Topical treatments for atopic dermatitis (eczema): Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin condition with multiple topical treatment options, but uncertain comparative effects. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD prescription topical treatments. METHODS: For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, ICTRP, and GREAT databases to September 5, 2022, for randomized trials addressing AD topical treatments. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. We classified topical corticosteroids (TCS) using 7 groups-group 1 being most potent. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/q5m6s). RESULTS: The 219 included trials (43,123 patients) evaluated 68 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, pimecrolimus improved 6 of 7 outcomes-among the best for 2; high-dose tacrolimus (0.1%) improved 5-among the best for 2; low-dose tacrolimus (0.03%) improved 5-among the best for 1. With moderate- to high-certainty evidence, group 5 TCS improved 6-among the best for 3; group 4 TCS and delgocitinib improved 4-among the best for 2; ruxolitinib improved 4-among the best for 1; group 1 TCS improved 3-among the best for 2. These interventions did not increase harm. Crisaborole and difamilast were intermediately effective, but with uncertain harm. Topical antibiotics alone or in combination may be among the least effective. To maintain AD control, group 5 TCS were among the most effective, followed by tacrolimus and pimecrolimus. CONCLUSIONS: For individuals with AD, pimecrolimus, tacrolimus, and moderate-potency TCS are among the most effective in improving and maintaining multiple AD outcomes. Topical antibiotics may be among the least effective.

Systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis (eczema): Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory skin condition with multiple systemic treatments and uncertainty regarding their comparative impact on AD outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD systemic treatments. METHODS: For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and GREAT databases from inception to November 29, 2022, for randomized trials addressing systemic treatments and phototherapy for AD. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/e5sna). RESULTS: The 149 included trials (28,686 patients with moderate-to-severe AD) evaluated 75 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, high-dose upadacitinib was among the most effective for 5 of 6 patient-important outcomes; high-dose abrocitinib and low-dose upadacitinib were among the most effective for 2 outcomes. These Janus kinase inhibitors were among the most harmful in increasing adverse events. With high-certainty evidence, dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab were of intermediate effectiveness and among the safest, modestly increasing conjunctivitis. Low-dose baricitinib was among the least effective. Efficacy and safety of azathioprine, oral corticosteroids, cyclosporine, methotrexate, mycophenolate, phototherapy, and many novel agents are less certain. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals with moderate-to-severe AD, high-certainty evidence demonstrates that high-dose upadacitinib is among the most effective in addressing multiple patient-important outcomes, but also is among the most harmful. High-dose abrocitinib and low-dose upadacitinib are effective, but also among the most harmful. Dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab are of intermediate effectiveness and have favorable safety.

[Evidence synthesis for COVID-19 interventions: update reports from Argentina's National Commission for Health Technology AssessmentSíntese de evidências para intervenções em COVID-19: relatórios de atualização da Comissão Nacional de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde da Argentina]. / Síntesis de evidencia para intervenciones en COVID-19: informes de actualización de la Comisión Nacional de Evaluación de Tecnologías de Salud de Argentina.

This report presents the work done on the design, publication, and impact of updates on evidence-based COVID-19 interventions, in order to support decision-making with updated evidence syntheses based on living systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions. To this end, a specific working group was created within the National Commission for Health Technology Assessment (CONETEC) of the Ministry of Health of Argentina, in collaboration with the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). A methodology was designed to develop and publish assessment documents aimed at supporting decision-making. These update reports were based on the exploration of three areas: health effects, feasibility of implementation, and evidence-based recommendations. A color-coded system was used to present the conclusions according to the balance between their positive and negative effects in different clinical scenarios, in order to improve their interpretation and implementation. In 2021, 16 evidence synthesis reports were published (13 original reports and three full updates). These were downloaded many times from the CONETEC website and the Regional Database of Health Technology Assessment Reports of the Americas (BRISA), highlighting the need for robust, up-to-date, reliable evidence summaries adapted for implementation in the country's health system. Other challenges include constant updating of information, appropriate dissemination, and sustained rigorous preparation of the reports.

