Adverse effects with semaglutide: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Semaglutide is increasingly used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, overweight and other conditions. It is well known that semaglutide lowers blood glucose levels and leads to significant weight loss. Still, a systematic review has yet to investigate the adverse effects with semaglutide for all patient groups. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review and search major medical databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science) and clinical trial registries from their inception and onwards to identify relevant randomised clinical trials. We expect to conduct the literature search in July 2024. Two review authors will independently extract data and perform risk-of-bias assessments. We will include randomised clinical trials comparing oral or subcutaneous semaglutide versus placebo. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be myocardial infarction, stroke, all-cause hospitalisation and non-serious adverse events. Data will be synthesised by meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis; risk of bias will be assessed with Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2, an eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for statistical and clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol does not present any results. Findings of this systematic review will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024499511.

Heterologous versus homologous COVID-19 booster vaccinations for adults: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: To combat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), booster vaccination strategies are important. However, the optimal administration of booster vaccine platforms remains unclear. Herein, we aimed to assess the benefits and harms of three or four heterologous versus homologous booster regimens. METHODS: From November 3 2022 to December 21, 2023, we searched five databases for randomised clinical trials (RCT). Reviewers screened, extracted data, and assessed bias risks independently with the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 tool. We conducted meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (TSA) on our primary (all-cause mortality; laboratory confirmed symptomatic and severe COVID-19; serious adverse events [SAE]) and secondary outcomes (quality of life [QoL]; adverse events [AE] considered non-serious). We assessed the evidence with the GRADE approach. Subgroup analyses were stratified for trials before and after 2023, three or four boosters, immunocompromised status, follow-up, risk of bias, heterologous booster vaccine platforms, and valency of booster. RESULTS: We included 29 RCTs with 43 comparisons (12,538 participants). Heterologous booster regimens may not reduce the relative risk (RR) of all-cause mortality (11 trials; RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.33 to 2.26; I2 0%; very low certainty evidence); laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 (14 trials; RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.25; I2 0%; very low certainty); or severe COVID-19 (10 trials; RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.33; I2 0%; very low certainty). For safety outcomes, heterologous booster regimens may have no effect on SAE (27 trials; RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.95; I2 0%; very low certainty) but may raise AE considered non-serious (20 trials; RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32; I2 64.4%; very low certainty). No data on QoL was available. Our TSAs showed that the cumulative Z curves did not reach futility for any outcome. CONCLUSIONS: With our current sample sizes, we were not able to infer differences of effects for any outcomes, but heterologous booster regimens seem to cause more non-serious AE. Furthermore, more robust data are instrumental to update this review.

Effects of primary or secondary prevention with vitamin A supplementation on clinically important outcomes: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review with meta-analyses of randomised trials evaluated the preventive effects of vitamin A supplements versus placebo or no intervention on clinically important outcomes, in people of any age. METHODS: We searched different electronic databases and other resources for randomised clinical trials that had compared vitamin A supplements versus placebo or no intervention (last search 16 April 2024). We used Cochrane methodology. We used the random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs), with 95% CIs. We analysed individually and cluster randomised trials separately. Our primary outcomes were mortality, adverse events and quality of life. We assessed risks of bias in the trials and used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: We included 120 randomised trials (1 671 672 participants); 105 trials allocated individuals and 15 allocated clusters. 92 trials included children (78 individually; 14 cluster randomised) and 28 adults (27 individually; 1 cluster randomised). 14/105 individually randomised trials (13%) and none of the cluster randomised trials were at overall low risk of bias. Vitamin A did not reduce mortality in individually randomised trials (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.05; I²=32%; p=0.19; 105 trials; moderate certainty), and this effect was not affected by the risk of bias. In individually randomised trials, vitamin A had no effect on mortality in children (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.04; I²=24%; p=0.28; 78 trials, 178 094 participants) nor in adults (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.13; I²=24%; p=0.27; 27 trials, 61 880 participants). Vitamin A reduced mortality in the cluster randomised trials (0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.93; I²=66%; p=0.0008; 15 trials, 14 in children and 1 in adults; 364 343 participants; very low certainty). No trial reported serious adverse events or quality of life. Vitamin A slightly increased bulging fontanelle of neonates and infants. We are uncertain whether vitamin A influences blindness under the conditions examined. CONCLUSIONS: Based on moderate certainty of evidence, vitamin A had no effect on mortality in the individually randomised trials. Very low certainty evidence obtained from cluster randomised trials suggested a beneficial effect of vitamin A on mortality. If preventive vitamin A programmes are to be continued, supporting evidence should come from randomised trials allocating individuals and assessing patient-meaningful outcomes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018104347.

