is directed to endocrinologists and surgeons - working in hospitals, territorial services or private practice - and to general practitioners and patients. The recommendations should also consider the patient's preferences and the available resources and expertise.

Italian Guidelines for the Management of Prolactinomas.

INTRODUCTION: This guideline (GL) is aimed at providing a reference for the management of prolactin (PRL)-secreting pituitary adenoma in adults. However, pregnancy is not considered. METHODS: This GL has been developed following the methods described in the Manual of the Italian National Guideline System. For each question, the panel appointed by Associazione Medici Endocrinologi (AME) has identified potentially relevant outcomes, which have then been rated for their impact on therapeutic choices. Only outcomes classified as "critical" and "important" have been considered in the systematic review of evidence and only those classified as "critical" have been considered in the formulation of recommendations. RESULTS: The present GL provides recommendations regarding the role of pharmacological and neurosurgical treatment in the management of prolactinomas. We recommend cabergoline (Cab) vs. bromocriptine (Br) as the firstchoice pharmacological treatment to be employed at the minimal effective dose capable of achieving the regression of the clinical picture. We suggest that medication and surgery are offered as suitable alternative first-line treatments to patients with non-invasive PRL-secreting adenoma, regardless of size. We suggest Br as an alternative drug in patients who are intolerant to Cab and are not candidates for surgery. We recommend pituitary tumor resection in patients 1) without any significant neuro-ophthalmologic improvement within two weeks from the start of Cab, 2) who are resistant or do not tolerate Cab or other dopamine-agonist drugs (DA), 3) who escape from previous efficacy of DA, and 4) who are unwilling to undergo a chronic DA treatment. We recommend that patients with progressive disease notwithstanding previous tumor resection and ongoing DA should be managed by a multidisciplinary team with specific expertise in pituitary diseases using a multimodal approach that includes repeated surgery, radiotherapy, DA, and possibly, the use of temozolomide. CONCLUSION: The present GL is directed to endocrinologists, neurosurgeons, and gynecologists working in hospitals, in territorial services or private practice, and to general practitioners and patients.

Italian Guidelines for the Management of Non-Functioning Benign and Locally Symptomatic Thyroid Nodules.

AIM: This guideline (GL) is aimed at providing a reference for the management of non-functioning, benign thyroid nodules causing local symptoms in adults outside of pregnancy. METHODS: This GL has been developed following the methods described in the Manual of the National Guideline System. For each question, the panel appointed by Associazione Medici Endocrinology (AME) identified potentially relevant outcomes, which were then rated for their impact on therapeutic choices. Only outcomes classified as "critical" and "important" were considered in the systematic review of evidence and only those classified as "critical" were considered in the formulation of recommendations. RESULTS: The present GL contains recommendations about the respective roles of surgery and minimally invasive treatments for the management of benign symptomatic thyroid nodules. We suggest hemithyroidectomy plus isthmectomy as the first-choice surgical treatment, provided that clinically significant disease is not present in the contralateral thyroid lobe. Total thyroidectomy should be considered for patients with clinically significant disease in the contralateral thyroid lobe. We suggest considering thermo-ablation as an alternative option to surgery for patients with a symptomatic, solid, benign, single, or dominant thyroid nodule. These recommendations apply to outpatients, either in primary care or when referred to specialists. CONCLUSION: The present GL is directed to endocrinologists, surgeons, and interventional radiologists working in hospitals, in territorial services, or private practice, general practitioners, and patients. The available data suggest that the implementation of this GL recommendations will result in the progressive reduction of surgical procedures for benign thyroid nodular disease, with a decreased number of admissions to surgical departments for non-malignant conditions and more rapid access to patients with thyroid cancer. Importantly, a reduction of indirect costs due to long-term replacement therapy and the management of surgical complications may also be speculated.

Does letting adolescent and young adult inpatients share decisions in choosing the central-line insertion site reduce central-line-associated bloodstream infections? An empty systematic review.

To study whether allowing adolescents and young adults (AYA) with chronic or oncologic diseases admitted to tertiary or intensive care units to share decisions in choosing the insertion site for central-venous catheters (CVC) implanted for intravenous therapies or parenteral nutrition reduces central-line-associated and catheter-related bloodstream infections (CLABSI and CRBSI). Following the PRISMA guidelines, we systematically reviewed the literature by searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to December 2019. According to our aims, the review identified no study that could be included. This empty systematic review on healthcare teams allowing AYA with chronic or oncologic diseases admitted in tertiary or intensive care units to share decisions in choosing the site for implanting CVC prompts further research on clinical pathways on this hot-topic. By considering purportedly risk-taking behaviors in youngsters thus reducing CLABSI and CRBSI, healthcare teams should test specific strategies by engaging AYA empathetically in sharing decisions on the site for implanting CVC to improve quality in health care bundles.