Este relatório tem como objetivo apresentar o trabalho realizado sobre o delineamento, publicação e impacto das atualizações para intervenções em COVID-19 baseadas em evidências, que visam fornecer sínteses de evidências atualizadas provenientes de revisões sistemáticas vivas sobre intervenções terapêuticas para apoiar a tomada de decisões. Para isso, foi criado um grupo de trabalho específico no âmbito da Comissão Nacional de Avaliação de Tecnologias de Saúde (CONETEC, na sigla em espanhol), do Ministério da Saúde da Argentina, em parceria com a Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde (OPAS). Foi desenhada uma metodologia para a elaboração e publicação de documentos de avaliação destinados a apoiar a tomada de decisões. Esses relatórios de atualização se basearam na exploração de três domínios: efeitos na saúde, viabilidade da implementação e recomendações baseadas em evidências. As conclusões foram adaptadas a uma escala semafórica de acordo com o equilíbrio entre os benefícios e os aspectos negativos para os diferentes cenários clínicos, de forma a melhorar a sua interpretação e aplicação. Durante o ano de 2021, foram publicados 16 relatórios de síntese de evidências (13 originais e 3 atualizações completas), que receberam um número significativo de consultas no site da CONETEC e da Base Regional de Informes de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde das Américas (BRISA). Assim, tornou-se visível a necessidade de contar com resumos de evidências robustos, atualizados e confiáveis adaptados ao contexto de aplicação no sistema de saúde do país. A atualização constante das informações, sua divulgação adequada e a manutenção do rigor na elaboração dos relatórios também apresentam desafios.

Ventilation Techniques and Risk for Transmission of Coronavirus Disease, Including COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Multiple Streams of Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation is used to treat respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PURPOSE: To review multiple streams of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of ventilation techniques for coronavirus infections, including that causing COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: 21 standard, World Health Organization-specific and COVID-19-specific databases, without language restrictions, until 1 May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of any design and language comparing different oxygenation approaches in patients with coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Animal, mechanistic, laboratory, and preclinical evidence was gathered regarding aerosol dispersion of coronavirus. Studies evaluating risk for virus transmission to health care workers from aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent and duplicate screening, data abstraction, and risk-of-bias assessment (GRADE for certainty of evidence and AMSTAR 2 for included systematic reviews). DATA SYNTHESIS: 123 studies were eligible (45 on COVID-19, 70 on SARS, 8 on MERS), but only 5 studies (1 on COVID-19, 3 on SARS, 1 on MERS) adjusted for important confounders. A study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 reported slightly higher mortality with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) than with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), but 2 opposing studies, 1 in patients with MERS and 1 in patients with SARS, suggest a reduction in mortality with NIV (very-low-certainty evidence). Two studies in patients with SARS report a reduction in mortality with NIV compared with no mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence). Two systematic reviews suggest a large reduction in mortality with NIV compared with conventional oxygen therapy. Other included studies suggest increased odds of transmission from AGPs. LIMITATION: Direct studies in COVID-19 are limited and poorly reported. CONCLUSION: Indirect and low-certainty evidence suggests that use of NIV, similar to IMV, probably reduces mortality but may increase the risk for transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: World Health Organization. (PROSPERO: CRD42020178187).

Omega 3 fatty acid supplementation after myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this review is to examine the effect of Omega-3 Fatty acids on mortality, morbidity, and adverse events in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS: Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library through May 2018. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized Controlled trials (RCT). Certainty of evidence was assessed with the GRADE system. INTERVENTIONS: omega 3 fatty acids against placebo or no treatment. Primary and secondary outcomes: All-cause death, cardiovascular death, new AMI, stroke, need for therapeutic angioplasty or By-pass, new diagnosis of cancer and incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: For the efficacy endpoints we included 10 RCT (24,414 patients). Omega 3 fatty acids probably make little or no difference to all-cause mortality (4 studies 9141 patients RR 1.06 - CI95% 0.90 to 1.27, moderate certainty), cardiovascular mortality (3 studies 4304 patients RR 0.93 - CI95% 0.63 to 1.37, moderate certainty), new AMI (RR 1.24 CI95% 0.71 to 2.14 - moderate certainty), any cardiovascular event (RR 0.95 95%CI 0.86 to 1.05; low certainty due to risk of bias and imprecision), and stroke (RR 1.2 95%CCI 0,66-2,19 - moderate certainty). Regarding adverse events, we are uncertain if Omega 3 fatty acids improve/reduce non severe adverse events (RR 1.39 95% CI 0.36 to 5.34; very low certainty). There is probably little or no difference in the outcome suspension due to adverse events (RR 1.19 CI 95% 0.97 to 1.47; moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: For adult patients with AMI, omega 3 fatty-acids probably yield no benefit to patient important outcomes.