Furosemide versus placebo for fluid overload in intensive care patients-The randomised GODIF trial second version: Statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: Fluid overload is associated with increased mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The GODIF trial aims to assess the benefits and harms of fluid removal with furosemide versus placebo in stable adult patients with moderate to severe fluid overload in the ICU. This article describes the detailed statistical analysis plan for the primary results of the second version of the GODIF trial. METHODS: The GODIF trial is an international, multi-centre, randomised, stratified, blinded, parallel-group, pragmatic clinical trial, allocating 1000 adult ICU patients with moderate to severe fluid overload 1:1 to furosemide versus placebo. The primary outcome is days alive and out of hospital within 90 days post-randomisation. With a power of 90% and an alpha level of 5%, we may reject or detect an improvement of 8%. The primary analyses of all outcomes will be performed in the intention-to-treat population. For the primary outcome, the Kryger Jensen and Lange method will be used to compare the two treatment groups adjusted for stratification variables supplemented with sensitivity analyses in the per-protocol population and with further adjustments for prognostic variables. Secondary outcomes will be analysed with multiple linear regressions, logistic regressions or the Kryger Jensen and Lange method as suitable with adjustment for stratification variables. CONCLUSION: The GODIF trial data will increase the certainty about the effects of fluid removal using furosemide in adult ICU patients with fluid overload. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: EudraCT identifier: 2019-004292-40 and ClinicalTrials.org: NCT04180397.

Concentrations, Number of Doses, and Formulations of Aluminium Adjuvants in Vaccines: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Aluminium adjuvants are commonly used in vaccines to boost the effects of vaccination. Here, we assessed the benefits and harms of different aluminium adjuvants vs. other aluminium adjuvants or vs. the same aluminium adjuvant at other concentrations, administered a different number of doses, or at different particle sizes used in vaccines or vaccine excipients. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis to assess the certainty of evidence with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). We obtained data from major medical databases until 20 January 2023 and included 10 randomized clinical trials of healthy volunteers. The comparisons assessed higher vs. lower aluminium adjuvant concentrations; higher vs. lower number of doses of aluminium adjuvant; and aluminium phosphate adjuvant vs. aluminium hydroxide adjuvant. For all three comparisons, meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and adverse events considered non-serious. The certainty of evidence was low to very low. None of the included trials reported on quality of life or proportion of participants who developed the disease being vaccinated against. The benefits and harms of different types of aluminium adjuvants, different aluminium concentrations, different number of doses, or different particle sizes, therefore, remain uncertain.

Detailed statistical analysis plan for a secondary Bayesian analysis of the SafeBoosC-III trial: a multinational, randomised clinical trial assessing treatment guided by cerebral oximetry monitoring versus usual care in extremely preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Extremely preterm infants have a high mortality and morbidity. Here, we present a statistical analysis plan for secondary Bayesian analyses of the pragmatic, sufficiently powered multinational, trial-SafeBoosC III-evaluating the benefits and harms of cerebral oximetry monitoring plus a treatment guideline versus usual care for such infants. METHODS: The SafeBoosC-III trial is an investigator-initiated, open-label, randomised, multinational, pragmatic, phase III clinical trial with a parallel-group design. The trial randomised 1601 infants, and the frequentist analyses were published in April 2023. The primary outcome is a dichotomous composite outcome of death or severe brain injury. The exploratory outcomes are major neonatal morbidities associated with neurodevelopmental impairment later in life: (1) bronchopulmonary dysplasia; (2) retinopathy of prematurity; (3) late-onset sepsis; (4) necrotising enterocolitis; and (5) number of major neonatal morbidities (count of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, retinopathy of prematurity, and severe brain injury). The primary Bayesian analyses will use non-informed priors including all plausible effects. The models will use a Hamiltonian Monte Carlo sampler with 1 chain, a sampling of 10,000, and at least 25,000 iterations for the burn-in period. In Bayesian statistics, such analyses are referred to as 'posteriors' and will be presented as point estimates with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs), encompassing the most probable results based on the data, model, and priors selected. The results will be presented as probability of any benefit or any harm, Bayes factor, and the probability of clinical important benefit or harm. Two statisticians will analyse the blinded data independently following this protocol. DISCUSSION: This statistical analysis plan presents a secondary Bayesian analysis of the SafeBoosC-III trial. The analysis and the final manuscript will be carried out and written after we publicise the primary frequentist trial report. Thus, we can interpret the findings from both the frequentists and Bayesian perspective. This approach should provide a better foundation for interpreting of our findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.org, NCT03770741. Registered on 10 December 2018.

