Short- and long-term effects of imatinib in hospitalised COVID-19 patients: A randomised trial.

OBJECTIVES: We studied the short- and long-term effects of imatinib in hospitalised COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Participants were randomised to receive standard of care (SoC) or SoC with imatinib. Imatinib dosage was 400mg daily until discharge (max 14 days). Primary outcomes were mortality at 30 days and 1 year. Secondary outcomes included recovery, quality of life and long COVID symptoms at 1 year. We also performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials studying imatinib for 30-day mortality in hospitalised COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: We randomised 156 patients (73 in SoC and 83 in imatinib). Among patients on imatinib, 7.2% had died at 30 days and 13.3% at 1 year and in SoC 4.1% and 8.2% (adjusted HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.47-3.90). At 1-year, self-reported recovery occurred in 79.0% in imatinib and in 88.5% in SoC (RR 0.91, 0.78-1.06). We found no convincing difference in quality of life or symptoms. Fatigue (24%) and sleep issues (20%) frequently bothered patients at one year. In the meta-analysis, imatinib was associated with a mortality risk ratio of 0.73 (0.32-1.63; low certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence raises doubts regarding benefit of imatinib in reducing mortality, improving recovery and preventing long COVID symptoms in hospitalised COVID-19 patients.

Non-Inferiority Trials: A Systematic Review on Methodological Quality and Reporting Standards.

BACKGROUND: Non-inferiority (NI) trials require unique trial design and methods, which pose challenges in their interpretation and applicability, risking introduction of inferior therapies in clinical practice. With the abundance of novel therapies, NI trials are increasing in publication. Prior studies found inadequate quality of reporting of NI studies, but were limited to certain specialties/journals, lacked NI margin evaluation, and did not examine temporal changes in quality. We conducted a systematic review without restriction to journal type, journal impact factor, disease state or intervention to evaluate the quality of NI trials, including a comprehensive risk of bias assessment and comparison of quality over time. METHODOLOGY: We searched PubMed and Cochrane Library databases for NI trials published in English in 2014 and 2019. They were assessed for: study design and NI margin characteristics, primary results, and risk of bias for blinding, concealment, analysis method and missing outcome data. RESULTS: We included 823 studies. Between 2014 and 2019, a shift from publication in specialty to general journals (15% vs 28%, p < 0.001) and from pharmacological to non-pharmacological interventions (25% vs 38%, p = 0.025) was observed. The NI margin was specified in most trials for both years (94% vs 95%). Rationale for the NI margin increased (36% vs 57%, p < 0.001), but remained low, with clinical judgement the most common rationale (30% vs 23%), but more 2019 articles incorporating patient values (0.3% vs 21%, p < 0.001). Over 50% of studies were open-label for both years. Gold standard method of analyses (both per protocol + (modified) intention to treat) declined over time (43% vs 36%, p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: The methodological quality and reporting of NI trials remains inadequate although improving in some areas. Improved methods for NI margin justification, blinding, and analysis method are warranted to facilitate clinical decision-making.

2023 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Guideline for the Treatment of Interstitial Lung Disease in People with Systemic Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases.

OBJECTIVE: We provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in adults with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). METHODS: We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions. A systematic literature review was then performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A panel of clinicians and patients reached consensus on the direction and strength of the recommendations. RESULTS: Thirty-five recommendations were generated (including two strong recommendations) for first-line SARD-ILD treatment, treatment of SARD-ILD progression despite first-line ILD therapy, and treatment of rapidly progressive ILD. The strong recommendations were against using glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis-ILD as a first-line ILD therapy and after ILD progression. Otherwise, glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for first-line ILD treatment in all other SARDs. CONCLUSION: This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the treatment of ILD in people with SARDs.