[The praise of uncertainty: a systematic living review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of drug treatments for patients with covid-19.] / L'elogio dell'incertezza: una revisione sistematica living per valutare l'efficacia e la sicurezza dei trattamenti farmacologici per pazienti affetti da covid-19.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus that causes a disease which can leads to a severe form of fatal pneumonia. At december 2020 in Italy, more than 2 million people have contracted the virus and 78,755 people have died. The scientific community is studying and testing numerous compounds that can be effective and safe for treating people with covid-19. AIM: To synthesize and evaluate the quality of evidence of efficacy and safety for the treatment. The available evidence is summarized in a living systematic review, a review that is constantly updated on the basis of the results of the new clinical studies. METHODS: A bibliographic search is launched weekly on the electronic databases and on the main clinical trial registers. Two researchers independently select the articles and assess the quality of the studies using the criteria developed by the Cochrane Collaboration, the certainty of the overall quality of the evidence is assessed using the GRADE criteria. RESULTS: At 31/12/2020, 101 randomized controlled studies were included that consider 72 different comparisons and include a total of 55,281 patients. 37 drugs are tested with respect to the standard treatment, 6 are evaluated against placebo and finally 29 compare different drugs with each other. By selecting studies that evaluate the efficacy and safety of a drug compared to standard treatment, which include at least 2 studies and which have low to high certainty of evidence, results show that corticosteroids, remdesivir, favipiravir, immunoglobulins, colchicine, and umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cell infusion could reduce overall mortality. No differences for the risk of any adverse events are observed between convalescent plasma and remdesivir compared to standard treatment. Remdesivir probably reduces the risk of serious adverse events; a similar effect, although less strong, is also noted for tocilizumab and the lopinavir-ritonavir combination. In contrast, hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids and convalescent plasma transfusion are associated with safety concerns with respect to the risk of serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The 101 studies included consider 72 comparisons and numerous outcomes, the results often coming from single studies and of small dimensions, and for 61% with a very low certainty of evidence, are difficult to summarize and the final result is to increase the uncertainty rather than providing useful information to the clinic and research. From all the work carried out it seems to us that the pandemic has highlighted the many shadows of scientific literature as tool to improve knowledge.

The Standard of Care Definitions on COVID-19 Pharmacological Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review.

Background: Standard of Care (SoC) has been used with different significance across Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) on the treatment of Covid-19. In the context of a living systematic review on pharmacological interventions for COVID-19, we assessed the characteristics of the SoC adopted in the published RCTs. Methods: We performed a systematic review searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to April 10, 2021. We included all RCTs comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo, or SoC. All trials selected have been classified as studies with SoC including treatments under investigation for COVID-19 (SoC+); studies with SoC without specifications regarding the potential therapies allowed (SoC-); studies including as control groups Placebo (P) or active controls (A+). Results: We included in our analysis 144 RCTs, comprising 78,319 patients. Most of these trials included SoC (108; 75.0%); some in all arms of the study (69.7%) or just as independent comparators (30.3%). Treatments under investigation for COVID-19 in other trials were included in the SoC (SoC+) in 67 cases (62.0%), Thirty-one different therapeutic agents (alone or in combination) were counted within the studies with SoC+: mostly hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine (28), lopinavir/ritonavir (20) or azithromycin (16). No specification was given regarding treatment allowed in the control groups (SoC-) in 41 studies (38.0%). Conclusion: Our analysis shows that the findings emerging from several clinical trials regarding the efficacy and safety of pharmacological intervention for COVID-19 might be jeopardized by the quality of control arms.

Mindful organizing as a healthcare strategy to decrease catheter-associated infections in neonatal and pediatric intensive care units. A systematic review and grading recommendations (GRADE) system.

