Clinical trials of pharmacological interventions for SARS-CoV-2 published in leading medical journals report adherence but not how it was assessed.

AIMS: Adherence to pharmacological interventions in clinical trials is crucial for accurate identification of beneficial and adverse outcomes. The ways in which adherence to interventions should be reported in trial publications are described in the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR), a 12-item extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials reporting guidelines. The objective of this study was to assess compliance with TIDieR Items 11 and 12 of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions in SARS-CoV-2 infection published in 5 selected journals during 2021. METHODS: We assessed pharmacological interventions for SARS-CoV-2 infection reported in RCTs published in 2021 in the Annals of Internal Medicine, The BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet and The New England Journal for Medicine for compliance with TIDieR items addressing intervention adherence (Items 11 and 12). We calculated proportional adherence for pharmacological and comparator interventions where available. RESULTS: We found 75 eligible RCTs. Twenty-eight (37%) reported results of SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations. Compliance with Items 11 and 12 could be assessed in 71 of these 75. Of the 71 RCTs, 37 (52%) reported how adherence was assessed (Item 11), and 70 reported adherence rates (Item 12). Only 1 of the 71 RCTs (1.4%, 0-7.6%) fully complied with TIDieR Items 11 and 12. CONCLUSION: Half of RCTs of SARS-CoV-2 pharmacological interventions published in leading medical journals in 2021 complied with reporting of how adherence assessments were made and almost none complied with both TIDieR Items 11 and 12. The implications for interpretation, application and replication of findings based on these publications warrant consideration.

Physical activity for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Current recommendations for people with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) to partake in physical activity are based on low-level evidence, do not incorporate evidence from all available randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and provide little information regarding potential adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of physical activity interventions in adults diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome and to explore possible effect moderators including type, setting and nature of physical activity interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched nine electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to 5 November 2021. We handsearched reference lists and sought unpublished studies through trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs involving adults (aged 18 years or older) diagnosed with IBS and conducted in any setting comparing a physical activity intervention with no intervention, usual care or wait-list control group or another physical activity intervention group and assessing a validated measure of symptoms, quality of life or bowel movement. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted study data, and performed risk of bias and GRADE assessments to assess the certainty of evidence. We pooled studies that evaluated similar outcomes using a random-effects meta-analysis, and synthesised data from other studies narratively. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 RCTs with data for 622 participants. Most (10/11) were set in high- or middle- to high-income countries, with five involving supervised physical activity, three unsupervised activity and three a mix of supervised and unsupervised activity. No trial was at low risk of bias. Four trials specified a minimally important difference for at least one assessed outcome measure. Data for 10 trials were obtained from published journal articles, with data for one obtained from an unpublished Masters degree thesis. Irritable bowel syndrome symptoms Six RCTs assessed the effectiveness of a physical activity intervention compared with usual care on global symptoms of IBS. Meta-analysis of five studies showed an observed improvement in reported symptoms following physical activity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.44 to -0.42; 185 participants). We rated the certainty of evidence for this outcome as very low due to unclear and high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision from sparse data. This means physical activity may improve IBS symptoms but the evidence is very uncertain. The results of the remaining study supported the meta-analysis but were at unclear risk of bias and sample size was small. Two studies assessed the effectiveness of a yoga intervention compared with a walking intervention on global IBS symptoms. Meta-analysis of these two studies found no conclusive evidence of an effect of yoga compared with walking on IBS symptoms (SMD -1.16, 95% CI -3.93 to 1.62; 124 participants). We rated the certainty of evidence as very low, meaning the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of yoga interventions compared with walking interventions on IBS symptoms. Two studies assessed the effectiveness of a physical activity intervention (yoga) compared with medication. One reported no observed difference in global IBS symptoms, though CIs were wide, suggesting uncertainty in the observed estimates and risk of bias was high (MD -1.20, 95% CI -2.65 to 0.25; 21 participants). We excluded IBS symptom data for the remaining study as it used a non-validated method. One study compared a yoga intervention with a dietary intervention and reported an observed improvement in symptoms with both interventions but neither intervention was superior to the other. Quality of life Five RCTs assessed the impact of physical activity on self-reported quality of life compared with usual care. Meta-analysis of data from four studies found no improvement in quality of life following a physical activity intervention (SMD 1.17, 95% CI -0.30 to 2.64; 134 participants; very low certainty due to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision). We rated the certainty of evidence as very low, meaning the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of physical activity interventions on quality-of-life outcomes in people with IBS. One study assessed the impact on quality of life of a yoga intervention compared with walking and observed an improvement in the yoga group (MD 53.45, 95% CI 38.85 to 68.05; 97 participants ).  One study reported no observed difference in quality of life between a yoga and a dietary intervention. Abdominal pain Two trials assessed the impact of physical activity compared with usual care on reported abdominal pain. Meta-analysis found no improvement in abdominal pain with physical activity compared with usual care (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.50; 64 participants). We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low due to risk of bias and imprecision, meaning the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of physical activity interventions on abdominal pain in people with IBS. One study assessing the impact of a yoga intervention compared with walking advice reported no observed differences between groups on abdominal pain. One study comparing a yoga intervention with a dietary intervention found neither intervention had a more beneficial impact than the other and both interventions did not conclusively reduce abdominal pain. There was insufficient evidence to adequately assess adverse effects associated with physical activity due to a lack of reporting in trials. One study reported a musculoskeletal injury in a yoga intervention group but this did not result in withdrawal from the study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Findings from a small body of evidence suggest that physical activity comprising of yoga, treadmill exercise or support to increase physical activity may improve symptoms but not quality of life or abdominal pain in people diagnosed with IBS but we have little confidence in these conclusions due to the very low certainty of evidence. The numbers of reported adverse events were low and the certainty of these findings was very low for all comparisons, so no conclusions can be drawn. Discussions with patients considering physical activity as part of symptom management should address the uncertainty in the evidence to ensure fully informed decisions. If deemed sufficiently important to patients and healthcare providers, higher quality research is needed to enable more certain conclusions.