A taxonomy of demand-driven questions for use by evidence producers, intermediaries and decision-makers: results from a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Globally, a growing number of calls to formalize and strengthen evidence-support systems have been released, all of which emphasize the importance of evidence-informed decision making. To achieve this, it is critical that evidence producers and decision-makers interact, and that decision-makers' evidence needs can be efficiently translated into questions to which evidence producers can respond. This paper aims to create a taxonomy of demand-driven questions for use by evidence producers, intermediaries (i.e., people working in between researchers and decision-makers) and decision-makers. METHODS: We conducted a global cross-sectional survey of units providing some type of evidence support at the explicit request of decision-makers. Unit representatives were invited to answer an online questionnaire where they were asked to provide a list of the questions that they have addressed through their evidence-support mechanism. Descriptive analyses were used to analyze the survey responses, while the questions collected from each unit were iteratively analyzed to create a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of types of questions that can be answered with some form of evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-nine individuals completed the questionnaire, and more than 250 submitted questions were analysed to create a taxonomy of 41 different types of demand-driven questions. These 41 questions were organized by the goal to be achieved, and the goals were grouped in the four decision-making stages (i) clarifying a societal problem, its causes and potential impacts; (ii) finding and selecting options to address a problem; (iii) implementing or scaling-up an option; and (iv) monitoring implementation and evaluating impacts. CONCLUSION: The mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of demand-driven questions will help decision-makers (to ask and prioritize questions), evidence producers (to organize and present their work), and evidence-intermediaries (to connect evidence needs with evidence supply).

2023 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Guideline for the Screening and Monitoring of Interstitial Lung Disease in People with Systemic Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases.

OBJECTIVE: We provide evidence-based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease. METHODS: We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation. RESULTS: Fifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high-resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6-minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs. CONCLUSION: This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs.

2023 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Guideline for the Screening and Monitoring of Interstitial Lung Disease in People with Systemic Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases.

OBJECTIVE: We provide evidence-based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease. METHODS: We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation. RESULTS: Fifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high-resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6-minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs. CONCLUSION: This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs.

2023 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Guideline for the Treatment of Interstitial Lung Disease in People with Systemic Autoimmune Rheumatic Diseases.

OBJECTIVE: We provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in adults with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). METHODS: We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions. A systematic literature review was then performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A panel of clinicians and patients reached consensus on the direction and strength of the recommendations. RESULTS: Thirty-five recommendations were generated (including two strong recommendations) for first-line SARD-ILD treatment, treatment of SARD-ILD progression despite first-line ILD therapy, and treatment of rapidly progressive ILD. The strong recommendations were against using glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis-ILD as a first-line ILD therapy and after ILD progression. Otherwise, glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for first-line ILD treatment in all other SARDs. CONCLUSION: This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the treatment of ILD in people with SARDs.

Assessing Patient Values and Preferences to Inform the 2023 American College of Rheumatology/American College of Chest Physicians Interstitial Lung Disease Guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: Patient engagement is critical to clinical practice guideline (CPG) development. This work presents our approach to ascertaining patients' values and preferences to inform the American College of Rheumatology guidelines for screening, monitoring, and treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional qualitative study of a purposefully sampled Patient Panel using a modified content analytic approach. The study team reviewed text transcripts from the Patient Panel discussion to identify themes and develop a clustered thematic schema. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (75% women) participated, with a mean age of 53 years (range 33-73). Patients had one or more SARDs: systemic sclerosis (38%), Sjögren disease (38%), idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (33%), rheumatoid arthritis (24%), and mixed connective tissue disease (10%). We identified 10 themes in 4 thematic clusters: communication, screening and monitoring, treatment goals, and treatment adverse effects. Patients prioritized recognizing ILD symptoms, importance of ILD screening and close monitoring, goals of survival and improving quality of life, and willingness to accept treatment risks provided that there is close communication with providers. Patient representatives shared patients' priorities and insight at the Voting Panel meeting, influencing multiple guideline recommendations. CONCLUSION: Patient engagement fosters a holistic approach to CPG development, leading to recommendations aiming for the best clinical outcomes while prioritizing outcomes important for patients. The patient-identified themes played a critical role in ILD guideline development and provide core elements for shared decision-making as clinicians make management and therapeutic decisions with patients with SARD-associated ILD.

Clinical Practice Guideline for Red Blood Cell Transfusion Thresholds in Very Preterm Neonates.

