Interventions to increase time spent outdoors for preventing incidence and progression of myopia in children.

BACKGROUND: Myopia or nearsightedness is a type of refractive error. It causes people to see near objects clearly but distant objects as blurred. Good vision can be obtained if the refractive error is corrected properly but, where this is not possible, impaired vision will remain. The remaining myopia imposes a considerable personal and societal burden. In addition, the progression of myopia is more likely to be accompanied by other ocular diseases such as cataract, glaucoma and retinal detachment. Myopia has emerged as a significant global public health problem in recent years. The World Health Organization (WHO) reported uncorrected or undercorrected myopia to be a major cause of visual impairment worldwide. From both an individual and social perspective, it is important to prevent the onset of myopia and slow down its progression. Observational studies have shown that children who spend more time outdoors have a lower incidence of myopia. Several other non-Cochrane systematic reviews have focused on the association between increasing children's outdoor activity time and the prevention of myopia. However, none of these systematic reviews were limited to randomised controlled trials (RCTs), as they included all types of study designs, including observational studies and non-RCTs, in addition to RCTs. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions to increase outdoor time on the incidence and progression of myopia in children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP with no language restrictions. The databases were last searched on 24 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and cluster-RCTs in which interventions were performed to increase the outdoor time for children with the aim of preventing the incidence and progression of myopia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We employed the standard methods recommended by Cochrane and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We considered the following outcome measures: mean change in refractive error from baseline, incidence of myopia, mean change in the axial length from baseline, mean change in unaided distance visual acuity from baseline, quality of life and adverse event. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs in this review, four of which were cluster-RCTs. The total number of participants was 10,733. The included participants were primary school children, most of whom were in first or second grade (aged six to nine years). Four cluster-RCTs involved school-based interventions to encourage children to spend more time outdoors. The interventions included classroom time outdoors, routine for spending recess outdoors, motivational tools for spending time outdoors, and encouragement through electronic information tools. The intervention groups had less change in refractive errors in the direction of myopia; however, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) included no benefit or both benefit and harm at years one and three, and differences at year two included both clinically important and unimportant benefits (at 1 year: mean difference (MD) 0.08 dioptres (D), 95% CI -0.01 to 0.17; 4 studies, 1656 participants; low-certainty evidence; at 2 years: MD 0.13 D, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.19; 4 studies, 2454 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; at 3 years: MD 0.17 D, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.51; 1 study, 729 participants; low-certainty evidence). Our protocol defined a difference of 0.1 D in the change in refractive error as clinically important. At one year, the difference was less than 0.1 D, but at two and three years it was more than 0.1 D. The incidence of myopia was lower in the intervention groups compared to the control groups, but 95% CIs included no change or clinically unimportant benefits (at 1 year: 7.1% with intervention versus 9.5% with control; risk ratio (RR), 0.82, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.19; 3 studies, 1265 participants; low-certainty evidence; at 2 years: 22.5% with intervention versus 26.7% with control; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98; 3 studies, 2104 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; at 3 years: 30.5% with intervention versus 39.8% with control; RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.01; 1 study, 394 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Our protocol defined a difference of 3% in the incidence of myopia as clinically important. At one year, the difference was 2.4%, but there were clinically important differences between the two groups at two (4.2%) and three years (9.3%). The intervention groups had smaller changes in axial lengths in the direction of myopia than the control groups; however, 95% CIs included no benefit or both benefit and harm at years one and three (at 1 year: MD -0.04 mm, 95% CI -0.09 to 0; 3 studies, 1666 participants; low-certainty evidence; at 2 years: MD -0.04 mm, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.01; 3 studies, 2479 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; at 3 years: MD -0.03 mm, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.07; 1 study, 763 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No included studies reported changes in unaided distance visual acuity and quality of life. No adverse events were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The intervention methods varied from adopting outdoor activities as part of school lessons to providing information and motivation for encouraging outdoor activities. The results of this review suggest that long-term interventions to increase the time spent outdoors may potentially reduce the development of myopia in children. However, although the interventions may also suppress the progression of myopia, the low certainty of evidence makes it difficult to draw conclusions. Further research needs to be accumulated and reviewed.

Anterior versus posterior mediastinal reconstruction after esophagectomy in esophageal cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Esophagectomy is the primary surgical treatment for esophageal cancer, although other treatment approaches are often incorporated, including preoperative chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy. The two major routes of esophageal reconstruction after esophagectomy are the anterior mediastinal (retrosternal, heterotopic) and posterior mediastinal (prevertebral, orthotopic) routes. However, which of these two routes of reconstruction is the most appropriate remains controversial. This systematic review aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of anterior mediastinal reconstruction with those of posterior mediastinal reconstruction after esophagectomy in esophageal cancer. METHODS: In January 2022, a literature search of the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases was conducted to identify all published and unpublished randomized controlled trials, regardless of language. Eight studies were included for quantitative synthesis. RESULTS: Postoperative death (9/129 and 4/125, risk ratio [RR]: 2.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-6.64) and incidence of anastomotic leak (24/208 and 26/208, RR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.56-1.62) were not significantly different between the two mediastinal reconstructions. We could not perform a meta-analysis for quality of life, loss of body weight, or postoperative hospital stay due to data limitations. CONCLUSION: Overall, there was low-quality evidence to suggest that the outcomes of the anterior and posterior mediastinal routes of reconstruction are not significantly different in patients with esophageal cancer.

National burden of gambling in Japan: an estimation from an online-based cross-sectional investigation and national epidemiological survey.

BACKGROUND: Gambling is a popular leisure activity in many countries, often expected to boost regional economies. Nevertheless, its negative impacts remain a significant concern. Gambling disorder is recognized as the most severe consequence; however, even non- or low-risk gamblers may also face negative impacts. This study aimed to estimate the number of Japanese gamblers experiencing gambling-related harm (GRH) and its distribution across six life domains, financial, relational, emotional, health, social and other aspects, based on the severity of their problem gambling risk. METHODS: This cross-sectional study relied on an online survey conducted between August 5 and 11, 2020. Participants aged 20 years and above, who engaged in gambling during 2019 were recruited via a market research company. The survey assessed the prevalence of GRH 72 items among four gambler risk groups (non-problem, low-, moderate-, and high-risk), as categorized by the Problem Gambling Severity Index. The data was adjusted for population weighting using representative national survey data: the 2017 Comprehensive Survey of Living Conditions and the 2017 Epidemiological Survey on Gambling Addictions. RESULTS: Out of the 28,016 individuals invited to the survey, 6,124 participated in the screening, 3,113 in the main survey, and 3,063 provided valid responses. After adjusting the survey data, it was estimated that 39.0 million (30.8%) of Japan's 126.8 million citizens gambled in 2019. Among them, 4.44 million (11.4%) experienced financial harm, 2.70 million (6.9%) health harm, 2.54 million (6.5%) emotional harm, 1.31 million (3.4%) work/study harm, 1.28 million (3.3%) relationship harm, and 0.46 million (1.2%) other harm. Although high-risk gamblers experienced severe harm at the individual level, over 60% of gamblers who experienced GRHs were non- and low-risk gamblers, with the exception of other harm, at the population level. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlighted the prevention paradox of gambling in Japan. While national gambling policies primarily focus on the prevention and intervention for high-risk gamblers, a more effective approach would involve minimizing GRH across the entire population.