Open-label randomised pragmatic trial (CONTACT) comparing naproxen and low-dose colchicine for the treatment of gout flares in primary care.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of naproxen and low-dose colchicine for treating gout flares in primary care. METHODS: This was a multicentre open-label randomised trial. Adults with a gout flare recruited from 100 general practices were randomised equally to naproxen 750 mg immediately then 250 mg every 8 hours for 7 days or low-dose colchicine 500 mcg three times per day for 4 days. The primary outcome was change in worst pain intensity in the last 24 hours (0-10 Numeric Rating Scale) from baseline measured daily over the first 7 days: mean change from baseline was compared between groups over days 1-7 by intention to treat. RESULTS: Between 29 January 2014 and 31 December 2015, we recruited 399 participants (naproxen n=200, colchicine n=199), of whom 349 (87.5%) completed primary outcome data at day 7. There was no significant between-group difference in average pain-change scores over days 1-7 (colchicine vs naproxen: mean difference -0.18; 95% CI -0.53 to 0.17; p=0.32). During days 1-7, diarrhoea (45.9% vs 20.0%; OR 3.31; 2.01 to 5.44) and headache (20.5% vs 10.7%; 1.92; 1.03 to 3.55) were more common in the colchicine group than the naproxen group but constipation was less common (4.8% vs 19.3%; 0.24; 0.11 to 0.54). CONCLUSION: We found no difference in pain intensity over 7 days between people with a gout flare randomised to either naproxen or low-dose colchicine. Naproxen caused fewer side effects supporting naproxen as first-line treatment for gout flares in primary care in the absence of contraindications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN (69836939), clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01994226), EudraCT (2013-001354-95).

Association between heart rate variability and haemodynamic response to exercise in chronic heart failure.

OBJECTIVES: Heart rate variability (HRV) and haemodynamic response to exercise (i.e. peak cardiac power output) are strong predictors of mortality in heart failure. The present study assessed the relationship between measures of HRV and peak cardiac power output. DESIGN: In a prospective observational study of 33 patients (age 54 ± 16 years) with chronic heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (29 ± 11%), measures of the HRV (i.e. R-R interval and standard deviation of normal R-R intervals, SDNN) were recorded in a supine position. All patients underwent maximal graded cardiopulmonary exercise testing with non-invasive (inert gas rebreathing) cardiac output assessment. Cardiac power output, expressed in watts, was calculated as the product of cardiac output and mean arterial blood pressure. RESULTS: The mean RR and SDNN were 837 ± 166 and 96 ± 29 ms, peak exercise cardiac power output 2.28 ± 0.85 watts, cardiac output 10.34 ± 3.14 L/min, mean arterial blood pressure 98 ± 14 mmHg, stroke volume 91.43 ± 40.77 mL/beat, and oxygen consumption 19.0 ± 5.6 mL/kg/min. There was a significant but only moderate relationship between the RR interval and peak exercise cardiac power output (r = 0.43, p = .013), cardiac output (r = 0.35, p = .047), and mean arterial blood pressure (r = 0.45, p = .009). The SDNN correlated with peak cardiac power output (r = 0.42, p = .016), mean arterial blood arterial (r = 0.41, p = .019), and stroke volume (r = 0.35, p = .043). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate strength of the relationship between measures of HRV and cardiac response to exercise suggests that cardiac autonomic function is not good indicator of overall function and pumping capability of the heart in chronic heart failure.