Importance: Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is a common medical intervention to treat anemia in very preterm neonates; however, best transfusion practices, such as thresholds, remain uncertain. Objective: To develop recommendations for clinicians on the use of RBC transfusions in very preterm neonates. Evidence Review: An international steering committee reviewed evidence from a systematic review of 6 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared high vs low hemoglobin-based or hematocrit-based transfusion thresholds. The steering committee reached consensus on certainty-of-evidence ratings and worked with a panel from stakeholder organizations on reviewing the evidence. With input from parent representatives and the stakeholder panel, the steering committee used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations. Findings: A systematic review of 6 RCTs encompassing 3483 participants (1759 females [51.3%]; mean [SD] age range, 25.9-29.8 [1.5-3.0] weeks) was used as the basis of the recommendations. The ranges for higher hemoglobin concentration (liberal) vs lower hemoglobin concentration (restrictive) threshold study arms were similar across the trials. However, specific thresholds differed based on the severity of illness, which was defined using variable criteria in the trials. There was moderate certainty of evidence that low transfusion thresholds likely had little to no difference in important short-term and long-term outcomes. The recommended hemoglobin thresholds varied on the basis of postnatal week and respiratory support needs. At postnatal weeks 1, 2, and 3 or more, for neonates on respiratory support, the recommended thresholds were 11, 10, and 9 g/dL, respectively; for neonates on no or minimal respiratory support, the recommended thresholds were 10, 8.5, and 7 g/dL, respectively (to convert hemoglobin to grams per liter, multiply by 10.0). Conclusions and Relevance: This consensus statement recommends a restrictive RBC transfusion strategy, with moderate certainty of evidence, for preterm neonates with less than 30 weeks' gestation.

Empiric antibiotic regimens in adults with non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The optimal empiric antibiotic regimen for non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of alternative empiric antibiotic regimens in HAP using a network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL from database inception to July 06, 2023. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: RCTs. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with clinical suspicion of HAP. INTERVENTIONS: Any empiric antibiotic regimen vs. another, placebo, or no treatment. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: Paired reviewers independently assessed risk of bias using a modified Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Paired reviewers independently extracted data on trial and patient characteristics, antibiotic regimens, and outcomes of interest. We conducted frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses for treatment failure and all-cause mortality and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Thirty-nine RCTs proved eligible. Thirty RCTs involving 4807 participants found low certainty evidence that piperacillin-tazobactam (RR compared to all cephalosporins: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.42, 1.01) and carbapenems (RR compared to all cephalosporins: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.53, 1.11) might be among the most effective in reducing treatment failure. The findings were robust to the secondary analysis comparing piperacillin-tazobactam vs. antipseudomonal cephalosporins or antipseudomonal carbapenems vs. antipseudomonal cephalosporins. Eleven RCTs involving 2531 participants found low certainty evidence that ceftazidime and linezolid combination may not be convincingly different from cephalosporin alone in reducing all-cause mortality. Evidence on other antibiotic regimens is very uncertain. Data on other patient-important outcomes including adverse events was sparse, and we did not perform network or pairwise meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For empiric antibiotic therapy of adults with HAP, piperacillin-tazobactam might be among the most effective in reducing treatment failure. Empiric methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus coverage may not exert additional benefit in reducing mortality. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD 42022297224).

Leukotriene receptor antagonists as add-on therapy to antihistamines for urticaria: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The benefits and harms of adding antileukotrienes to H1 antihistamines (AHs) for the management of urticaria (hives, itch, and/or angioedema) remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically synthesize the treatment outcomes of antileukotrienes in combination with AHs versus AHs alone for acute and chronic urticaria. METHODS: As part of updating American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters urticaria guidelines, we searched Medline, Embase, Central, LILACS, WPRIM, IBECS, ICTRP, CBM, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, US Food and Drug Administration, and European Medicines Agency databases from inception to December 18, 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating antileukotrienes and AHs versus AHs alone in patients with urticaria. Paired reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random effects models pooled effect estimates for urticaria activity, itch, wheal, sleep, quality of life, and harms. The GRADE approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. The study was registered at the Open Science Framework (osf.io/h2bfx/). RESULTS: Thirty-four RCTs enrolled 3324 children and adults. Compared to AHs alone, the combination of a leukotriene receptor antagonist with AHs probably modestly reduces urticaria activity (mean difference, -5.04; 95% confidence interval, -6.36 to -3.71; 7-day urticaria activity score) with moderate certainty. We made similar findings for itch and wheal severity as well as quality of life. Adverse events were probably not different between groups (moderate certainty); however, no RCT reported on neuropsychiatric adverse events. CONCLUSION: Among patients with urticaria, adding leukotriene receptor antagonists to AHs probably modestly improves urticaria activity with little to no increase in overall adverse events. The added risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events in this population with leukotriene receptor antagonists is small and uncertain.

Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis during Invasive Mechanical Ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Whether proton-pump inhibitors are beneficial or harmful for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients undergoing invasive ventilation is unclear. METHODS: In this international, randomized trial, we assigned critically ill adults who were undergoing invasive ventilation to receive intravenous pantoprazole (at a dose of 40 mg daily) or matching placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the intensive care unit (ICU) at 90 days, and the primary safety outcome was death from any cause at 90 days. Multiplicity-adjusted secondary outcomes included ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile infection, and patient-important bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 4821 patients underwent randomization in 68 ICUs. Clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in 25 of 2385 patients (1.0%) receiving pantoprazole and in 84 of 2377 patients (3.5%) receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19 to 0.47; P<0.001). At 90 days, death was reported in 696 of 2390 patients (29.1%) in the pantoprazole group and in 734 of 2379 patients (30.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.04; P = 0.25). Patient-important bleeding was reduced with pantoprazole; all other secondary outcomes were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing invasive ventilation, pantoprazole resulted in a significantly lower risk of clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding than placebo, with no significant effect on mortality. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; REVISE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03374800.).

Panel stacking is a threat to consensus statement validity.

Consensus statements can be very influential in medicine and public health. Some of these statements use systematic evidence synthesis but others fail on this front. Many consensus statements use panels of experts to deduce perceived consensus through Delphi processes. We argue that stacking of panel members toward one particular position or narrative is a major threat, especially in absence of systematic evidence review. Stacking may involve financial conflicts of interest, but nonfinancial conflicts of strong advocacy can also cause major bias. Given their emerging importance, we describe here how such consensus statements may be misleading, by analyzing in depth a recent high-impact Delphi consensus statement on COVID-19 recommendations as a case example. We demonstrate that many of the selected panel members and at least 35% of the core panel members had advocated toward COVID-19 elimination (Zero-COVID) during the pandemic and were leading members of aggressive advocacy groups. These advocacy conflicts were not declared in the Delphi consensus publication, with rare exceptions. Therefore, we propose that consensus statements should always require rigorous evidence synthesis and maximal transparency on potential biases toward advocacy or lobbyist groups to be valid. While advocacy can have many important functions, its biased impact on consensus panels should be carefully avoided.

Comparison of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, prone position and supine mechanical ventilation for severely hypoxemic acute respiratory distress syndrome: a network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with PaO2/FiO2 < 80 mmHg is a life-threatening condition. The optimal management strategy is unclear. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the effects of low tidal volumes (Vt), moderate Vt, prone ventilation, and venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) on mortality in severe ARDS. METHODS: We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with participants who had severe ARDS and met eligibility criteria for VV-ECMO or had PaO2/FiO2 < 80 mmHg. We applied the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to discern the relative effect of interventions on mortality and the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: Ten RCTs including 812 participants with severe ARDS were eligible. VV-ECMO reduces mortality compared to low Vt (risk ratio [RR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.99, moderate certainty) and compared to moderate Vt (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57-0.98, low certainty). Prone ventilation reduces mortality compared to moderate Vt (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66-0.93, high certainty) and compared to low Vt (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63-1.02, moderate certainty). We found no difference in the network comparison of VV-ECMO compared to prone ventilation (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72-1.26), but inferences were based solely on indirect comparisons with very low certainty due to very wide confidence intervals. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with ARDS and severe hypoxia, both VV-ECMO (low to moderate certainty evidence) and prone ventilation (moderate to high certainty evidence) improve mortality relative to low and moderate Vt strategies. The impact of VV-ECMO versus prone ventilation remains uncertain.

Induction therapy in heart transplantation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis for developing evidence-based recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Induction therapy (IT) utility in heart transplantation (HT) remains contested. Commissioned by a clinical-practice guidelines panel to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IT in adult HT patients, we conducted this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: We searched for studies from January 2000 to October 2022, reporting on the use of any IT agent in adult HT patients. Based on patient-important outcomes, we performed frequentist NMAs separately for RCTs and observational studies with adjusted analyses, and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework. RESULTS: From 5156 publications identified, we included 7 RCTs and 12 observational studies, and report on two contemporarily-used IT agents-basiliximab and rATG. The RCTs provide only very low certainty evidence and was uninformative of the effect of the two agents versus no IT or one another. With low certainty in the evidence from observational studies, basiliximab may increase 30-day (OR 1.13; 95% CI 1.06-1.20) and 1-year (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.02-1.22) mortality compared to no IT. With low certainty from observational studies, rATG may decrease 5-year cardiac allograft vasculopathy (OR .82; 95% CI .74-.90) compared to no IT, as well as 30-day (OR .85; 95% CI .80-.92), 1-year (OR .87; 95% CI .79-.96), and overall (HR .84; 95% CI .76-.93) mortality compared to basiliximab. CONCLUSION: With low and very low certainty in the synthetized evidence, these NMAs suggest possible superiority of rATG compared to basiliximab, but do not provide compelling evidence for the routine use of these agents in HT recipients.