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.

Bladder training for treating overactive bladder in adults.

BACKGROUND: Overactive bladder (OAB) is a common chronic and bothersome condition. Bladder training is widely prescribed as a first-line treatment for OAB, but the efficacy has been systematically evaluated for urinary incontinence rather than OAB alone. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of bladder training for treating adults with OAB compared to no treatment, anticholinergics, ß3-adrenoceptor agonists, or pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) alone or in combination. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 6 November 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials involving adults aged 18 years or older with non-neurogenic OAB. We excluded studies of participants whose symptoms were caused by factors outside the urinary tract (e.g. neurologic disorders, cognitive impairment, gynecologic diseases). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. participant-reported cure or improvement, 2. symptom- and condition-related quality of life (QoL), and 3. ADVERSE EVENTS: Secondary outcomes included 4. participant-reported satisfaction, 5. number of incontinence episodes, 6. number of urgency episodes, and 7. number of micturition episodes. For the purpose of this review, we considered two time points: immediately after the treatment (early phase) and at least two months after the treatment (late phase). We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 trials with 2007 participants; participants in these trials were predominantly women (89.3%). We assessed the risk of bias of results for primary and secondary outcomes, which across all studies was similar and predominantly of high risk of bias, and none were at low risk of bias. The certainty of evidence was low to very low, with some moderate, across measured outcomes. Bladder training versus no treatment: three studies involving 92 participants compared bladder training to no treatment. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of bladder training on cure or improvement at the early phase (risk ratio (RR) 17.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 256.56; 1 study, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Bladder training may reduce the number of incontinence episodes (mean difference (MD) -1.86, 95% CI -3.47 to -0.25; 1 study, 14 participants; low-certainty evidence). No studies measured symptom- and condition-related QoL, number of adverse events, participant-reported satisfaction, number of urgency episodes, or number of micturition episodes in the early phase. Bladder training versus anticholinergics: seven studies (602 participants) investigated the effects of bladder training versus anticholinergic therapy. Bladder training may be more effective than anticholinergics on cure or improvement at the early phase (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.70; 4 studies, 258 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of bladder training on symptom- and condition-related QoL (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.77; 2 studies, 117 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Although the evidence is very uncertain, there were fewer adverse events in the bladder training group than in the anticholinergics group (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.17; 3 studies, 187 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours (MD 0.36, 95% CI -0.27 to 1.00; 2 studies, 117 participants; very low-certainty evidence), the number of urgency episodes per 24 hours (MD 0.70, 95% CI -0.62 to 2.02; 2 studies, 92 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and the number of micturition episodes per 24 hours (MD -0.35, 95% CI -1.90 to 1.20; 3 studies, 175 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies measured participant-reported satisfaction in the early phase. Bladder training versus PFMT: three studies involving 203 participants compared bladder training to PFMT. The evidence is very uncertain about the different effects between bladder training and PFMT on symptom- and condition-related QoL at the early phase (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.40; 2 studies, 178 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were no adverse events in either group at the early phase (1 study, 97 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain about the effects of the number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.39, 1 study, 81 participants; low-certainty evidence) and very uncertain about the number of micturition episodes per 24 hours (MD 0.10, 95% CI -1.44 to 1.64; 1 study, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies measured cure or improvement, participant-reported satisfaction, or number of urgency episodes in the early phase. Although we were interested in studies examining bladder training versus ß3-adrenoceptor agonists, in combination with ß3-adrenoceptor agonists versus ß3-adrenoceptor agonists alone, and in combination with PFMT versus PFMT alone, we did not identify any eligible studies for these comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review focused on the effect of bladder training to treat OAB. However, most of the evidence was low or very-low certainty. Based on the low- or very low-certainty evidence, bladder training may cure or improve OAB compared to no treatment. Bladder training may be more effective to cure or improve OAB than anticholinergics, and there may be fewer adverse events. There may be no difference in efficacy or safety between bladder training and PFMT. More well-designed trials are needed to reach a firm conclusion.