How does exercise treatment compare with antihypertensive medications? A network meta-analysis of 391 randomised controlled trials assessing exercise and medication effects on systolic blood pressure.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of exercise regimens and medications on systolic blood pressure (SBP). DATA SOURCES: Medline (via PubMed) and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I), angiotensin-2 receptor blockers (ARBs), ß-blockers, calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and diuretics were identified from existing Cochrane reviews. A previously published meta-analysis of exercise interventions was updated to identify recent RCTs that tested the SBP-lowering effects of endurance, dynamic resistance, isometric resistance, and combined endurance and resistance exercise interventions (up to September 2018). DESIGN: Random-effects network meta-analysis. OUTCOME: Difference in mean change from baseline SBP between comparator treatments (change from baseline in one group minus that in the other group) and its 95% credible interval (95% CrI), measured in mmHg. RESULTS: We included a total of 391 RCTs, 197 of which evaluated exercise interventions (10 461 participants) and 194 evaluated antihypertensive medications (29 281 participants). No RCTs compared directly exercise against medications. While all medication trials included hypertensive populations, only 56 exercise trials included hypertensive participants (≥140 mmHg), corresponding to 3508 individuals. In a 10% random sample, risk of bias was higher in exercise RCTs, primarily due to lack of blinding and incomplete outcome data. In analyses that combined all populations, antihypertensive medications achieved higher reductions in baseline SBP compared with exercise interventions (mean difference -3.96 mmHg, 95% CrI -5.02 to -2.91). Compared with control, all types of exercise (including combination of endurance and resistance) and all classes of antihypertensive medications were effective in lowering baseline SBP. Among hypertensive populations, there were no detectable differences in the SBP-lowering effects of ACE-I, ARB, ß-blocker and diuretic medications when compared with endurance or dynamic resistance exercise. There was no detectable inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons. Although there was evidence of small-study effects, this affected both medication and exercise trials. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of exercise interventions on SBP remains under-studied, especially among hypertensive populations. Our findings confirm modest but consistent reductions in SBP in many studied exercise interventions across all populations but individuals receiving medications generally achieved greater reductions than those following structured exercise regimens. Assuming equally reliable estimates, the SBP-lowering effect of exercise among hypertensive populations appears similar to that of commonly used antihypertensive medications. Generalisability of these findings to real-world clinical settings should be further evaluated.

Medications that reduce emergency hospital admissions: an overview of systematic reviews and prioritisation of treatments.

BACKGROUND: Rates of emergency hospitalisations are increasing in many countries, leading to disruption in the quality of care and increases in cost. Therefore, identifying strategies to reduce emergency admission rates is a key priority. There have been large-scale evidence reviews to address this issue; however, there have been no reviews of medication therapies, which have the potential to reduce the use of emergency health-care services. The objectives of this study were to review systematically the evidence to identify medications that affect emergency hospital admissions and prioritise therapies for quality measurement and improvement. METHODS: This was a systematic review of systematic reviews. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews & Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Google Scholar and the websites of ten major funding agencies and health charities, using broad search criteria. We included systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials that examined the effect of any medication on emergency hospital admissions among adults. We assessed the quality of reviews using AMSTAR. To prioritise therapies, we assessed the quality of trial evidence underpinning meta-analysed effect estimates and cross-referenced the evidence with clinical guidelines. RESULTS: We identified 140 systematic reviews, which included 1968 unique randomised controlled trials and 925,364 patients. Reviews contained 100 medications tested in 47 populations. We identified high-to moderate-quality evidence for 28 medications that reduced admissions. Of these medications, 11 were supported by clinical guidelines in the United States, the United Kingdom and Europe. These 11 therapies were for patients with heart failure (angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, aldosterone receptor antagonists and digoxin), stable coronary artery disease (intensive statin therapy), asthma exacerbations (early inhaled corticosteroids in the emergency department and anticholinergics), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting beta-2 adrenoceptor agonists) and schizophrenia (second-generation antipsychotics and depot/maintenance antipsychotics). CONCLUSIONS: We identified 11 medications supported by strong evidence and clinical guidelines that could be considered in quality monitoring and improvement strategies to help reduce emergency hospital admission rates. The findings are relevant to health systems with a large burden of chronic disease and those managing increasing pressures on acute health-care services.

Do Exercise Trials for Hypertension Adequately Report Interventions? A Reporting Quality Study.