The minimal important difference in orthodontic treatment duration: a survey across adult patients.

BACKGROUND: The minimal important difference (MID) is defined as the smallest difference that the patient perceives as important. Furthermore, the smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) is the important change measured with the benefit-harm trade-off method. The aim of this study was to evaluate the MID in orthodontic treatment duration to inform the decision regarding seeking procedures to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement and reduce treatment duration. METHODS: We constructed a survey eliciting views of the MID from adult participants from four countries undergoing orthodontic treatment. Ten questions addressed reduction in the treatment duration for both durations 12 and 24 months, and four questions were related to the reduction in treatment duration that the patients would require to undergo surgical or non-surgical adjunctive procedures. We applied a univariable random effects logistic regression model to examine the association between the participants' characteristics and the MID. Then, we fitted a multivariable logistic random effects regression including significant predictors. RESULTS: Four hundred and fifty adults, with a median age of 21 (interquartile range: 19-24), undergoing orthodontic treatment participated in the survey. Of the respondents, 60% considered 15 days as a trivial reduction from 12 months duration of therapy and 70% considered 15 days a trivial reduction from 24 months. Of the respondents, 48% considered the period of 2 months a moderate reduction from 12 months, and 60% considered 2 months a moderate reduction from 24 months. From these results, we inferred that patients considered reductions of approximately 1 month as the MID in the treatment duration for both 12 and 24 months. However, SWE was considerably more than the MID for most of the participants to decide undergoing surgical adjunctive procedures to reduce the time of therapy. The participants required smaller SWE to undergo non-surgical procedures compared to surgical procedures. CONCLUSION: The MID in the treatment duration is one month for both treatment durations 12 and 24 months. Patients require a greater SWE than the MID to undergo adjunctive procedures to shorten the duration, particularly for surgical procedures.

Protocol implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic: experiences from a randomized trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many intensive care units (ICUs) halted research to focus on COVID-19-specific studies. OBJECTIVE: To describe the conduct of an international randomized trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis (Re-Evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions in the ICU [REVISE]) during the pandemic, addressing enrolment patterns, center engagement, informed consent processes, data collection, a COVID-specific substudy, patient transfers, and data monitoring. METHODS: REVISE is a randomized trial among mechanically ventilated patients, comparing pantoprazole 40 mg IV to placebo on the primary efficacy outcome of clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding and the primary safety outcome of 90-day mortality. We documented protocol implementation status from March 11th 2020-August 30th 2022. RESULTS: The Steering Committee did not change the scientific protocol. From the first enrolment on July 9th 2019 to March 10th 2020 (8 months preceding the pandemic), 267 patients were enrolled in 18 centers. From March 11th 2020-August 30th 2022 (30 months thereafter), 41 new centers joined; 59 were participating by August 30th 2022 which enrolled 2961 patients. During a total of 1235 enrolment-months in the pandemic phase, enrolment paused for 106 (8.6%) months in aggregate (median 3 months, interquartile range 2;6). Protocol implementation involved a shift from the a priori consent model pre-pandemic (188, 58.8%) to the consent to continue model (1615, 54.1%, p < 0.01). In one new center, an opt-out model was approved. The informed consent rate increased slightly (80.7% to 85.0%, p = 0.05). Telephone consent encounters increased (16.6% to 68.2%, p < 0.001). Surge capacity necessitated intra-institutional transfers; receiving centers continued protocol implementation whenever possible. We developed a nested COVID-19 substudy. The Methods Centers continued central statistical monitoring of trial metrics. Site monitoring was initially remote, then in-person when restrictions lifted. CONCLUSION: Protocol implementation adaptations during the pandemic included a shift in the consent model, a sustained high consent rate, and launch of a COVID-19 substudy. Recruitment increased as new centers joined, patient transfers were optimized, and monitoring methods were adapted.