Fenofibrate for diabetic retinopathy.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) remains a major cause of sight loss worldwide, despite new therapies and improvements in the metabolic control of people living with diabetes. Therefore, DR creates a physical and psychological burden for people, and an economic burden for society. Preventing the development and progression of DR, or avoiding the occurrence of its sight-threatening complications is essential, and must be pursued to save sight. Fenofibrate may be a useful strategy to achieve this goal, by reversing diabetes' effects and reducing inflammation in the retina, as well as improving dyslipidaemia and hypertriglyceridaemia.  OBJECTIVES: To investigate the benefits and harms of fenofibrate for preventing the development and progression of diabetic retinopathy in people with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D), compared with placebo or observation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and three trials registers (February 2022). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included people with T1D or T2D, when these compared fenofibrate with placebo or with observation, and assessed the effect of fenofibrate on the development or progression of DR (or both). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods for data extraction and analysis. Our primary outcome was progression of DR, a composite outcome of 1) incidence of overt retinopathy for participants who did not have DR at baseline, or 2) advancing two or more steps on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) severity scale for participants who had any DR at baseline (or both), based on the evaluation of stereoscopic or non-stereoscopic fundus photographs, during the follow-up period. Overt retinopathy was defined as the presence of any DR observed on stereoscopic or non-stereoscopic colour fundus photographs. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of overt retinopathy, reduction in visual acuity of participants with a reduction in visual acuity of 10 ETDRS letters or more, proliferative diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic macular oedema; mean vision-related quality of life, and serious adverse events of fenofibrate. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies and their eye sub-studies (15,313 participants) in people with T2D. The studies were conducted in the US, Canada, Australia, Finland, and New Zealand; follow-up period was four to five years. One was funded by the government, the other by industry. Compared to placebo or observation, fenofibrate likely results in little to no difference in progression of DR (risk ratio (RR) 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.25; 1 study, 1012 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) in a population with and without overt retinopathy at baseline. Those without overt retinopathy at baseline showed little or no progression (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.47; 1 study, 804 participants); those with overt retinopathy at baseline found that their DR progressed slowly (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.71; 1 study, 208 people; test for interaction P = 0.02). Compared to placebo or observation, fenofibrate likely resulted in little to no difference in either the incidence of overt retinopathy (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.09; 2 studies, 1631 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or the incidence of diabetic macular oedema (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.12 to 1.24; 1 study, 1012 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The use of fenofibrate increased severe adverse effects (RR 1.55; 95% CI 1.05 to 2.27; 2 studies, 15,313 participants; high-certainty evidence). The studies did not report on incidence of a reduction in visual acuity of 10 ETDRS letters or more, incidence of proliferative diabetic retinopathy, or mean vision-related quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current, moderate-certainty evidence suggests that in a mixed group of people with and without overt retinopathy, who live with T2D, fenofibrate likely results in little to no difference in progression of diabetic retinopathy. However, in people with overt retinopathy who live with T2D, fenofibrate likely reduces the progression. Serious adverse events were rare, but the risk of their occurrence was increased by the use of fenofibrate. There is no evidence on the effect of fenofibrate in people with T1D. More studies, with larger sample sizes, and participants with T1D are needed. They should measure outcomes that are important to people with diabetes, e.g. change in vision, reduction in visual acuity of 10 ETDRS letters or more, developing proliferative diabetic retinopathy; and evaluating the requirement of other treatments, e.g. injections of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies, steroids.

Efficacy of Brief Intervention for Unhealthy Drug Use in Outpatient Medical Care: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of brief intervention (BI) for unhealthy drug use in outpatient medical care has not been sufficiently substantiated through meta-analysis despite its ongoing global delivery. This study aims to determine the efficacy of BI for unhealthy drug use and the expected length of effects, and describe subgroup analyses by outpatient setting. METHODS: Trials comparing BI with usual care controls were retrieved through four databases up to January 13, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened, selected, and extracted data. Primary outcomes included drug use frequency (days used) and severity on validated scales at 4-8 months and were analyzed using random-effects model meta-analysis. RESULTS: In total, 20 studies with 9182 randomized patients were included. There was insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of BI for unhealthy drug use among all outpatient medical care settings for use frequency (SMD = -0.07, 95% CI = -0.17, 0.02, p = 0.12, I2 = 37%, high certainty of evidence) and severity (SMD = -0.27, 95% CI = -0.78, 0.24, p = 0.30, I2 = 98%, low certainty of evidence). However, post hoc subgroup analyses uncovered significant effects for use frequency by setting (interaction p = 0.02), with significant small effects only in emergency departments (SMD = -0.15, 95% CI = -0.25, -0.04, p < 0.01). Primary care, student health, women's health, and HIV primary care subgroups were nonsignificant. Primary care BI revealed nonsignificant greater average use in the treatment group compared to usual care. DISCUSSION: BI for unhealthy drug use lacks evidence of efficacy among all outpatient medical settings. However, small effects found in emergency departments may indicate incremental benefits for some patients. Clinical decisions for SBI or specialty treatment program referrals should be carefully considered accounting for these small effects in emergency departments. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42020157733).

Pre-emptive antifungal therapy versus empirical antifungal therapy for febrile neutropenia in people with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy for people with cancer can cause severe and prolonged cytopenia, especially neutropenia, a critical condition that is potentially life-threatening. When manifested by fever and neutropenia, it is called febrile neutropenia (FN). Invasive fungal disease (IFD) is one of the serious aetiologies of chemotherapy-induced FN. In pre-emptive therapy, physicians only initiate antifungal therapy when an invasive fungal infection is detected by a diagnostic test. Compared to empirical antifungal therapy, pre-emptive therapy may reduce the use of antifungal agents and associated adverse effects, but may increase mortality. The benefits and harms associated with the two treatment strategies have yet to be determined.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the relative efficacy, safety, and impact on antifungal agent use of pre-emptive versus empirical antifungal therapy in people with cancer who have febrile neutropenia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, and ClinicalTrials.gov to October 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared pre-emptive antifungal therapy with empirical antifungal therapy for people with cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified 2257 records from the databases and handsearching. After removing duplicates, screening titles and abstracts, and reviewing full-text reports, we included seven studies in the review. We evaluated the effects on all-cause mortality, mortality ascribed to fungal infection, proportion of antifungal agent use (other than prophylactic use), duration of antifungal use (days), invasive fungal infection detection, and adverse effects for the comparison of pre-emptive versus empirical antifungal therapy. We presented the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 1480 participants from seven randomised controlled trials. Included studies only enroled participants at high risk of FN (e.g. people with haematological malignancy); none of them included participants at low risk (e.g. people with solid tumours).  Low-certainty evidence suggests there may be little to no difference between pre-emptive and empirical antifungal treatment for all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.30; absolute effect, reduced by 3/1000); and for mortality ascribed to fungal infection (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.89; absolute effect, reduced by 2/1000). Pre-emptive therapy may decrease the proportion of antifungal agent used more than empirical therapy (other than prophylactic use; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.05; absolute effect, reduced by 125/1000; very low-certainty evidence). Pre-emptive therapy may reduce the duration of antifungal use more than empirical treatment (mean difference (MD) -3.52 days, 95% CI -6.99 to -0.06, very low-certainty evidence). Pre-emptive therapy may increase invasive fungal infection detection compared to empirical treatment (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.71 to 4.05; absolute effect, increased by 43/1000; very low-certainty evidence). Although we were unable to pool adverse events in a meta-analysis, there seemed to be no apparent difference in the frequency or severity of adverse events between groups. Due to the nature of the intervention, none of the seven RCTs could blind participants and personnel related to performance bias. We identified considerable clinical and statistical heterogeneity, which reduced the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. However, the two mortality outcomes had less statistical heterogeneity than other outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For people with cancer who are at high-risk of febrile neutropenia, pre-emptive antifungal therapy may reduce the duration and rate of use of antifungal agents compared to empirical therapy, without increasing over-all and IFD-related mortality; but the evidence regarding invasive fungal infection detection and adverse events was inconsistent and uncertain.