Non-pharmacological treatment, including exercise, is an important therapy option for patients with hypertension. The study assessed the reporting quality of exercise-based interventions included in the latest meta-analysis on that topic in order to evaluate the transferability of findings into clinical practice. Reporting quality of 24 randomised controlled trials from a meta-analysis assessing blood pressure lowering effects of endurance training in 1,195 hypertensive patients was evaluated using TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) and CERT (Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template) guidelines. Associations between reporting quality, publication year and impact factor of the publishing journals were examined. None of the studies described all intervention components completely. On average 61% (95%CI: 52-69) (TIDieR) and 57% (95%CI: 49-64) (CERT) of core items required for replication were reported. Frequent shortcomings were the reporting of adherence, intervention provider, and adverse events. Details about exercise dosage were missing in 22% (95%CI: 4-40). Publication year was related to the adherence to TIDieR (r=0.549, P=0.007) but not to CERT. No associations with journal impact factor were found. Reporting of exercise-based interventions for hypertension is not sufficient to allow for replication and limits translation of evidence into clinical practice. Researchers should apply, and review authors, journal editors and reviewers should check adherence to reporting guidelines.

A higher effort-based paradigm in physical activity and exercise for public health: making the case for a greater emphasis on resistance training.

It is well known that physical activity and exercise is associated with a lower risk of a range of morbidities and all-cause mortality. Further, it appears that risk reductions are greater when physical activity and/or exercise is performed at a higher intensity of effort. Why this may be the case is perhaps explained by the accumulating evidence linking physical fitness and performance outcomes (e.g. cardiorespiratory fitness, strength, and muscle mass) also to morbidity and mortality risk. Current guidelines about the performance of moderate/vigorous physical activity using aerobic exercise modes focuses upon the accumulation of a minimum volume of physical activity and/or exercise, and have thus far produced disappointing outcomes. As such there has been increased interest in the use of higher effort physical activity and exercise as being potentially more efficacious. Though there is currently debate as to the effectiveness of public health prescription based around higher effort physical activity and exercise, most discussion around this has focused upon modes considered to be traditionally 'aerobic' (e.g. running, cycling, rowing, swimming etc.). A mode customarily performed to a relatively high intensity of effort that we believe has been overlooked is resistance training. Current guidelines do include recommendations to engage in 'muscle strengthening activities' though there has been very little emphasis upon these modes in either research or public health effort. As such the purpose of this debate article is to discuss the emerging higher effort paradigm in physical activity and exercise for public health and to make a case for why there should be a greater emphasis placed upon resistance training as a mode in this paradigm shift.

Ten essential papers for the practice of evidence-based medicine.

In this article we signpost readers to 10 papers we consider essential reading for anyone starting out on an evidence-based medicine journey. We have considered papers consisting a mix of old and new, seminal and cutting-edge that offer insight into what evidence-based medicine is, where it came from, why it matters and what it has achieved. This is balanced against some of the common criticisms of evidence-based medicine and efforts to tackle them. We have also highlighted papers acknowledging the importance of teaching and learning of the principles of evidence-based medicine and how health professionals can better use evidence in clinical decisions with patients.

Device-Guided Breathing for Hypertension: a Summary Evidence Review.

Persistently raised blood pressure is one of the major risk factors for diseases such as myocardial infarction and stroke. Uncontrolled hypertension is also associated with high rates of mortality, particularly in middle and high-income countries. Lifestyle factors such as poor diet, obesity, physical inactivity and smoking are all thought to contribute to the development of hypertension. As a result, the management of hypertension should begin with modifying these lifestyle factors. Beyond this, drug interventions are used as the predominant form of management. However, adherence to medications can be highly variable, medication side effects are common, and may require regular monitoring or, in some individuals may be ineffective. Therefore, additional non-pharmacologic interventions that lower blood pressure may be advantageous when combined with lifestyle modifications. Such interventions may include relaxation therapies such as slow breathing exercises, which can be initiated by means of specific devices. The technique of device-guided breathing (DGB) has been considered by guideline developers in the management of hypertension. One specific device, the Resperate, has received US FDA and UK NHS approval over the last few years. In this review, we summarise the evidence base on efficacy and find that although some clinical trials exist that demonstrate a BP-lowering effect, others do not. There is currently insufficient evidence from pooled data to recommend the routine use of device-guided breathing in hypertensive patients.

Exercise prior to influenza vaccination for limiting influenza incidence and its related complications in adults.