First Latin American clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus: Latin American Group for the Study of Lupus (GLADEL, Grupo Latino Americano de Estudio del Lupus)-Pan-American League of Associations of Rheumatology (PANLAR).

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), a complex and heterogeneous autoimmune disease, represents a significant challenge for both diagnosis and treatment. Patients with SLE in Latin America face special problems that should be considered when therapeutic guidelines are developed. The objective of the study is to develop clinical practice guidelines for Latin American patients with lupus. Two independent teams (rheumatologists with experience in lupus management and methodologists) had an initial meeting in Panama City, Panama, in April 2016. They selected a list of questions for the clinical problems most commonly seen in Latin American patients with SLE. These were addressed with the best available evidence and summarised in a standardised format following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. All preliminary findings were discussed in a second face-to-face meeting in Washington, DC, in November 2016. As a result, nine organ/system sections are presented with the main findings; an 'overarching' treatment approach was added. Special emphasis was made on regional implementation issues. Best pharmacologic options were examined for musculoskeletal, mucocutaneous, kidney, cardiac, pulmonary, neuropsychiatric, haematological manifestations and the antiphospholipid syndrome. The roles of main therapeutic options (ie, glucocorticoids, antimalarials, immunosuppressant agents, therapeutic plasma exchange, belimumab, rituximab, abatacept, low-dose aspirin and anticoagulants) were summarised in each section. In all cases, benefits and harms, certainty of the evidence, values and preferences, feasibility, acceptability and equity issues were considered to produce a recommendation with special focus on ethnic and socioeconomic aspects. Guidelines for Latin American patients with lupus have been developed and could be used in similar settings.

[How much can we trust health related information provided by mass media in Argentina?]. / ¿Cuán confiable es la información médica proporcionada por los medios de comunicación en Argentina?

To evaluate the certainty and accuracy of the healthcare information provided by the mass media in Argentina, a group of senior medical students, blind to the study objectives, identified healthcare related statements transmitted through mass media. These findings were challenged against the recommendations of a group of physicians trained in evidence-based decision making (EBDM). We compared the strength and direction of the mass media recommendations with those of experts on EBDM. Eighty one recommendations/questions were identified and answered by the experts on EBDM, 15 with high, 18 with moderate, 30 with low and 18 with very low quality of evidence. Only 53% (CI95% 42-64%) of the mass media recommendations agreed with the expert recommendation in direction (for or against) and 28% (CI95% 18-39%) were classified as inappropriate (significant discrepancies both in direction and strength). Subgroup analysis revealed that 71% (CI95% 56-86%) of there commendations made by professionals in mass media agreed with experts in direction and 17% (IC95% 6-33%) were classified as inappropriate, OR = 0.35 (CI95% 0.1-1.1) compared to recommendations in mass media by non-professionals. We conclude that the healthcare information provided by mass media in Argentina is unreliable; this fact can probably have a negative impact in the health system performance and physician-patient relationship.

Impact of a GRADE-based medical question answering system on physician behaviour: a randomised controlled trial.