Critical reading of articles on randomised clinical trials.

The randomised clinical trial is the most reliable study design to compare the effects of different interventions, however, the methodological quality of randomised clinical trials varies. In this review, the central considerations for critically appraising a randomised clinical trial are described along with an example, terminological references, description of design variants and reporting guidelines and appraisal tools. This review aims at helping clinicians and other users of randomised clinical trials to assess the trustworthiness and relevance of trial results for their own practice.

The effects of cerebral oximetry in mechanically ventilated newborns: a protocol for the SafeBoosC-IIIv randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The SafeBoosC project aims to test the clinical value of non-invasive cerebral oximetry by near-infrared spectroscopy in newborn infants. The purpose is to establish whether cerebral oximetry can be used to save newborn infants' lives and brains or not. Newborns contribute heavily to total childhood mortality and neonatal brain damage is the cause of a large part of handicaps such as cerebral palsy. The objective of the SafeBoosC-IIIv trial is to evaluate the benefits and harms of cerebral oximetry added to usual care versus usual care in mechanically ventilated newborns. METHODS/DESIGN: SafeBoosC-IIIv is an investigator-initiated, multinational, randomised, pragmatic phase-III clinical trial. The inclusion criteria will be newborns with a gestational age more than 28 + 0 weeks, postnatal age less than 28 days, predicted to require mechanical ventilation for at least 24 h, and prior informed consent from the parents or deferred consent or absence of opt-out. The exclusion criteria will be no available cerebral oximeter, suspicion of or confirmed brain injury or disorder, or congenital heart disease likely to require surgery. A total of 3000 participants will be randomised in 60 neonatal intensive care units from 16 countries, in a 1:1 allocation ratio to cerebral oximetry versus usual care. Participants in the cerebral oximetry group will undergo cerebral oximetry monitoring during mechanical ventilation in the neonatal intensive care unit for as long as deemed useful by the treating physician or until 28 days of life. The participants in the cerebral oximetry group will be treated according to the SafeBoosC treatment guideline. Participants in the usual care group will not receive cerebral oximetry and will receive usual care. We use two co-primary outcomes: (1) a composite of death from any cause or moderate to severe neurodevelopmental disability at 2 years of corrected age and (2) the non-verbal cognitive score of the Parent Report of Children's Abilities-Revised (PARCA-R) at 2 years of corrected age. DISCUSSION: There is need for a randomised clinical trial to evaluate cerebral oximetry added to usual care versus usual care in mechanically ventilated newborns. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol is registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT05907317; registered 18 June 2023).

Cerebral oximetry monitoring versus usual care for extremely preterm infants: a study protocol for the 2-year follow-up of the SafeBoosC-III randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: In the SafeBoosC-III trial, treatment guided by cerebral oximetry monitoring for the first 72 hours after birth did not reduce the incidence of death or severe brain injury in extremely preterm infants at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age, as compared with usual care. Despite an association between severe brain injury diagnosed in the neonatal period and later neurodevelopmental disability, this relationship is not always strong. The objective of the SafeBoosC-III follow-up study is to assess mortality, neurodevelopmental disability, or any harm in trial participants at 2 years of corrected age. One important challenge is the lack of funding for local costs for a trial-specific assessment. METHODS: Of the 1601 infants randomised in the SafeBoosC-III trial, 1276 infants were alive at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age and will potentially be available for the 2-year follow-up. Inclusion criteria will be enrollment in a neonatal intensive care unit taking part in the follow-up study and parental consent if required by local regulations. We aim to collect data from routine follow-up programmes between the ages of 18 and 30 months of corrected age. If no routine follow-up has been conducted, we will collect informal assessments from other health care records from the age of at least 12 months. A local co-investigator blinded to group allocation will classify outcomes based on these records. We will supplement this with parental questionnaires including the Parent Report of Children's Abilities-Revised. There will be two co-primary outcomes: the composite of death or moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability and mean Bayley-III/IV cognitive score. We will use a 3-tier model for prioritisation, based on the quality of data. This approach has been chosen to minimise loss to follow-up assuming that little data is better than no data at all. DISCUSSION: Follow-up at the age of 2 years is important for intervention trials in the newborn period as only time can show real benefits and harms later in childhood. To decrease the risk of generalisation and data-driven biased conclusions, we present a detailed description of the methodology for the SafeBoosC-III follow-up study. As funding is limited, a pragmatic approach is necessary. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05134116 . Registered on 24 November 2021.