BACKGROUND: Influenza is an infectious virus affecting both humans and animals. In humans, symptoms present as fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose, headache, muscle and joint pain, and malaise. The epidemiological profile of influenza is influenced by multiple factors, including transmissibility of the virus and the susceptibility of the population. Annually, influenza is estimated to infect 5% to 10% of adults, with higher rates in winter seasons in countries with seasonal variation. Exercise could be an intervention to enhance immune response and limit influenza incidence and its related complications. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of short and long-term exercise prior to influenza vaccination in enhancing influenza prevention in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2015, Issue 11), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to 3 November 2015), Embase (1974 to 3 November 2015), CINAHL (1981 to 3 November 2015), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences, 1982 to 3 November 2015), PEDro (1980 to 3 November 2015), SPORTDiscus (1985 to 3 November 2015), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov (November 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of short- and long-term exercise prior to influenza vaccination for the general adult population were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted and checked data from the included trials using a standard form. We used the random-effects model due to differences in the type, duration, intensity and frequency of exercise in the analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials published between 2007 and 2014 that randomised 599 adult participants. Study size ranged from 46 to 158 participants. Participants were aged between 18 years and 80 years; we could not derive gender proportions, as participants' sex was not reported in all studies. One study was available in abstract form only.We did not find a significant difference in outcomes between people who exercised and those who did not exercise before receiving influenza vaccination.Pre-vaccination exercises included endurance activities such as walking or using a treadmill, and resistance activities included biceps curls and lateral raises. Five of the studies provided one session of exercise between 25 and 50 minutes. In five studies, exercise was undertaken on the same day as the vaccination. One study provided exercise over a period of eight weeks before vaccination, with one 2½ hour supervised session, plus daily home exercise practice of 45 minutes. Exercise intensity ranged from 55% to 85% of maximal heart rate. Control group participants undertook a range of activities, including quiet rest, sitting, reading, meditation or unspecified activity.One study reported numbers of people who contracted influenza; no significant difference was reported between exercise and no-exercise participants. None of the included studies reported complications related to influenza illness. Only one study, which we assessed as providing low-quality evidence, reported numbers of people who experienced adverse events. This study reported no significant difference in outcomes between people who exercised and those who did not. No studies reported numbers of working days or days lost related to influenza illness. Only two studies reported participant-centred outcomes.Overall, study quality was unclear; we assessed five of the six included studies to have at least four unclear 'Risk of bias' domains (allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessment, selective reporting and other bias). Insufficient reporting in four studies about selective reporting did not provide enough information to enable judgement; only two studies were included in trials registers. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: From the available evidence, we found that exercising before influenza vaccination is neither beneficial nor harmful. However, study data were limited and of low quality. Small sample sizes, study design limitations, exercise types, and focus on biochemical rather than participant-centred outcomes strongly influenced our findings.

Patient self-management in primary care patients with mild COPD - protocol of a randomised controlled trial of telephone health coaching.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the UK is 1.8%, although it is estimated that this represents less than half of the total disease in the population as much remains undiagnosed. Case finding initiatives in primary care will identify people with mild disease and symptoms. The majority of self-management trials have identified patients from secondary care clinics or following a hospital admission for exacerbation of their condition. This trial will recruit a primary care population with mild symptoms of COPD and use telephone health coaching to encourage self-management. METHODS/DESIGN: In this study, using a multi-centred randomised controlled trial (RCT) across at least 70 general practices in England, we plan to establish the effectiveness of nurse-led telephone health coaching to support self-management in primary care for people who report only mild symptoms of their COPD (MRC grade 1 and 2) compared to usual care. The intervention focuses on taking up smoking cessation services, increasing physical activity, medication management and action planning and is underpinned by behavioural change theory. In total, we aim to recruit 556 patients with COPD confirmed by spirometry with follow up at six and 12 months. The primary outcome is health related quality of life using the St Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Spirometry and BMI are measured at baseline. Secondary outcomes include self-reported health behaviours (smoking and physical activity), physical activity measured by accelerometery (at 12 months), psychological morbidity, self-efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Longitudinal qualitative interviews will explore how engaged participants were with the intervention and how embedded behaviour change was in every day practices. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide robust evidence about the effectiveness of a novel telephone health coaching intervention to promote behaviour change and prevent disease progression in patients with mild symptoms of dyspnoea in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN06710391 .

Vitamin K for improved anticoagulation control in patients receiving warfarin.