Physicians are frequently faced with questions related to their patients' care that they cannot answer. A vast number of randomised trials have tested a wide variety of behaviour-changing strategies designed to improve practitioners' evidence utilisation, but systematic reviews have concluded that the effects are generally small and inconsistent. We conducted a randomised controlled trial to determine whether a question identification and solving system, using structured evidence summaries with recommendations, would change physician's behavior related to the care of their hospitalised patients. The trial was conducted at the secondary level, internal medicine ward. Relevant clinical questions were the units of randomisation; 14 clinicians participated in the study. The question identification and answering system was carried out using evidence summaries with recommendations based on the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach stressing influence on clinician behaviour (decision/recommendation concordance). During 131 morning reports, 553 questions were identified (4.2 questions per meeting). 398 were excluded because they were not about diagnostic or therapeutic interventions or because their answers could not have impact on clinician behaviour, and 31 were excluded because of lack of time to answer them, leaving 124 included questions. The proportion of clinical decisions concordant with the proposed recommendations was 79%in the intervention arm and 44% in the control arm: relative risk 1.8 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.4), number of evidence summaries needed to change a care decision for one question raised was 3 (95% CI 2 to 6). A question identification and answering system was feasible, effectively performed and significantly influenced clinician behaviour related to the care of hospitalised patients, which suggests that interventions facilitating accessibility and interpretability of the best available evidence at the point of care have the potential to significantly impact on the quality of healthcare.

[Ticagrelor in acute coronary syndrome. Explaining the inexplicable]. / Ticagrelor en el síndrome coronario agudo. Explicando lo inexplicable.

The PLATO study evaluated the efficacy of adding ticagrelor, instead of clopidogrel, to aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndrome, which showed surprisingly positive results making the drug acceptable to regulatory agencies and specialty societies worldwide. Notwithstanding the aforementioned success, contradictory information supplied by critical analysis was submitted by the sponsor. The controversial findings revealed several aspects that are difficult to explain, threatening the veracity of the study's conclusions. Mortality rate pattern, excessive benefit not comparable to prior studies, unexplained loss of follow-up development and inconsistency in findings in accordance with the country, the type of events arbitrator and monitoring committee are some of the most questionable issues. Dubious reaction to this trial is based on the fact that the information could not be found in published articles. This complex situation poses a challenge to the critical analysis of the text and raises questions as to how far the conflicts of financial interest influenced the development of the study, the communication of its results and probably, acceptance of the drug for commercial use.

Effectiveness and safety of the tetravalent TAK-003 dengue vaccine: a systematic review.

In Argentina, the dengue virus has experienced an increase in recent years. This study aims to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the TAK-003 tetravalent dengue vaccine in this context. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine with placebo in the general population was conducted. The search was carried out in Epistemonikos, and two researchers independently assessed the studies. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Rob 2 tool. A meta-analysis of the results was performed, and the certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE methodology. We concluded, with high certainty of evidence, that the tetravalent dengue vaccine reduces severe infections (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.24) and infections by the dengue virus (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.45) in a population ≤17 years. The vaccine may not increase the risk of serious adverse events, although it is important to note the low certainty of evidence (RR 1.04, 95% CI: 0.69-1.55). The use of the tetravalent dengue vaccine decreases the risk of severe and non-severe dengue infections in this population. However, there is low certainty of evidence regarding the vaccine's safety. The decision to vaccinate should consider the magnitude of benefits relative to the risk of infection.

En Argentina, el virus del dengue ha experimentado un aumento en los últimos años. Este estudio se propone realizar una revisión sistemática para evaluar la efectividad y seguridad de la vacuna TAK-003 tetravalente contra el dengue en este contexto. Se llevó a cabo una revisión sistemática de ensayos clínicos controlados aleatorizados que comparaban la efectividad y seguridad de la vacuna con placebo en la población general. La búsqueda se efectuó en Epistemonikos y dos investigadores evaluaron los estudios de manera independiente. El riesgo de sesgo se evaluó con la herramienta Rob 2 de Cochrane. Se realizó un metaanálisis de los resultados y la certeza en la evidencia se evaluó mediante la metodología GRADE. Concluimos, con alta certeza de evidencia, que la vacuna tetravalente contra el dengue reduce las infecciones graves (RR 0.17, IC 95% 0.12 a 0.24) e infecciones por el virus del dengue (RR 0.40, IC 95% 0.36 a 0.45) en una población de ≤17 años. La vacuna podría no incrementar el riesgo de eventos adversos serios, aunque es importante destacar la baja certeza de evidencia (RR 1.04, IC 95%: 0.69-1.55). La aplicación de la vacuna tetravalente contra el dengue disminuye el riesgo de infecciones graves y no graves por el dengue en esta población. No obstante, existe baja certeza en la evidencia en relación a la seguridad de la vacuna. La decisión de la vacunación debe considerar la magnitud de los beneficios en función del riesgo de infección.