Ultrasound guidance versus landmark method for peripheral venous cannulation in adults.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous cannulation is one of the most fundamental and common procedures in medicine. Securing a peripheral line is occasionally difficult with the landmark method. Ultrasound guidance has become a standard procedure for central venous cannulation, but its efficacy in achieving peripheral venous cannulation is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ultrasound guidance compared to the landmark method for peripheral intravenous cannulation in adults.  SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 29 November 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (RCTs in which participants are systematically allocated based on data such as date of birth or recruitment) comparing the effects of ultrasound guidance to the landmark method for peripheral intravenous cannulation in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were first-pass success of cannulation, overall success of cannulation, and pain. Our secondary outcomes were procedure time for first-pass cannulation, procedure time for overall cannulation, number of attempts, patient satisfaction, and overall complications. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.  Placing a peripheral intravenous line in individuals can be classed as 'difficult', 'moderate', or 'easy'. We use the terms 'difficult participants', 'moderate/moderately difficult participants' and 'easy participants' as shorthand to characterise the difficulty level in placing a peripheral line using the landmark method. We used the original studies' definitions of difficulty levels of peripheral intravenous cannulation with the landmark method. We analysed the results in these subgroups: 'difficult participants', 'moderate participants', and 'easy participants'. We did this because we expected the effect of ultrasound-guided peripheral venous cannulation to be largest in participants classed as 'difficult' and smaller in participants classed as 'moderate' and 'easy'.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 RCTs and two quasi-RCTs involving 2267 participants undergoing peripheral intravenous cannulation. Participants were classed as 'difficult' in 12 studies (880 participants), 'moderate' in one study (401 participants), and 'easy' in one study (596 participants). Two studies (390 participants) did not restrict by landmark method difficulty level. The overall risk of bias assessments ranged from low to high. We judged studies to be at high risk of bias mainly because of concerns about blinding for subjective outcomes. In difficult participants, ultrasound guidance increased the first-pass success of cannulation (risk ratio (RR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.15 to 1.95; 10 studies, 815 participants; low-certainty evidence), and the overall success of cannulation (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.77; 10 studies, 670 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in pain (mean difference (MD) -0.20, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.72; 4 studies, 323 participants; very low-certainty evidence; numerical rating scale (NRS) 0 to 10 where 10 is maximum pain). Ultrasound guidance increased the procedure time for first-pass cannulation (MD 119.9 seconds, 95% CI 88.6 to 151.1; 2 studies, 219 participants; low-certainty evidence), and patient satisfaction (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.49, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.92; 5 studies, 333 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NRS 0 to 10 where 10 is maximum satisfaction). Ultrasound guidance decreased the number of cannulation attempts (MD -0.33, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.02; 9 studies, 568 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ultrasound guidance showed no clear difference in the procedure time for overall cannulation (MD -24.9 seconds, 95% CI -323.1 to 273.3; 8 studies, 413 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and overall complications (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.10; 5 studies, 431 participants; low-certainty evidence).  In moderate participants, ultrasound guidance increased the first-pass success of cannulation (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.27; 1 study, 401 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies assessed the overall success of cannulation. There was no clear difference in pain (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.67; 1 study, 401 participants; low-certainty evidence; NRS 0 to 10 where 10 is maximum pain). Ultrasound guidance increased the procedure time for first-pass cannulation (MD 95.2 seconds, 95% CI 72.8 to 117.6; 1 study, 401 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ultrasound guidance showed no clear difference in overall complications (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.82; 1 study, 401 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies assessed the procedure time for overall cannulation, number of cannulation attempts, or patient satisfaction.  In easy participants, ultrasound guidance decreased the first-pass success of cannulation (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94; 1 study, 596 participants; high-certainty evidence). No studies assessed the overall success of cannulation. Ultrasound guidance increased pain (MD 0.60, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.03; 1 study, 596 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; NRS 0 to 10 where 10 is maximum pain). Ultrasound guidance increased the procedure time for first-pass cannulation (MD 94.8 seconds, 95% CI 81.2 to 108.5; 1 study, 596 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ultrasound guidance showed no clear difference in overall complications (RR 2.48, 95% CI 0.90 to 6.87; 1 study, 596 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies assessed the procedure time for overall cannulation, number of cannulation attempts, or patient satisfaction.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very low- and low-certainty evidence that, compared to the landmark method, ultrasound guidance may benefit difficult participants for increased first-pass and overall success of cannulation, with no difference detected in pain. There is moderate- and low-certainty evidence that, compared to the landmark method, ultrasound guidance may benefit moderately difficult participants due to a small increased first-pass success of cannulation with no difference detected in pain. There is moderate- and high-certainty evidence that, compared to the landmark method, ultrasound guidance does not benefit easy participants: ultrasound guidance decreased the first-pass success of cannulation with no difference detected in overall success of cannulation and increased pain.

Carnitine supplements for people with chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Carnitine deficiency is common in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who require dialysis. Several clinical studies have suggested that carnitine supplementation is beneficial for dialysis-related symptoms. However, the clinical effectiveness and potential adverse effects of carnitine supplementation in dialysis patients have not been determined. OBJECTIVES: This review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of carnitine supplementation for the treatment of dialysis-related complications in CKD patients requiring dialysis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 16 August 2022 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (RCTs in which allocation to treatment was obtained by alternation, use of alternate medical records, date of birth, or other predictable methods) that compared carnitine supplements with placebo or standard care in people with CKD requiring dialysis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted study data and assessed study quality. We used a random-effects model to perform a quantitative synthesis of the data.  We used the I² statistic to measure heterogeneity amongst the studies in each analysis. We indicated summary estimates as a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, or standardised mean differences (SMD) if different scales were used, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence for each of the main outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 52 studies (47 parallel RCTs and five cross-over RCTs) (3398 randomised participants). All studies compared L-carnitine with a placebo, other treatment, or no treatment. Standard care was continued as co-interventions in each group. Most studies were judged to have an unclear or high risk of bias. L-carnitine may have little or no effect on the quality of life (QoL) SF-36 physical component score (PCS) (4 studies, 134 participants: SMD 0.57, 95% CI -0.15 to 1.28; I² = 73%; low certainty of evidence), and the total QoL score (Kidney Disease Quality of Life (KDQOL), VAS (general well-being), or PedsQL) (3 studies, 230 participants: SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.25; I² = 0%; low certainty of evidence). L-carnitine may improve SF-36 mental component score (MCS) (4 studies, 134 participants: SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.18; I² = 42%; low certainty of evidence). L-carnitine may have little or no effect on fatigue score (2 studies, 353 participants: SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.23; I² = 0%; low certainty of evidence), adverse events (12 studies, 1041 participants: RR, 1.14, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.51; I² = 0%; low certainty of evidence), muscle cramps (2 studies, 102 participants: RR, 0.44, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.09; I² = 23%; low certainty of evidence), and intradialytic hypotension (3 studies, 128 participants: RR, 0.76, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.69; I² = 0%; low certainty of evidence). L-carnitine may improve haemoglobin levels (26 studies, 1795 participants: MD 0.46 g/dL, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.74; I² = 86%; low certainty of evidence) and haematocrit values (14 studies, 950 participants: MD 1.78%, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.18; I² = 84%; low certainty of evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence does not currently support the use of carnitine supplementation in the treatment of dialysis-related carnitine deficiency. Although carnitine supplementation may slightly improve anaemia-related markers, carnitine supplementation makes little or no difference to adverse events. However, these conclusions are based on limited data and, therefore, should be interpreted with caution.