BACKGROUND: Effective use of warfarin involves keeping the international normalised ratio (INR) within a relatively narrow therapeutic range. However, patients respond widely to their dose of warfarin. Overcoagulation can lead to an increased risk of excessive bleeding, while undercoagulation can lead to increased clot formation. There is some evidence that patients with a variable response to warfarin may benefit from a concomitant low dose of vitamin K. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of concomitant supplementation of low-dose oral vitamin K for anticoagulation control in patients being initiated on or taking a maintenance dose of warfarin. SEARCH METHODS: To identify previous reviews, we searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE via The Cochrane Library, Wiley) (Issue 2, 2011). To identify primary studies, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL via The Cochrane Library, Wiley) (Issue 2, 2014), Ovid MEDLINE (R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations database and Ovid MEDLINE (R) (OvidSP) (1946 to 25 February 2014), Embase (OvidSP) (1974 to week 8 of 2014), Science Citation Index Expanded™ & Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (Web of Science™) (1945 to 27 February 2014), and the NHS Economics Evaluations Database (NHS EED) (via The Cochrane Library, Wiley) (Issue 2, 2014). We did not apply any language or date restrictions. We used additional methods to identify grey literature and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing the addition of vitamin K versus placebo in patients initiating warfarin or already taking warfarin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected and extracted data from included studies. When disagreement arose, a third author helped reached a consensus. We also assessed risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: We identified two studies with a total of 100 participants for inclusion in the review. We found the overall risk of bias to be unclear in a number of domains. Neither study reported the time taken to the first INR in range. Only one study (70 participants) reported the mean time in therapeutic range as a percentage. This study found that in the group of participants deemed to have poor INR control, the addition of 150 micrograms (mcg) oral vitamin K significantly improved anticoagulation control in those with unexplained instability of response to warfarin. The second study (30 participants) reported the effect of 175 mcg oral vitamin K versus placebo on participants with high variability in their INR levels. The study concluded that vitamin K supplementation did not significantly improve the stability of anticoagulation for participants on chronic anticoagulation therapy. However, the study was only available in abstract form, and communication with the lead author confirmed that there were no further publications. Therefore, we interpreted this conclusion with caution. Neither study reported any thromboembolic events, haemorrhage, or death from the addition of vitamin K supplementation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Two included studies in this review compared whether the addition of a low dose (150 to 175 mcg) of vitamin K given to participants with a high-variability response to warfarin improved their INR control. One study demonstrated a significant improvement, while another smaller study (published in abstract only) suggested no overall benefit. Currently, there are insufficient data to suggest an overall benefit. Larger, higher quality trials are needed to examine if low-dose vitamin K improves INR control in those starting or already taking warfarin.

Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in adults and children.