[Geographic variability, health inequities and lethality due to COVID-19 in Bariloche, Río Negro, 2020-2021]. / Variabilidad geográfica, inequidades en salud y letalidad por COVID-19 en Bariloche, Río Negro, 2020-2021.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to analyze the geographic variability and the relationship between social determinants of health and COVID-19 lethality in Bariloche. METHODS: A database from the National Epidemiological Surveillance System was used to analyze COVID-19 positive cases from January 2020 to December 2021. The data were geocoded and incorporated into a geographic information system (GIS). A three-step analytical framework was applied to measure health inequity, using socioeconomic indicators and access to services. A multivariate analysis was conducted to predict fatality. RESULTS: A total of 25 020 COVID-19 cases were diagnosed in Bariloche during the study period. The fatality rate was 2.1%. Significant variability in socioeconomic indicators was observed among different territorial delegations of the city. DISCUSSION: The results showed health inequities and an association between social determinants and COVID-19 lethality in Bariloche. Individuals living in areas with higher socioeconomic vulnerability had a higher risk of mortality. These findings highlight the importance of addressing health inequities in a pandemic response.

Introducción: El objetivo de este estudio fue examinar cómo la variabilidad geográfica y los determinantes sociales de la salud influyen en la tasa de letalidad por COVID-19 en Bariloche. Métodos: Se utilizó una base de datos del Sistema Nacional de Vigilancia Epidemiológica para analizar los casos positivos de COVID-19 desde enero de 2020 hasta diciembre de 2021. Los datos se geo-codificaron y se incorporaron en un sistema de información geográfica (SIG). Se aplicó un marco de análisis en tres pasos para medir la inequidad en salud, utilizando indicadores socioeconómicos y de acceso a servicios. Se realizó un análisis multivariado para predecir la letalidad. Resultados: Se diagnosticaron un total de 25 020 casos de COVID-19 en Bariloche durante el período de estudio. La letalidad fue del 2.1%. Se observó una variabilidad significativa en indicadores socioeconómicos entre las diferentes delegaciones territoriales de la ciudad. Discusión: Los resultados mostraron inequidades en salud y una asociación entre determinantes sociales y letalidad por COVID-19 en Bariloche. Las personas que vivían en áreas con mayor vulnerabilidad socioeconómica presentaron un mayor riesgo de mortalidad. Estos hallazgos resaltan la importancia de abordar las inequidades en salud en la respuesta a una pandemia.

GRADE guidance 36: updates to GRADE's approach to addressing inconsistency.

OBJECTIVES: To update previous Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance by addressing inconsistencies and interpreting subgroup analyses. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Using an iterative process, we consulted with members of the GRADE working group through multiple rounds of written feedback and discussions at GRADE working group meetings. RESULTS: The guidance complements previous guidance with clarification in two areas: (1) assessing inconsistency and (2) assessing the credibility of possible effect modifiers that might explain inconsistency. Specifically, the guidance clarifies that inconsistency refers to variability in results, not in study characteristics; that inconsistency assessment for binary outcomes requires consideration of both relative and absolute effects; how to decide between narrower and broader questions in systematic reviews and guidelines; that, with the same evidence, ratings of inconsistency may differ depending on the target of certainty rating; and how GRADE inconsistency ratings relate to a statistical measure of inconsistency I2 depending on the context in which one views results. The second part of the guidance illustrates, based on a worked example, the use of the instrument to assess the credibility of effect modification analyses. The guidance explains the stepwise process of moving from a subgroup analysis to assessing the credibility of effect modification and, if found credible, to subgroup-specific effect estimates and GRADE certainty ratings. CONCLUSION: This updated guidance addresses specific conceptual and practical issues that systematic review authors frequently face when considering the degree of inconsistency in estimates of treatment effects across studies.