Self-determination theory interventions versus usual care in people with diabetes: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Autonomy-supporting interventions, such as self-determination theory and guided self-determination interventions, may improve self-management and clinical and psychosocial outcomes in people with diabetes. Such interventions have never been systematically reviewed assessing both benefits and harms and concurrently controlling the risks of random errors using trial sequential analysis methodology. This systematic review investigates the benefits and harms of self-determination theory-based interventions compared to usual care in people with diabetes. METHODS: We used the Cochrane methodology. Randomized clinical trials assessing interventions theoretically based on guided self-determination or self-determination theory in any setting were eligible. A comprehensive search (latest search April 2022) was undertaken in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, PsycINFO, SCI-EXPANDED, CINAHL, SSCI, CPCI-S, and CPCI-SSH to identify relevant trials. Two authors independently screened, extracted data, and performed risk-of-bias assessment of included trials using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 1.0. Our primary outcomes were quality of life, all-cause mortality, and serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were diabetes distress, depressive symptoms, and nonserious adverse events not considered serious. Exploratory outcomes were glycated hemoglobin and motivation (autonomy, controlled, amotivation). Outcomes were assessed at the end of the intervention (primary time point) and at maximum follow-up. The analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.4 and Trial Sequential Analysis 0.9.5.10. Certainty of the evidence was assessed by GRADE. RESULTS: Our search identified 5578 potentially eligible studies of which 11 randomized trials (6059 participants) were included. All trials were assessed at overall high risk of bias. We found no effect of self-determination theory-based interventions compared with usual care on quality of life (mean difference 0.00 points, 95% CI -4.85, 4.86, I2 = 0%; 225 participants, 3 trials, TSA-adjusted CI -11.83, 11.83), all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, diabetes distress, depressive symptoms, adverse events, glycated hemoglobulin A1c, or motivation (controlled). The certainty of the evidence was low to very low for all outcomes. We found beneficial effect on motivation (autonomous and amotivation; low certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: We found no effect of self-determination-based interventions on our primary or secondary outcomes. The evidence was of very low certainty. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020181144.