Shared decision-making interventions for people with mental health conditions.

BACKGROUND: One person in every four will suffer from a diagnosable mental health condition during their life. Such conditions can have a devastating impact on the lives of the individual and their family, as well as society.  International healthcare policy makers have increasingly advocated and enshrined partnership models of mental health care. Shared decision-making (SDM) is one such partnership approach. Shared decision-making is a form of service user-provider communication where both parties are acknowledged to bring expertise to the process and work in partnership to make a decision.  This review assesses whether SDM interventions improve a range of outcomes. This is the first update of this Cochrane Review, first published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of SDM interventions for people of all ages with mental health conditions, directed at people with mental health conditions, carers, or healthcare professionals, on a range of outcomes including: clinical outcomes, participation/involvement in decision-making process (observations on the process of SDM; user-reported, SDM-specific outcomes of encounters), recovery, satisfaction, knowledge, treatment/medication continuation, health service outcomes, and adverse outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We ran searches in January 2020 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (2009 to January 2020). We also searched trial registers and the bibliographies of relevant papers, and contacted authors of included studies.  We updated the searches in February 2022. When we identified studies as potentially relevant, we labelled these as studies awaiting classification. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised controlled trials, of SDM interventions in people with mental health conditions (by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: This updated review included 13 new studies, for a total of 15 RCTs. Most participants were adults with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder, in higher-income countries. None of the studies included children or adolescents.  Primary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve clinical outcomes, such as psychiatric symptoms, depression, anxiety, and readmission, compared with control due to very low-certainty evidence. For readmission, we conducted subgroup analysis between studies that used usual care and those that used cognitive training in the control group. There were no subgroup differences. Regarding participation (by the person with the mental health condition) or level of involvement in the decision-making process, we are uncertain if SDM interventions improve observations on the process of SDM compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. On the other hand, SDM interventions may improve SDM-specific user-reported outcomes from encounters immediately after intervention compared with no intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.01; 3 studies, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there was insufficient evidence for sustained participation or involvement in the decision-making processes. Secondary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve recovery compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. We are uncertain if SDM interventions improve users' overall satisfaction. However, one study (241 participants) showed that SDM interventions probably improve some aspects of users' satisfaction with received information compared with no intervention: information given was rated as helpful (risk ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.65); participants expressed a strong desire to receive information this way for other treatment decisions (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.68); and strongly recommended the information be shared with others in this way (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.58). The evidence was of moderate certainty for these outcomes. However, this same study reported there may be little or no effect on amount or clarity of information, while another small study reported there may be little or no change in carer satisfaction with the SDM intervention. The effects of healthcare professional satisfaction were mixed: SDM interventions may have little or no effect on healthcare professional satisfaction when measured continuously, but probably improve healthcare professional satisfaction when assessed categorically. We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve knowledge, treatment continuation assessed through clinic visits, medication continuation, carer participation, and the relationship between users and healthcare professionals because of very low-certainty evidence. Regarding length of consultation, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect compared with no intervention (SDM 0.09, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.41; 2 studies, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). On the other hand, we are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve length of hospital stay due to very low-certainty evidence. There were no adverse effects on health outcomes and no other adverse events reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review update suggests that people exposed to SDM interventions may perceive greater levels of involvement immediately after an encounter compared with those in control groups. Moreover, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect on the length of consultations.  Overall we found that most evidence was of low or very low certainty, meaning there is a generally low level of certainty about the effects of SDM interventions based on the studies assembled thus far. There is a need for further research in this area.

Certolizumab pegol for maintenance of medically induced remission in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Crohn's disease (CD) is a disease with an impaired immune response characterized by chronic, relapsing-remitting, and progressive inflammation mainly affecting the gastrointestinal tract. Certolizumab pegol (CZP) is a biological agent that regulates the impaired immune response by controlling tumour necrosis factor-α (TNFα). However, the efficacy and safety of long-term administration of CZP for people with CD with inflammation under control are not well understood. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of CZP for maintenance of remission in people with CD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and conference abstracts from inception to 23 March 2022. We contacted pharmaceutical companies involved with the production of CZP for further relevant information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CZP with placebo in adults with CD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. The main outcomes were failure to maintain clinical remission at week 26, failure to maintain clinical response at week 26, and serious adverse events. We planned to perform meta-analyses including all available studies if similar enough for pooling to be appropriate and calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences with 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We analyzed the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) and the number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) to indicate the magnitude of treatment effects. The same two review authors independently evaluated the risk of bias by using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool and evaluated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one study meeting our prespecified eligibility criteria. The included study enrolled 428 adults with CD who responded to induction therapy with CZP 400 mg at weeks 0, 2, and 4. The study evaluated long-term efficacy and safety of CZP administered subcutaneously every four weeks compared with placebo. The proportion of participants who failed to maintain clinical remission at week 26 was 52.3% (113/216) in the CZP group compared to 71.7% (152/212) in the placebo group. Treatment of CZP probably results in a large reduction in failure to maintain clinical remission at week 26 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.85). The NNTB was 5 (95% CI 4 to 9). We judged this outcome at low risk of bias. Using the GRADE assessment, we judged the certainty of evidence as moderate due to the low number of events occurred. The proportion of participants who failed to maintain clinical response at week 26 was 37.5% (81/216) in the CZP group compared to 64.2% (136/212) in the placebo group. Treatment of CZP probably results in a large reduction in failure to maintain clinical response at week 26 (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.71). The NNTB was 4 (95% CI 3 to 5). We judged this outcome at low risk of bias. Using the GRADE assessment, we judged the certainty of evidence as moderate due to the low number of events occurred. The proportion of participants who developed serious adverse events was 5.6% (12/216) in the CZP group compared to 6.6% (14/212) in the placebo group. Treatment of CZP may lead to no difference in serious adverse events compared to placebo when used as a remission maintenance treatment (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.78). The NNTB was 95 (95% CI NNTH 19 to NNTB 25). We evaluated the risk of bias for this outcome as low. We evaluated the certainty of evidence as low due to the low number of events occurred and the CIs were not sufficiently narrow. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: CZP probably results in a large reduction in failure to maintain clinical remission and response at week 26 in people with CD. The evidence suggests that CZP may lead to no difference in serious adverse events compared to placebo when used as a remission maintenance treatment. However, the current studies are limited to 26 weeks of follow-up and only included adults. Therefore, these conclusions cannot be used to guide longer term treatment or for treatment in children at present.