The BIGG-REC database makes available all WHO/PAHO evidence informed recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: To build and maintain a living database of the Pan American Health Organization/World Health Organization (PAHO/WHO) recommendations developed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Guidelines are identified from WHO and PAHO databases. We periodically extract recommendations, according to the health and well-being targets of sustainable development goal 3 (SDG-3). RESULTS: As of March 2022, the International database of GRADE guidelines (https://bigg-rec.bvsalud.org/en) database hosted 2,682 recommendations contained in 285 WHO/PAHO guidelines. Recommendations were classified as follows: communicable diseases (1,581), children's health (1,182), universal health (1,171), sexual and reproductive health (910), noncommunicable diseases (677), maternal health (654), COVID-19 (224), use of psychoactive substances (99), tobacco (14) and road and traffic accidents (16). International database of GRADE guidelines allows searching by SDG-3, condition or disease, type of intervention, institution, year of publication, and age. CONCLUSION: Recommendation maps provide an important resource for health professionals, organizations and member states that use evidence-informed guidance to make better decisions, providing a source for the adoption or adaptation of recommendations to meet their needs. This one-stop shop database of evidence-informed recommendations built with intuitive functionalities undoubtedly represents a long-needed tool for decision-makers, guideline developers, and the public at large.

American Society of Hematology, ABHH, ACHO, Grupo CAHT, Grupo CLAHT, SAH, SBHH, SHU, SOCHIHEM, SOMETH, Sociedad Panamena de Hematología, Sociedad Peruana de Hematología, and SVH 2023 guidelines for diagnosis of venous thromboembolism and for its management in special populations in Latin America.

Implementation of international guidelines in Latin American settings requires additional considerations (ie, values and preferences, resources, accessibility, feasibility, and impact on health equity). The purpose of this guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations about the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and its management in children and during pregnancy. We used the GRADE ADOLOPMENT method to adapt recommendations from 3 American Society of Hematology (ASH) VTE guidelines (diagnosis of VTE, VTE in pregnancy, and VTE in the pediatric population). ASH and 12 local hematology societies formed a guideline panel comprising medical professionals from 10 countries in Latin America. Panelists prioritized 10 questions about the diagnosis of VTE and 18 questions about its management in special populations that were relevant for the Latin American context. A knowledge synthesis team updated evidence reviews of health effects conducted for the original ASH guidelines and summarized information about factors specific to the Latin American context. In comparison with the original guideline, there were significant changes in 2 of 10 diagnostic recommendations (changes in the diagnostic algorithms) and in 9 of 18 management recommendations (4 changed direction and 5 changed strength). This guideline ADOLOPMENT project highlighted the importance of contextualizing recommendations in other settings based on differences in values, resources, feasibility, and health equity impact.

Bias as a source of inconsistency in ivermectin trials for COVID-19: A systematic review. Ivermectin's suggested benefits are mainly based on potentially biased results.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review is to summarize the effects of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of patients with COVID-19 and to assess inconsistencies in results from individual studies with focus on risk of bias due to methodological limitations. METHODS: We searched the L.OVE platform through July 6, 2021 and included randomized trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard or other active treatments. We conducted random-effects pairwise meta-analysis, assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach and performed sensitivity analysis excluding trials with risk of bias. RESULTS: We included 29 RCTs which enrolled 5592 cases. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was very low to low suggesting that ivermectin may result in important benefits. However, after excluding trials classified as "high risk" or "some concerns" in the risk of bias assessment, most estimates of effect changed substantially: Compared to standard of care, low certainty evidence suggests that ivermectin may not reduce mortality (RD 7 fewer per 1000) nor mechanical ventilation (RD 6 more per 1000), and moderate certainty evidence shows that it probably does not increase symptom resolution or improvement (RD 14 more per 1000) nor viral clearance (RD 12 fewer per 1000). CONCLUSION: Ivermectin may not improve clinically important outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and its effects as a prophylactic intervention in exposed individuals are uncertain. Previous reports concluding important benefits associated with ivermectin are based on potentially biased results reported by studies with substantial methodological limitations. Further research is needed.