PURPOSE: To explore the clinical evidence available on mindful organizing (MO) that will improve teamwork for positioning and managing central venous catheters in patients admitted to neonatal intensive care and other pediatric intensive care units to decrease central-line-associated and catheter-related bloodstream infections (CLABSI and CRBSI). METHODS: We searched several databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, SCOPUS, and Web of Science) up to June 2018. We included studies investigating the effectiveness of MO teamwork in reducing CLABSI and CRBSI. The systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines. We used validated appraisal checklists to assess quality. RESULTS: Seven studies were included: only one was a non-randomized case-controlled trial (CCT). All the others had a pre-post intervention design, one a time-series design and one an interrupted time-series design. The methodological heterogeneity precluded a meta-analysis. Despite the low certainty of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system, three studies including thousands of participants provided numerical data for calculating risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) comparing MO with no intervention for decreasing the CLABSI rate in neonatal and pediatric ICUs. The one CCT disclosed no significant difference in the CLABSI rate decrease between groups (RR = 0.96; 95%CI 0.47-1.97). Nor did the pre- and post-intervention interrupted time-series design disclose a significant decrease (RR = 0.80; 95%CI 0.36 1.77). In the study using a before-after study design, the GRADE system found that the CLABSI rate decrease differed significantly in favor of post-intervention (RR = 0.13; 95%CI 0.03 0.57; p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the decreased CLABSI rate, the available evidence is low in quality. To reduce the unduly high CLABSI rates in neonatal and pediatric intensive care settings, custom-designed clinical trials should further define the clinical efficacy of MO to include it in care bundles as a new international standard.

Comparative Effectiveness of Pharmacological Interventions for Covid-19: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Background: Several pharmacological interventions are now under investigation for the treatment of Covid-19, and the evidence is evolving rapidly. Our aim is to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of these drugs. Methods and Findings: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis searching Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Covid-19 register, international trial registers, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and arXiv up to December 10, 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological intervention for Covid-19 against any drugs, placebo or standard care (SC). Data extracted from published reports were assessed for risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane tool, and using the GRADE framework. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We estimated summary risk ratio (RR) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects (Prospero, number CRD42020176914). We included 96 RCTs, comprising of 34,501 patients. The network meta-analysis showed in terms of all-cause mortality, when compared to SC or placebo, only corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate (RR 0.90, 95%CI 0.83, 0.97; moderate certainty of evidence). Corticosteroids significantly reduced the mortality rate also when compared to hydroxychloroquine (RR 0.83, 95%CI 0.74, 0.94; moderate certainty of evidence). Remdesivir proved to be better in terms of SAEs when compared to SC or placebo (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0.63, 0.89; high certainty of evidence) and plasma (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.34, 0.94; high certainty of evidence). The combination of lopinavir and ritonavir proved to reduce SAEs when compared to plasma (RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.25, 0.95; high certainty of evidence). Most of the RCTs were at unclear risk of bias (42 of 96), one third were at high risk of bias (34 of 96) and 20 were at low risk of bias. Certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low. Conclusion: At present, corticosteroids reduced all-cause mortality in patients with Covid-19, with a moderate certainty of evidence. Remdesivir appeared to be a safer option than SC or placebo, while plasma was associated with safety concerns. These preliminary evidence-based observations should guide clinical practice until more data are made public.

Comparative efficacy and safety in ESA biosimilars vs. originators in adults with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are available to treat anemia in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Questions about the comparability of such therapeutic options are not purely a regulatory or economical matter. Appropriate use of originator or biosimilar in these patients need to be supported by clinical data. Regarding the prevention of blood transfusion, reduction of fatigue, breathlessness and mortality or cardiovascular events, a summary of the comparative efficacy and safety data of these drugs is lacking. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search of CENTRAL, PubMed, and Embase through November 11, 2015. Our inclusion criteria encompassed randomized, controlled clinical trials that evaluated the comparative effectiveness of different ESAs originators and/or biosimilar. The considered participants were adults aged 18 years or older with anemia due to CKD. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE system. RESULTS: We identified 30 eligible studies including 7843 patients with CKD, and 21/30 studies included patients using hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. Compared with ESA biosimilars, epoetin α did not statistically differ for any of the ten measured outcomes. The quality of evidence varied from low to very low. In the comparison between epoetin α vs. darbepoetin α, no differences were observed for all outcomes, but blood transfusions showed favorable results for darbepoetin α: RR 2.18 (1.31-3.62). The quality of evidence varied from low to very low. No differences were observed between epoetin ß and methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin ß, and between darbepoetin α and methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin ß, the quality of evidence varied from moderate to very low. CONCLUSIONS: Data from 31 included studies allowed to pool data in meta-analysis related to four different comparisons and eleven outcome measures. Nevertheless, only one result was statistically significant in favor of darbepoetin α in the comparison with epoetin α concerning blood transfusions. For all the other outcomes and comparisons, we did not find any differences in terms of efficacy and security between the EPO considered. The quality of evidence is quite low, and further research could change these results. Further high quality studies examining the comparative effectiveness of ESAs need to be conducted.