Interventions affecting the nitric oxide pathway versus placebo or no therapy for fetal growth restriction in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Fetal growth restriction (FGR) is a condition of poor growth of the fetus in utero. One of the causes of FGR is placental insufficiency. Severe early-onset FGR at < 32 weeks of gestation occurs in an estimated 0.4% of pregnancies. This extreme phenotype is associated with a high risk of fetal death, neonatal mortality, and neonatal morbidity. Currently, there is no causal treatment, and management is focused on indicated preterm birth to prevent fetal death. Interest has risen in interventions that aim to improve placental function by administration of pharmacological agents affecting the nitric oxide pathway causing vasodilatation. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review and aggregate data meta-analysis is to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of interventions affecting the nitric oxide pathway compared with placebo, no therapy, or different drugs affecting this pathway against each other, in pregnant women with severe early-onset FGR. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (16 July 2022), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all randomised controlled comparisons of interventions affecting the nitric oxide pathway compared with placebo, no therapy, or another drug affecting this pathway in pregnant women with severe early-onset FGR of placental origin, for inclusion in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth methods for data collection and analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of eight studies (679 women) in this review, all of which contributed to the data and analysis. The identified studies report on five different comparisons: sildenafil compared with placebo or no therapy, tadalafil compared with placebo or no therapy, L-arginine compared with placebo or no therapy, nitroglycerin compared with placebo or no therapy and sildenafil compared with nitroglycerin. The risk of bias of included studies was judged as low or unclear. In two studies the intervention was not blinded. The certainty of evidence for our primary outcomes was judged as moderate for the intervention sildenafil and low for tadalafil and nitroglycerine (due to low number of participants and low number of events). For the intervention L-arginine, our primary outcomes were not reported. Sildenafil citrate compared to placebo or no therapy (5 studies, 516 women) Five studies (Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the Netherlands, the UK and Brazil) involving 516 pregnant women with FGR were included. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as moderate. Compared with placebo or no therapy, sildenafil probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.27, 5 studies, 516 women); may reduce fetal mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.12, 5 studies, 516 women), and increase neonatal mortality (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.33, 5 studies, 397 women), although the results are uncertain for fetal and neonatal mortality as 95% confidence intervals are wide crossing the line of no effect. Tadalafil compared with placebo or no therapy (1 study, 87 women) One study (Japan) involving 87 pregnant women with FGR was included. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as low. Compared with placebo or no therapy, tadalafil may have little or no effect on all-cause mortality (risk ratio 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.60, one study, 87 women); fetal mortality (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.96, one study, 87 women); and neonatal mortality (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.70, one study, 83 women). L-Arginine compared with placebo or no therapy (1 study, 43 women) One study (France) involving 43 pregnant women with FGR was included. This study did not assess our primary outcomes. Nitroglycerin compared to placebo or no therapy (1 studies, 23 women) One study (Brazil) involving 23 pregnant women with FGR was included. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as low. The effect on the primary outcomes is not estimable due to no events in women participating in both groups. Sildenafil citrate compared to nitroglycerin (1 study, 23 women) One study (Brazil) involving 23 pregnant women with FGR was included. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as low. The effect on the primary outcomes is not estimable due to no events in women participating in both groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Interventions affecting the nitric oxide pathway probably do not seem to influence all-cause (fetal and neonatal) mortality in pregnant women carrying a baby with FGR, although more evidence is needed. The certainty of this evidence is moderate for sildenafil and low for tadalafil and nitroglycerin. For sildenafil a fair amount of data are available from randomised clinical trials, but with low numbers of participants. Therefore, the certainty of evidence is moderate. For the other interventions investigated in this review there are insufficient data, meaning we do not know whether these interventions improve perinatal and maternal outcomes in pregnant women with FGR.

Adverse events in cognitive behavioral therapy and relaxation training for children and adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder: A mixed methods study and analysis plan for the TECTO trial.

Background: Knowledge on adverse events in psychotherapy for youth with OCD is sparse. No official guidelines exist for defining or monitoring adverse events in psychotherapy. Recent recommendations call for more qualitative and quantitative assessment of adverse events in psychotherapy trials. This mixed methods study aims to expand knowledge on adverse events in psychotherapy for youth with OCD. Methods: This is an analysis plan for a convergent mixed methods study within a randomized clinical trial (the TECTO trial). We include at least 128 youth aged 8-17 years with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Participants are randomized to either family-based cognitive behavioral therapy (FCBT) or family-based psychoeducation and relaxation training (FPRT). Adverse events are monitored quantitatively with the Negative Effects Questionnaire. Furthermore, we assess psychiatric symptoms, global functioning, quality of life, and family factors to investigate predictors for adverse events. We conduct semi-structured qualitative interviews with all youths and their parents on their experience of adverse events in FCBT or FPRT. For the mixed methods analysis, we will merge 1) a qualitative content analysis with descriptive statistics comparing the types, frequencies, and severity of adverse events; 2) a qualitative content analysis of the perceived causes for adverse events with prediction models for adverse events; and 3) a thematic analysis of the participants' treatment evaluation with a correlational analysis of adverse events and OCD severity. Discussion: The in-depth mixed methods analysis can inform 1) safer and more effective psychotherapy for OCD; 2) instruments and guidelines for monitoring adverse events; and 3) patient information on potential adverse events. The main limitation is risk of missing data. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03595098. Registered on July 23, 2018.