Pharmacological interventions versus placebo, no treatment or usual care for osteoporosis in people with chronic kidney disease stages 3-5D.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an independent risk factor for osteoporosis and is more prevalent among people with CKD than among people who do not have CKD. Although several drugs have been used to effectively treat osteoporosis in the general population, it is unclear whether they are also effective and safe for people with CKD, who have altered systemic mineral and bone metabolism. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for osteoporosis in patients with CKD stages 3-5, and those undergoing dialysis (5D). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 25 January 2021 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing any anti-osteoporotic drugs with a placebo, no treatment or usual care in patients with osteoporosis and CKD stages 3 to 5D were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed their quality using the risk of bias tool, and extracted data. The main outcomes were the incidence of fracture at any sites; mean change in the bone mineral density (BMD; measured using dual-energy radiographic absorptiometry (DXA)) of the femoral neck, total hip, lumbar spine, and distal radius; death from all causes; incidence of adverse events; and quality of life (QoL). Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: Seven studies involving 9164 randomised participants with osteoporosis and CKD stages 3 to 5D met the inclusion criteria; all participants were postmenopausal women. Five studies included patients with CKD stages 3-4, and two studies included patients with CKD stages 5 or 5D. Five pharmacological interventions were identified (abaloparatide, alendronate, denosumab, raloxifene, and teriparatide). All studies were judged to be at an overall high risk of bias. Among patients with CKD stages 3-4, anti-osteoporotic drugs may reduce the risk of vertebral fracture (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.69; low certainty evidence). Anti-osteoporotic drugs probably makes little or no difference to the risk of clinical fracture (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.05; moderate certainty evidence) and adverse events (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.00; moderate certainty evidence). We were unable to incorporate studies into the meta-analyses for BMD at the femoral neck, lumbar spine and total hip as they only reported the percentage change in the BMD in the intervention group. Among patients with severe CKD stages 5 or 5D, it is uncertain whether anti-osteoporotic drug reduces the risk of clinical fracture (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; very low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether anti-osteoporotic drug improves the BMD at the femoral neck because the certainty of this evidence is very low (MD 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.02). Anti-osteoporotic drug may slightly improve the BMD at the lumbar spine (MD 0.03, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.04, low certainty evidence). No adverse events were reported in the included studies. It is uncertain whether anti-osteoporotic drug reduces the risk of death (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.22 to 4.56; very low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with CKD stages 3-4, anti-osteoporotic drugs may reduce the risk of vertebral fracture in low certainty evidence. Anti-osteoporotic drugs make little or no difference to the risk of clinical fracture and adverse events in moderate certainty evidence. Among patients with CKD stages 5 and 5D, it is uncertain whether anti-osteoporotic drug reduces the risk of clinical fracture and death because the certainty of this evidence is very low. Anti-osteoporotic drug may slightly improve the BMD at the lumbar spine in low certainty evidence. It is uncertain whether anti-osteoporotic drug improves the BMD at the femoral neck because the certainty of this evidence is very low. Larger studies including men, paediatric patients or individuals with unstable CKD-mineral and bone disorder are required to assess the effect of each anti-osteoporotic drug at each stage of CKD.

Lamotrigine in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder is a chronic mental disorder with repetitive mania/hypomania as well as depressive episodes, which eventually results in marked impairment in overall functioning and health-related quality of life.  A worldwide prevalence rate of 2.4% has been reported. The risk of suicide is higher in people with bipolar disorder than those with other mental disorders. Therefore, effective management of bipolar disorder in the maintenance period is warranted to minimize the risk of relapse or recurrence. Although lithium has been the standard treatment of bipolar disorder for many years, it is associated with adverse effects and teratogenicity. Lamotrigine is approved to be expected for prevention of recurrence for the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. In addition, lamotrigine is as effective as lithium. Therefore, we performed a systematic review to confirm the efficacy and safety of lamotrigine in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of lamotrigine in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group's Specialized Register (CCMDCTR) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to 21 May 2021. We also searched international trial registries and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials enrolling adults with bipolar disorder who were treated with lamotrigine, placebo or lithium. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviews authors independently checked the eligibility of studies and extracted data using a standardized form. Data extracted included study characteristics, participant characteristics, intervention details, settings, and outcome measures in the term of efficacy and tolerability. Study information were then entered into RevMan web. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 studies with a total of 2314 participants in this review; 1146 were randomized to lamotrigine, 869 were randomized to placebo and, 299 to lithium. We rated all studies as having an unclear risk of bias in at least one domain of Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias, with the most commonly observed weakness being selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment). We judged five studies to be at a high risk of detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment). These potential biases pose as major threat to the validity of the included studies in this review. Outcomes of efficacy showed a possible advantage of lamotrigine over placebo. The estimated risk ratio (RR) for recurrence of manic symptom at one year as measured by the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) was 0.67, (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.87; 3 studies, 663 participants; low-certainty evidence) in favor of lamotrigine. The RR of clinical worsening with the need for additional psychotropic treatment (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.98; 4 studies, 756 participants) based on moderate-certainty evidence. The possible benefits of lamotrigine were also seen for the outcome of treatment withdrawal due to any reason at 6-12 months after treatment (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99; 4 studies, 700 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Regarding tolerability, our analyses showed that the incidence rates of adverse effects were similar between the lamotrigine group and the placebo group (short-term effect: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.42; 5 studies, 1138 participants; very low-certainty evidence; long-term effect: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; 4 studies, 756 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In the comparison between lamotrigine and lithium, efficacy was similar between groups except for recurrence of mania episode at one year. Recurrence of manic symptoms was higher in the lamotrigine group than that of the lithium group (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.32 to 3.44; 3 studies, 602 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Analysis of adverse effects at 6-12 months showed that a lower proportion of participants experienced at least one adverse effect when treated with lamotrigine compared to lithium (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.96; 4 studies, 691 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low- to moderate-certainty evidence collectively suggests that lamotrigine may be superior to placebo as a treatment modality for bipolar disorder. In comparison to lithium, people with bipolar disorder seem to tolerate lamotrigine better in the long run; however, the demonstrated efficacy in the maintenance of bipolar disorder was similar between the two groups.