BACKGROUND: Neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) are stockpiled and recommended by public health agencies for treating and preventing seasonal and pandemic influenza. They are used clinically worldwide. OBJECTIVES: To describe the potential benefits and harms of NIs for influenza in all age groups by reviewing all clinical study reports of published and unpublished randomised, placebo-controlled trials and regulatory comments. SEARCH METHODS: We searched trial registries, electronic databases (to 22 July 2013) and regulatory archives, and corresponded with manufacturers to identify all trials. We also requested clinical study reports. We focused on the primary data sources of manufacturers but we checked that there were no published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from non-manufacturer sources by running electronic searches in the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Embase.com, PubMed (not MEDLINE), the Database of Reviews of Effects, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Economic Evaluations Database. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, placebo-controlled trials on adults and children with confirmed or suspected exposure to naturally occurring influenza. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted clinical study reports and assessed risk of bias using purpose-built instruments. We analysed the effects of zanamivir and oseltamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms, influenza outcomes, complications, hospitalisations and adverse events in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. All trials were sponsored by the manufacturers. MAIN RESULTS: We obtained 107 clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), GlaxoSmithKline and Roche. We accessed comments by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), EMA and Japanese regulator. We included 53 trials in Stage 1 (a judgement of appropriate study design) and 46 in Stage 2 (formal analysis), including 20 oseltamivir (9623 participants) and 26 zanamivir trials (14,628 participants). Inadequate reporting put most of the zanamivir studies and half of the oseltamivir studies at a high risk of selection bias. There were inadequate measures in place to protect 11 studies of oseltamivir from performance bias due to non-identical presentation of placebo. Attrition bias was high across the oseltamivir studies and there was also evidence of selective reporting for both the zanamivir and oseltamivir studies. The placebo interventions in both sets of trials may have contained active substances. Time to first symptom alleviation. For the treatment of adults, oseltamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms by 16.8 hours (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.4 to 25.1 hours, P < 0.0001). This represents a reduction in the time to first alleviation of symptoms from 7 to 6.3 days. There was no effect in asthmatic children, but in otherwise healthy children there was (reduction by a mean difference of 29 hours, 95% CI 12 to 47 hours, P = 0.001). Zanamivir reduced the time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults by 0.60 days (95% CI 0.39 to 0.81 days, P < 0.00001), equating to a reduction in the mean duration of symptoms from 6.6 to 6.0 days. The effect in children was not significant. In subgroup analysis we found no evidence of a difference in treatment effect for zanamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms in adults in the influenza-infected and non-influenza-infected subgroups (P = 0.53). Hospitalisations. Treatment of adults with oseltamivir had no significant effect on hospitalisations: risk difference (RD) 0.15% (95% CI -0.78 to 0.91). There was also no significant effect in children or in prophylaxis. Zanamivir hospitalisation data were unreported. Serious influenza complications or those leading to study withdrawal. In adult treatment trials, oseltamivir did not significantly reduce those complications classified as serious or those which led to study withdrawal (RD 0.07%, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.44), nor in child treatment trials; neither did zanamivir in the treatment of adults or in prophylaxis. There were insufficient events to compare this outcome for oseltamivir in prophylaxis or zanamivir in the treatment of children. Pneumonia. Oseltamivir significantly reduced self reported, investigator-mediated, unverified pneumonia (RD 1.00%, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.49); number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 100 (95% CI 67 to 451) in the treated population. The effect was not significant in the five trials that used a more detailed diagnostic form for pneumonia. There were no definitions of pneumonia (or other complications) in any trial. No oseltamivir treatment studies reported effects on radiologically confirmed pneumonia. There was no significant effect on unverified pneumonia in children. There was no significant effect of zanamivir on either self reported or radiologically confirmed pneumonia. In prophylaxis, zanamivir significantly reduced the risk of self reported, investigator-mediated, unverified pneumonia in adults (RD 0.32%, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.41); NNTB = 311 (95% CI 244 to 1086), but not oseltamivir. Bronchitis, sinusitis and otitis media. Zanamivir significantly reduced the risk of bronchitis in adult treatment trials (RD 1.80%, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.80); NNTB = 56 (36 to 155), but not oseltamivir. Neither NI significantly reduced the risk of otitis media and sinusitis in both adults and children. Harms of treatment. Oseltamivir in the treatment of adults increased the risk of nausea (RD 3.66%, 95% CI 0.90 to 7.39); number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) = 28 (95% CI 14 to 112) and vomiting (RD 4.56%, 95% CI 2.39 to 7.58); NNTH = 22 (14 to 42). The proportion of participants with four-fold increases in antibody titre was significantly lower in the treated group compared to the control group (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.97, I(2) statistic = 0%) (5% absolute difference between arms). Oseltamivir significantly decreased the risk of diarrhoea (RD 2.33%, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.81); NNTB = 43 (95% CI 27 to 709) and cardiac events (RD 0.68%, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.0); NNTB = 148 (101 to 2509) compared to placebo during the on-treatment period. There was a dose-response effect on psychiatric events in the two oseltamivir "pivotal" treatment trials, WV15670 and WV15671, at 150 mg (standard dose) and 300 mg daily (high dose) (P = 0.038). In the treatment of children, oseltamivir induced vomiting (RD 5.34%, 95% CI 1.75 to 10.29); NNTH = 19 (95% CI 10 to 57). There was a significantly lower proportion of children on oseltamivir with a four-fold increase in antibodies (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00, I(2) = 0%). Prophylaxis. In prophylaxis trials, oseltamivir and zanamivir reduced the risk of symptomatic influenza in individuals (oseltamivir: RD 3.05% (95% CI 1.83 to 3.88); NNTB = 33 (26 to 55); zanamivir: RD 1.98% (95% CI 0.98 to 2.54); NNTB = 51 (40 to 103)) and in households (oseltamivir: RD 13.6% (95% CI 9.52 to 15.47); NNTB = 7 (6 to 11); zanamivir: RD 14.84% (95% CI 12.18 to 16.55); NNTB = 7 (7 to 9)). There was no significant effect on asymptomatic influenza (oseltamivir: RR 1.14 (95% CI 0.39 to 3.33); zanamivir: RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.24)). Non-influenza, influenza-like illness could not be assessed due to data not being fully reported. In oseltamivir prophylaxis studies, psychiatric adverse events were increased in the combined on- and off-treatment periods (RD 1.06%, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.76); NNTH = 94 (95% CI 36 to 1538) in the study treatment population. Oseltamivir increased the risk of headaches whilst on treatment (RD 3.15%, 95% CI 0.88 to 5.78); NNTH = 32 (95% CI 18 to 115), renal events whilst on treatment (RD 0.67%, 95% CI -2.93 to 0.01); NNTH = 150 (NNTH 35 to NNTB > 1000) and nausea whilst on treatment (RD 4.15%, 95% CI 0.86 to 9.51); NNTH = 25 (95% CI 11 to 116). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oseltamivir and zanamivir have small, non-specific effects on reducing the time to alleviation of influenza symptoms in adults, but not in asthmatic children. Using either drug as prophylaxis reduces the risk of developing symptomatic influenza. Treatment trials with oseltamivir or zanamivir do not settle the question of whether the complications of influenza (such as pneumonia) are reduced, because of a lack of diagnostic definitions. The use of oseltamivir increases the risk of adverse effects, such as nausea, vomiting, psychiatric effects and renal events in adults and vomiting in children. The lower bioavailability may explain the lower toxicity of zanamivir compared to oseltamivir. The balance between benefits and harms should be considered when making decisions about use of both NIs for either the prophylaxis or treatment of influenza. The influenza virus-specific mechanism of action proposed by the producers does not fit the clinical evidence.

Defining success in adult obesity management: A systematic review and framework synthesis of clinical practice guidelines.