Reporting Conflicts of Interest and Funding in Health Care Guidelines: The RIGHT-COI&F Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Conflicts of interest (COIs) of contributors to a guideline project and the funding of that project can influence the development of the guideline. Comprehensive reporting of information on COIs and funding is essential for the transparency and credibility of guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To develop an extension of the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) statement for the reporting of COIs and funding in policy documents of guideline organizations and in guidelines: the RIGHT-COI&F checklist. DESIGN: The recommendations of the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network were followed. The process consisted of registration of the project and setting up working groups, generation of the initial list of items, achieving consensus on the items, and formulating and testing the final checklist. SETTING: International collaboration. PARTICIPANTS: 44 experts. MEASUREMENTS: Consensus on checklist items. RESULTS: The checklist contains 27 items: 18 about the COIs of contributors and 9 about the funding of the guideline project. Of the 27 items, 16 are labeled as policy related because they address the reporting of COI and funding policies that apply across an organization's guideline projects. These items should be described ideally in the organization's policy documents, otherwise in the specific guideline. The remaining 11 items are labeled as implementation related and they address the reporting of COIs and funding of the specific guideline. LIMITATION: The RIGHT-COI&F checklist requires testing in real-life use. CONCLUSION: The RIGHT-COI&F checklist can be used to guide the reporting of COIs and funding in guideline development and to assess the completeness of reporting in published guidelines and policy documents. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China.

Pharmacotherapy for adults with overweight and obesity: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacotherapy provides an option for adults with overweight and obesity to reduce their bodyweight if lifestyle modifications fail. We summarised the latest evidence for the benefits and harms of weight-lowering drugs. METHODS: This systematic review and network meta-analysis included searches of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) from inception to March 23, 2021, for randomised controlled trials of weight-lowering drugs in adults with overweight and obesity. We performed frequentist random-effect network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation frameworks to rate the certainty of evidence, calculate the absolute effects, categorise interventions, and present the findings. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD 42021245678. FINDINGS: 14 605 citations were identified by our search, of which 132 eligible trials enrolled 48 209 participants. All drugs lowered bodyweight compared with lifestyle modification alone; all subsequent numbers refer to comparisons with lifestyle modification. High to moderate certainty evidence established phentermine-topiramate as the most effective in lowering weight (odds ratio [OR] of ≥5% weight reduction 8·02, 95% CI 5·24 to 12·27; mean difference [MD] of percentage bodyweight change -7·98, 95% CI -9·27 to -6·69) followed by GLP-1 receptor agonists (OR 6·33, 95% CI 5·00 to 8·00; MD -5·79, 95% CI -6·34 to -5·25). Naltrexone-bupropion (OR 2·69, 95% CI 2·10 to 3·44), phentermine-topiramate (2·40, 1·68 to 3·44), GLP-1 receptor agonists (2·22, 1·74 to 2·84), and orlistat (1·71, 1·42 to 2·05) were associated with increased adverse events leading to drug discontinuation. In a post-hoc analysis, semaglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, showed substantially larger benefits than other drugs with a similar risk of adverse events as other drugs for both likelihood of weight loss of 5% or more (OR 9·82, 95% CI 7·09 to 13·61) and percentage bodyweight change (MD -11·40, 95% CI -12·51 to -10·29). INTERPRETATION: In adults with overweight and obesity, phentermine-topiramate and GLP-1 receptor agonists proved the best drugs in reducing weight; of the GLP-1 agonists, semaglutide might be the most effective. FUNDING: 1.3.5 Project for Disciplines of Excellence, West China Hospital, Sichuan University.

Assessment of confidence in medical writing: Development and validation of the first trustworthy measurement tool.

BACKGROUND: The popularity of medical writing workshops highlights the need for a standard measurement tool to assess the impact of such workshops on participants' confidence in: 1- writing a standard article and 2- using optimal English language. Because such an instrument is not yet available, we undertook this study to devise and evaluate the first measurement tool to assess such confidence. METHOD: We created an item pool of 50 items by searching Medline, Embase, and Clarivate Analytics to find related articles, using our prior experience, and approaching the key informants. We revised and edited the item pool, and redundant ones were excluded. Finally, the 36-item tool comprised two domains. We tested it in a group of workshop applicants for internal consistency and temporal reliability using Cronbach's α and Pearson correlations and for content and convergent validity using the content validity index and Pearson correlations. RESULTS: The participants had a mean age of 40.3 years, a female predominance (74.3%), and a majority of faculty members (51.4%). The internal consistency showed high reliability (> 0.95). Test-retest reliability showed very high correlations (r = 0.93). The CVI for domain 1 was 0.78, for domain 2 was 0.73, and for the entire instrument was 0.75. CONCLUSION: This unique, reliable, and valid measurement tool could accurately measure the level of confidence in writing a standard medical article and in using the appropriate English language for this purpose.