Observed intervention effects for mortality in randomised clinical trials: a methodological study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: It is essential to choose a realistic anticipated intervention effect when calculating a sample size for a randomised clinical trial. Unfortunately, anticipated intervention effects are often inflated, when compared with the 'true' intervention effects. This is documented for mortality in critical care trials. A similar pattern might exist across different medical specialties. This study aims to estimate the range of observed intervention effects for all-cause mortality in trials included in Cochrane Reviews, within each Cochrane Review Group. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will include randomised clinical trials assessing all-cause mortality as an outcome. Trials will be identified from Cochrane Reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Cochrane Reviews will be clustered according to the registered Cochrane Review Group (eg, Anaesthesia, Emergency and Critical Care) and the statistical analyses will be conducted for each Cochrane Review Group and overall. The median relative risk and IQR for all-cause mortality and the proportion of trials with a relative all-cause mortality risk within seven different ranges will be reported (relative risk below 0.70, 0.70-0.79, 0.80-0.89, 0.90-1.09, 1.10-1.19, 1.20-1.30 and above 1.30). Subgroup analyses will explore the effects of original design, sample size, risk of bias, disease, intervention type, follow-up length, participating centres, funding type, information size and outcome hierarchy. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Since we will use summary data from trials already approved by relevant ethical committees, this study does not require ethical approval. Regardless of our findings, the results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal.

Drug interventions for prevention of COVID-19 progression to severe disease in outpatients: a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project).

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions authorised by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) or the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for prevention of COVID-19 progression to severe disease in outpatients. SETTING: Outpatient treatment. PARTICIPANTS: Participants with a diagnosis of COVID-19 and the associated SARS-CoV-2 virus irrespective of age, sex and comorbidities. INTERVENTIONS: Drug interventions authorised by EMA or FDA. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. RESULTS: We included 17 clinical trials randomising 16 257 participants to 8 different interventions authorised by EMA or FDA. 15/17 of the included trials (88.2%) were assessed at high risk of bias. Only molnupiravir and ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir seemed to improve both our primary outcomes. Meta-analyses showed that molnupiravir reduced the risk of death (relative risk (RR) 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.64; p=0.0145, 2 trials; very low certainty of evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.84; p=0.0018, 5 trials; very low certainty of evidence). Fisher's exact test showed that ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir reduced the risk of death (p=0.0002, 1 trial; very low certainty of evidence) and serious adverse events (p<0.0001, 1 trial; very low certainty of evidence) in 1 trial including 2246 patients, while another trial including 1140 patients reported 0 deaths in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The certainty of the evidence was very low, but, from the results of this study, molnupiravir showed the most consistent benefit and ranked highest among the approved interventions for prevention of COVID-19 progression to severe disease in outpatients. The lack of certain evidence should be considered when treating patients with COVID-19 for prevention of disease progression. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020178787.

Prompt closure versus gradual weaning of external ventricular drainage for hydrocephalus following aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: Protocol for the DRAIN randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH) is a life-threatening disease caused by rupture of an intracranial aneurysm. A common complication following aSAH is hydrocephalus, for which placement of an external ventricular drain (EVD) is an important first-line treatment. Once the patient is clinically stable, the EVD is either removed or replaced by a ventriculoperitoneal shunt. The optimal strategy for cessation of EVD treatment is, however, unknown. Gradual weaning may increase the risk of EVD-related infection, whereas prompt closure carries a risk of acute hydrocephalus and redundant shunt implantations. We designed a randomised clinical trial comparing the two commonly used strategies for cessation of EVD treatment in patients with aSAH. METHODS: DRAIN is an international multi-centre randomised clinical trial with a parallel group design comparing gradual weaning versus prompt closure of EVD treatment in patients with aSAH. Participants are randomised to either gradual weaning which comprises a multi-step increase of resistance over days, or prompt closure of the EVD. The primary outcome is a composite outcome of VP-shunt implantation, all-cause mortality, or ventriculostomy-related infection. Secondary outcomes are serious adverse events excluding mortality, functional outcome (modified Rankin scale), health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) and Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS). Outcome assessment will be performed 6 months after ictus. Based on the sample size calculation (event proportion 80% in the gradual weaning group, relative risk reduction 20%, type I error 5%, power 80%), 122 patients are needed in each intervention group. Outcome assessment for the primary outcome, statistical analyses and conclusion drawing will be blinded. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03948256.