Roux-en-Y versus Billroth-I reconstruction after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer diagnosed worldwide. Due to improved early detection rates of gastric cancer and technological advances in treatments, a significant improvement in survival rates has been achieved in people with cancer undergoing gastrectomy. Subsequently, there has been increasing emphasis on postgastrectomy syndrome (e.g. fullness, delayed emptying, and cold sweat, amongst others) and quality of life postsurgery. However, it is uncertain which types of reconstruction result in better outcomes postsurgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence on health-related quality of life and safety outcomes of Roux-en-Y and Billroth-I reconstructions after distal gastrectomy for people with gastric cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase on 4 May 2021. We checked the reference lists of the included studies and contacted manufacturers and professionals in the field. There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) allocating participants to Roux-en-Y reconstruction or Billroth-I reconstruction after distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies identified by the search for eligibility and extracted data. The primary outcomes were health-related quality of life after surgery and incidence of anastomotic leakage. The secondary outcomes included body weight loss, incidence of bile reflux, length of hospital stay, and overall morbidity. We used a random-effects model to conduct meta-analyses. We assessed risk of bias of the included studies in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs (942 participants) in the review. One study included both cancer patients and benign disease patients such as stomach ulcers. Two studies compared Roux-en-Y, Billroth-I, and Billroth-II reconstructions, whilst the other studies compared Roux-en-Y and Billroth-I directly.  For the primary outcomes, the evidence suggests that there may be little to no difference in health-related quality of life between Roux-en-Y and Billroth-I reconstruction (standardised mean difference 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.11 to 0.18; I² = 0%; 6 studies; 695 participants; low-certainty evidence due to study limitations and imprecision). The evidence for the effect of Roux-en-Y versus Billroth-I reconstruction on the incidence of anastomotic leakage is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.53; I² = 0%; 5 studies; 711 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The incidence of anastomotic leakage was 0.6% and 1.4% in the Roux-en-Y and Billroth-I groups, respectively. For the secondary outcomes, the evidence suggests that Billroth-I reconstruction may result in little to no difference in loss of body weight compared to Roux-en-Y reconstruction (mean difference (MD) 0.41, 95% CI -0.77 to 1.59; I² = 0%; 4 studies; 541 participants; low-certainty evidence). Roux-en-Y reconstruction probably reduces the incidence of bile reflux compared to Billroth-I reconstruction (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.63; I² = 22%; 4 studies; 399 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Billroth-I reconstruction may shorten postoperative hospital stay, but the evidence for this outcome is very uncertain (MD 0.96, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.76; I² = 56%; 7 studies; 894 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Billroth-I reconstruction may reduce postoperative overall morbidity compared to Roux-en-Y reconstruction (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.11; I² = 0%; 7 studies; 891 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that there is little to no difference between Roux-en-Y and Billroth-I reconstruction for the outcome health-related quality of life. The evidence for the effect of Roux-en-Y versus Billroth-I reconstruction on the incidence of anastomotic leakage is very uncertain as the incidence of this outcome was low. Although the certainty of evidence was low, we found some possibly clinically meaningful differences between Roux-en-Y and Billroth-I reconstruction for short-term outcomes. Roux-en-Y reconstruction probably reduces the incidence of bile reflux into the remnant stomach compared to Billroth-I reconstruction. Billroth-I reconstruction may shorten postoperative hospital stay compared to Roux-en-Y reconstruction, but the evidence is very uncertain. Billroth-I reconstruction may reduce postoperative overall morbidity compared to Roux-en-Y reconstruction. Future trials should include long-term follow-up of health-related quality of life and body weight loss.

Ramped versus sniffing position for tracheal intubation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Whether the ramped or sniffing laryngoscopy position is better for tracheal intubation is unclear. This study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of tracheal intubation in the ramped versus sniffing position. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials to compare the ramped position with the sniffing position for tracheal intubation. We searched the databases of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to December 2018. We included randomized-controlled trials, trials of participants who required tracheal intubation in any setting, and that compared tracheal intubation in the ramped and the sniffing positions. Two authors independently screened the trials, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We conducted the meta-analysis using the random-effects model to calculate the pooled risk ratio with 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Of the 2631 titles/abstracts screened, three studies (representing 513 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled risk ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) of the sniffing versus the ramped position was as follows: a first successful attempt, 0.97 (95% CI, 0.86-1.09; I2 = 55%); laryngoscopy attempts ≤2, 1.08 (95% CI, 0.88-1.31; I2 = 93%); and good glottic view with Cormack-Lehane grade ≤ 2, 0.86 (95% CI, 0.69-1.07; I2 = 86%). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis indicated no favorable aspects of the ramped position as compared to the sniffing position. Thus, further research is warranted to identify which is better in tracheal intubation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO identifier, CRD42019116819.

Does cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety disorders assist the discontinuation of benzodiazepines among patients with anxiety disorders? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Long-term use of benzodiazepines (BZD) is not recommended for the treatment of anxiety disorders. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment option for discontinuation of BZD in patients with anxiety disorders. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to clarify whether CBT is effective for discontinuing BZD anxiolytics in patients with anxiety disorders. This study was preregistered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42019125263). A literature search of major electronic databases was conducted in December 2018. Three randomized controlled trials were included in this review, and meta-analyses were performed. The proportion of discontinuing BZD anxiolytics was significantly higher in the CBT plus gradual tapering group than in the gradual tapering alone group, both in the short term (3 months after allocation; number needed to treat: 3.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.1 to 7.1; risk ratio: 1.96, 95%CI: 1.29 to 2.98, P = 0.002, three studies) and long term (6 to 12 months after allocation; number needed to treat: 2.8, 95%CI: 1.9 to 5.3; risk ratio: 2.16, 95%CI: 1.41 to 3.32, P = 0.0004, three studies). CBT may be effective for discontinuing BZD anxiolytics, both in the short term and in the long term after the allocation. Further studies with larger sample sizes are necessary to draw definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of CBT for discontinuing BZD anxiolytics in patients with anxiety disorders.