Obesity is a chronic and complex disease affecting millions of people worldwide. Currently, there is no standard definition of success for the management of obesity. We set out to complete a synthesis of clinical practice guidelines for obesity management for adult populations, aiming to provide both a quantitative descriptive and qualitative analysis of definitions of success in clinical practice guidelines. An electronic search retrieved 4477 references. Sixteen clinical practice guidelines were included after screening and full-text review. We coded definitions of success 147 times across the included guidelines. No standard or explicit definition of success was identified in the guidelines but rather success was implicitly defined. We developed three themes describing how success was defined in the clinical practice guidelines: Knowledge-based decision making; management of expectations; and the perception of control. The review reinforced that success is an inherently subjective and complex concept. Defining success is limited by existing studies that focus on weight loss and would benefit from additional research on different outcomes. Equally, the relationship between people living with obesity and their clinicians should be further explored to understand how defining success is controlled, discussed and framed in a clinical setting.

High certainty evidence is stable and trustworthy, whereas evidence of moderate or lower certainty may be equally prone to being unstable.

OBJECTIVES: To assess to what extent the overall quality of evidence indicates changes to observe intervention effect estimates when new data become available. METHODS: We conducted a meta-epidemiological study. We obtained evidence from meta-analyses of randomized trials of Cochrane reviews addressing the same health-care question that was updated with inclusion of additional data between January 2016 and May 2021. We extracted the reported effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from meta-analyses and corresponding GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) assessments of any intervention comparison for the primary outcome in the first and the last updated review version. We considered the reported overall quality (certainty) of evidence (CoE) and specific evidence limitations (no, serious or very serious for risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, and/or indirectness). We assessed the change in pooled effect estimates between the original and updated evidence using the ratio of odds ratio (ROR), absolute ratio of odds ratio (aROR), ratio of standard errors (RoSE), direction of effects, and level of statistical significance. RESULTS: High CoE without limitations characterized 19.3% (n = 29) out of 150 included original Cochrane reviews. The update with additional data did not systematically change the effect estimates (mean ROR 1.00; 95% CI 0.99-1.02), which deviated 1.06-fold from the older estimates (median aROR; interquartile range [IQR]: 1.01-1.15), gained precision (median RoSE 0.87; IQR 0.76-1.00), and maintained the same direction with the same level of statistical significance in 93% (27 of 29) of cases. Lower CoE with limitations characterized 121 original reviews and graded as moderate CoE in 30.0% (45 of 150), low CoE in 32.0% (48 of 150), and very low CoE in 18.7% (28 of 150) reviews. Their update had larger absolute deviations (median aROR 1.12 to 1.33) and larger gains in precision (median RoSE 0.78-0.86) without clear and consistent differences between these categories of CoE. Changes in effect direction or statistical significance were also more common in the lower quality evidence, again with a similar extent across categories (without change in 75.6%, 64.6%, and 75.0% for moderate, low, very low CoE). As limitations increased, effect estimates deviated more (aROR 1.05 with zero, 1.11 with one, 1.25 with two, 1.24 with three limitations) and changes in direction or significance became more frequent (93.2% stable with no limitations, 74.5% with one, 68.2% with two, and 61.5% with three limitations). CONCLUSION: High-quality evidence without methodological deficiencies is trustworthy and stable, providing reliable intervention effect estimates when updated with new data. Evidence of moderate and lower quality may be equally prone to being unstable and cannot indicate if available effect estimates are true, exaggerated, or underestimated.

Reproducibility of cardiac power output and other cardiopulmonary exercise indices in patients with chronic heart failure.

Cardiac power output is a direct measure of overall cardiac function that integrates both flow- and pressure-generating capacities of the heart. The present study assessed the reproducibility of cardiac power output and other more commonly reported cardiopulmonary exercise variables in patients with chronic heart failure. Metabolic, ventilatory and non-invasive (inert gas re-breathing) central haemodynamic measurements were undertaken at rest and near-maximal exercise of the modified Bruce protocol in 19 patients with stable chronic heart failure. The same procedure was repeated 7 days later to assess reproducibility. Cardiac power output was calculated as the product of cardiac output and mean arterial pressure. Resting central haemodynamic variables demonstrate low CV (coefficient of variation) (ranging from 3.4% for cardiac output and 5.6% for heart rate). The CV for resting metabolic and ventilatory measurements ranged from 8.2% for respiratory exchange ratio and 14.2% for absolute values of oxygen consumption. The CV of anaerobic threshold, peak oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide production and respiratory exchange ratio ranged from 3.8% (for anaerobic threshold) to 6.4% (for relative peak oxygen consumption), with minute ventilation having a CV of 11.1%. Near-maximal exercise cardiac power output and cardiac output had CVs of 4.1 and 2.2%, respectively. Cardiac power output demonstrates good reproducibility suggesting that there is no need for performing more than one cardiopulmonary exercise test. As a direct measure of cardiac function (dysfunction) and an excellent prognostic marker, it is strongly advised in the assessment of patients with chronic heart failure undergoing cardiopulmonary exercise testing.