Lenient rate control versus strict rate control for atrial fibrillation: a statistical analysis plan for the Danish Atrial Fibrillation (DanAF) randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: A key decision in the treatment of atrial fibrillation is choosing between a rhythm control strategy or a rate control strategy as the main strategy. When choosing rate control, the optimal heart rate target is uncertain. The Danish Atrial Fibrillation trial is a randomized, multicenter, two-group, superiority trial comparing strict rate control versus lenient rate control in patients with either persistent or permanent atrial fibrillation at inclusion. To prevent bias arising from selective reporting and data-driven analyses, we developed a predefined description of the statistical analysis. METHODS: The primary outcome of this trial is the physical component score of the SF-36 questionnaire. A total of 350 participants will be enrolled based on a minimal important difference of 3 points on the physical component score of the SF-36 questionnaire, a standard deviation of 10 points, a statistical power of 80% (beta of 20%), and an acceptable risk of type I error of 5%. All secondary, exploratory, and echocardiographic outcomes will be hypothesis-generating. The analyses of all outcomes will be based on the intention-to-treat principle. We will analyze continuous outcomes using linear regression adjusting for "site," type of atrial fibrillation at inclusion (persistent/ permanent), left ventricular ejection fraction (≥ 40% or < 40%), and the baseline value of the outcome (all as fixed effects). We define our threshold for statistical significance as a p-value of 0.05 and assessments of clinical significance will be based on the anticipated intervention effects defined in the sample size and power estimations. Thresholds for both statistical and clinical significance will be assessed according to the 5-step procedure proposed by Jakobsen and colleagues. DISCUSSION: This statistical analysis plan will be published prior to enrolment completion and before any data are available and is sought to increase the validity of the DANish Atrial Fibrillation trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04542785. Registered on Sept 09, 2020.

Centre for Statistical and Methodological Excellence (CESAME): A Consortium Initiative for Improving Methodology in Randomised Clinical Trials.

When conducting randomised clinical trials, the choice of methodology and statistical analyses will influence the results. If the planned methodology is not of optimal quality and predefined in detail, there is a risk of biased trial results and interpretation. Even though clinical trial methodology is already at a very high standard, there are many trials that deliver biased results due to the implementation of inadequate methodology, poor data quality and erroneous or biased analyses. To increase the internal and external validity of randomised clinical trial results, several international institutions within clinical intervention research have formed The Centre for Statistical and Methodological Excellence (CESAME). Based on international consensus, the CESAME initiative will develop recommendations for the proper methodological planning, conduct and analysis of clinical intervention research. CESAME aims to increase the validity of randomised clinical trial results which will ultimately benefit patients worldwide across medical specialities. The work of CESAME will be performed within 3 closely interconnected pillars: (1) planning randomised clinical trials; (2) conducting randomised clinical trials; and (3) analysing randomised clinical trials.

The risks of adverse events with venlafaxine and mirtazapine versus 'active placebo', placebo, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for two separate systematic reviews with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder causes a great burden on patients and societies. Venlafaxine and mirtazapine are commonly prescribed as second-line treatment for patients with major depressive disorder worldwide. Previous systematic reviews have concluded that venlafaxine and mirtazapine reduce depressive symptoms, but the effects seem small and may not be important to the average patient. Moreover, previous reviews have not systematically assessed the occurrence of adverse events. Therefore, we aim to investigate the risks of adverse events with venlafaxine or mirtazapine versus 'active placebo', placebo, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder in two separate systematic reviews. METHODS: This is a protocol for two systematic reviews with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis. The assessments of the effects of venlafaxine or mirtazapine will be reported in two separate reviews. The protocol is reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols, risk of bias will be assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool version 2, clinical significance will be assessed using our eight-step procedure, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. We will search for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases and trial registers. Two review authors will independently screen the results from the literature searches, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We will include published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing venlafaxine or mirtazapine with 'active placebo', placebo, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The primary outcomes will be suicides or suicide attempts, serious adverse events, and non-serious adverse events. Exploratory outcomes will include depressive symptoms, quality of life, and individual adverse events. If feasible, we will assess the intervention effects using random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses. DISCUSSION: Venlafaxine and mirtazapine are frequently used as second-line treatment of major depressive disorder worldwide. There is a need for a thorough systematic review to provide the necessary background for weighing the benefits against the harms. This review will ultimately inform best practice in the treatment of major depressive disorder. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022315395.