Longitudinal Analysis of Bidirectional Relationships between Nocturia and Depressive Symptoms: The Nagahama Study.

PURPOSE: Although the association between nocturia and depressive symptoms has been demonstrated, the causal direction remains unclear. We investigated the directional association between nocturia and depressive symptoms using longitudinal data from the general population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This longitudinal analysis was conducted as part of the Nagahama Cohort Project, a population based cohort study, with baseline and 5-year followup investigations. Nocturnal voiding frequency and mental health were measured with self-report questionnaires, the International Prostate Symptom Score and the 5-item Mental Health Inventory. Logistic regression analyses and a cross-lagged panel analysis were performed to analyze the bidirectional association between nocturia and depressive symptoms. RESULTS: With 9,764 participants at baseline, data from 8,285 were used in this analysis. Median age at baseline was 57.3 years and the proportion of men was 32.0%. New onset depressive symptoms and nocturia were observed among 369 and 793 participants, respectively. In adjusted logistic regression analyses we observed a clear dose-relationship between baseline nocturnal voiding frequency and new onset depressive symptoms (p for trend <0.001) and a weak association between baseline 5-item Mental Health Inventory and new onset nocturia (p for trend=0.0087). In a cross-lagged panel analysis the path coefficient from nocturnal voiding frequency to 5-item Mental Health Inventory (ß=-0.06, p <0.001) was stronger than that from 5-item Mental Health Inventory to nocturnal voiding frequency (ß=-0.02, p=0.047). CONCLUSIONS: This longitudinal study demonstrated a bidirectional association between nocturia and depressive symptoms. The cross-lagged path coefficient suggested that nocturia could more likely be a cause than a result of depressive symptoms.

Impact of Nocturia on Mortality: The Nagahama Study.

PURPOSE: Nocturia has been reported as a risk factor for mortality. However, evidence is limited and has a high risk of bias. We evaluated the association between nocturia and mortality using longitudinal data from the general Japanese population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were obtained from the Nagahama Cohort Project, a longitudinal, general population cohort study. Nocturia was measured using the International Prostate Symptom Score. Mortality data were obtained from the Basic Resident Register in Nagahama City. We used Cox proportional hazard models and time-varying covariates at baseline and 5-year followup to analyze the association between nocturia and mortality. RESULTS: We analyzed 9,762 participants (median age 56.8 years, male 32.8%). The prevalence rates of nocturnal voiding at 0, 1, 2 and 3 or more times were 44.3%, 39.1%, 11.7% and 4.9%, respectively. A total of 263 participants died. Followup assessment was performed 3,224 (SD 537) days after baseline. According to multivariable Cox proportional hazard regressions, mortality increased dose dependently with the nocturnal voiding frequency as HR 1.46 for 1 time (95% CI 1.02-2.09), HR 1.85 for 2 times (95% CI 1.23-2.77) and HR 2.06 (95% CI 1.28-3.32) for 3 or more times in comparison with 0 times (p for trend=0.00084). In the time varying Cox proportional hazard regression the association was still significant (p for trend=0.0017). CONCLUSIONS: According to this longitudinal study with a low incidence of missing data and high representation of the general population, nocturia is associated with mortality.

Proton pump inhibitors for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common and progressive disease characterised by chronic cough, airflow limitation and recurrent exacerbations. Since COPD exacerbations are linked to rising mortality and reduced quality of life, the condition poses a substantial burden on individuals, society and the healthcare system. Effective management of COPD exacerbations that includes treatment of related conditions in people with COPD is thus recognised as a relevant clinical question and an important research topic. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a known comorbidity of COPD, and pulmonary microaspiration of gastric acid is thought to be a possible cause of COPD exacerbations. Therefore, reducing gastric acid secretion may lead to a reduction in COPD exacerbations. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are one of the most commonly prescribed medications and are recommended as first-line therapy for people with GERD because of their inhibitory effects on gastric acid secretion. Treatment with PPIs may present a viable treatment option for people with COPD. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of PPI administration for people with COPD, focusing on COPD-specific outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Register of Trials and conventional clinical trial registers from inception to 22 May 2020. We also screened bibliographies of relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Parallel-group and cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared oral PPIs versus placebo, usual care or low-dose PPIs in adults with COPD were eligible for inclusion. We excluded cross-over RCTs, as well as studies with a duration of less than two months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors screened search results, selected studies for inclusion, extracted study characteristics and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias according to standard Cochrane methodology. We resolved discrepancies by involving a third review author. Primary outcomes of interest were COPD exacerbations, pneumonia and other serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, lung function test indices, acute respiratory infections and disease-specific adverse events. We extracted data on these outcome measures and entered into them into Review Manager software for analysis. MAIN RESULTS: The search identified 99 records, and we included one multicentre RCT that randomised 103 adults with COPD. The 12-month RCT compared an oral PPI (lansoprazole) and usual care versus usual care alone. It was conducted at one tertiary care hospital and three secondary care hospitals in Japan. This study recruited participants with a mean age of 75 years, and excluded people with symptoms or history of GERD. No placebo was used in the usual care arm. Among the primary and secondary outcomes of this review, the study only reported data on COPD exacerbations and acute respiratory infections (the common cold). As we only included one study, we could not conduct a meta-analysis. The included study reported that 12 of the 50 people on lansoprazole had at least one exacerbation over a year, compared to 26 out of 50 on usual care (risk ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.81). The frequency of COPD exacerbations per person in a year was also lower in the PPI plus usual care group than in the usual care alone group（0.34 ± 0.72 vs 1.18 ± 1.40; P < 0.001). The number of people with at least one cold over the year was similar in both groups: 26 people on lansoprazole and 27 people in the usual care group. We judged the evidence to be of low to very low certainty, according to GRADE criteria. The study reported no data on pneumonia and other serious adverse events, quality of life, lung function test indices or disease-specific adverse events. The risk of bias was largely low or unclear for the majority of domains, though the performance bias was a high risk, as the study was not blinded. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence identified by this review is insufficient to determine whether treatment with PPIs is a potential option for COPD. The sample size of the included trial is small, and the evidence is low to very low-certainty. The efficacy and safety profile of PPIs for people with COPD remains uncertain. Future large-scale, high-quality studies are warranted, which investigate major clinical outcomes such as COPD exacerbation rate, serious adverse events and quality of life.