Risks of serious adverse events with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in gastrointestinal surgery: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly recommended for perioperative opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic treatments. Concerns regarding the potential for serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with perioperative NSAID treatment are especially relevant following gastrointestinal surgery. We assessed the risks of SAEs with perioperative NSAID treatment in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomised clinical trials assessing the harmful effects of NSAIDs versus placebo, usual care or no intervention in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. The primary outcome was an incidence of SAEs. We systematically searched for eligible trials in five major databases up to January 2024. We performed risk of bias assessments to account for systematic errors, trial sequential analysis (TSA) to account for the risks of random errors, performed meta-analyses using R and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to describe the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 22 trials enrolling 1622 patients for our primary analyses. Most trials were at high risk of bias. Meta-analyses (risk ratio 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-1.19; I2 = 4%; p = .24; very low certainty of evidence) and TSA indicated a lack of information on the effects of NSAIDs compared to placebo on the risks of SAEs. Post-hoc beta-binomial regression sensitivity analyses including trials with zero events showed a reduction in SAEs with NSAIDs versus placebo (odds ratio 0.73; CI 0.54-0.99; p = .042). CONCLUSION: In adult patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery, there was insufficient information to draw firm conclusions on the effects of NSAIDs on SAEs. The certainty of the evidence was very low.

Associations of dexamethasone's effect on morphine consumption after total knee arthroplasty-Subgroup analyses.

The DEXamethasone twice for pain treatment after Total Knee Arthroplasty (DEX-2-TKA) trial showed that adding one and two doses of 24 mg intravenous dexamethasone to paracetamol, ibuprofen and local infiltration analgesia, reduced morphine consumption (primary outcome) within 48 h after TKA. We aimed to explore the differences in the effect of dexamethasone on morphine consumption in different subgroups. Quantile regression adjusted for site was used to test for significant interaction between the predefined dichotomised subgroups and treatment group. The subgroups were defined based on baseline data: sex (male/female), age (≤65 years/>65 years), American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA)-score (ASA I + II/III), visual analogue score of preoperative pain at rest (≤30 mm/>30 mm), pain during mobilisation (≤30 mm/>30 mm), type of anaesthesia (spinal anaesthesia/general anaesthesia and spinal converted to general anaesthesia), and prior daily use of analgesics (either paracetamol and/or NSAID/neither). These analyses were supplemented with post hoc multivariate linear regression analyses. Test of interaction comparing sex in the pairwise comparison between DX2 (dexamethasone [24 mg] + dexamethasone [24 mg]) versus placebo (p = .02), showed a larger effect of dexamethasone on morphine consumption in male patients compared to females. Test of interaction comparing age in the pairwise comparison between DX1 (dexamethasone [24 mg] + placebo) versus placebo (p = .04), showed a larger effect of dexamethasone on morphine consumption in younger patients (≤65 years) compared to older. All remaining subgroup analyses showed no evidence of a difference. The supplemental multivariate analyses did not support any significant interaction for sex (p = .256) or age (p = .730) but supported a significant interaction with the type of anaesthesia (p < .001). Our results from the quantile regression analyses indicate that the male sex and younger age (≤65 years) may be associated with a larger analgesic effect of dexamethasone than the effects in other types of patients. However, this is not supported by post-hoc multivariate linear regression analyses. The two types of analyses both supported a possible interaction with the type of anaesthesia.

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.

Higher versus lower blood pressure targets after cardiac arrest: Systematic review with individual patient data meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend targeting mean arterial pressure (MAP) > 65 mmHg in patients after cardiac arrest (CA). Recent trials have studied the effects of targeting a higher MAP as compared to a lower MAP after CA. We performed a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis to investigate the effects of higher versus lower MAP targets on patient outcome. METHOD: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, BIOSIS, CINAHL, Scopus, the Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, Google Scholar and the Turning Research into Practice database to identify trials randomizing patients to higher (≥71 mmHg) or lower (≤70 mmHg) MAP targets after CA and resuscitation. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, version 2 (RoB 2) to assess for risk of bias. The primary outcomes were 180-day all-cause mortality and poor neurologic recovery defined by a modified Rankin score of 4-6 or a cerebral performance category score of 3-5. RESULTS: Four eligible clinical trials were identified, randomizing a total of 1,087 patients. All the included trials were assessed as having a low risk for bias. The risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval for 180-day all-cause mortality for a higher versus a lower MAP target was 1.08 (0.92-1.26) and for poor neurologic recovery 1.01 (0.86-1.19). Trial sequential analysis showed that a 25% or higher treatment effect, i.e., RR < 0.75, can be excluded. No difference in serious adverse events was found between the higher and lower MAP groups. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting a higher MAP compared to a lower MAP is unlikely to reduce mortality or improve neurologic recovery after CA. Only a large treatment effect above 25% (RR < 0.75) could be excluded, and future studies are needed to investigate if relevant but lower treatment effect exists. Targeting a higher MAP was not associated with any increase in adverse effects.

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.

Quality of life, patient satisfaction, and cardiovascular outcomes of the randomised 2 x 3 factorial Copenhagen insulin and Metformin therapy (CIMT) trial - A detailed statistical analysis plan.

Background: The evidence on the effects of metformin and insulin in type 2 diabetes patients on quality of life, patient satisfaction, and cardiovascular outcomes is unclear. Methods: The Copenhagen Insulin and Metformin Therapy (CIMT) trial is an investigator-initiated multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial with a 2 × 3 factorial design conducted at eight hospitals in Denmark. Participants with type 2 diabetes were randomised to metformin (n = 206) versus placebo (n = 206); in combination with open-label biphasic insulin aspart one to three times daily (n = 137) versus insulin aspart three times daily in combination with insulin detemir once daily (n = 138) versus insulin detemir once daily (n = 137).We present a detailed description of the methodology and statistical analysis of the clinical CIMT outcomes including a detailed description of tests of the assumptions behind the statistical analyses. The outcomes are quality of life (Short Form Health Survey (SF-36)), Diabetes Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire, and Insulin Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (assessed at entry and 18 months after randomisation) and cardiovascular outcomes including time to a composite of either myocardial infarction, stroke, peripheral amputation, coronary revascularisation, peripheral revascularisation, or death. Discussions: This statistical analysis plan ensure the highest possible quality of the subsequent post-hoc analyses. Trial registration: The protocol was approved by the Regional Committee on Biomedical Research Ethics (H-D-2007-112), the Danish Medicines Agency (EudraCT: 2007-006665-33 CIMT), and registered within ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00657943, 8th of April 2008).

Protocolised reduction of non-resuscitation fluids versus usual care in patients with septic shock (REDUSE): a protocol for a multicentre feasibility trial.

INTRODUCTION: Administration of large volumes of fluids is associated with poor outcome in septic shock. Recent data suggest that non-resuscitation fluids are the major source of fluids in the intensive care unit (ICU) patients suffering from septic shock. The present trial is designed to test the hypothesis that a protocol targeting this source of fluids can reduce fluid administration compared with usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The design will be a multicentre, randomised, feasibility trial. Adult patients admitted to ICUs with septic shock will be randomised within 12 hours of admission to receive non-resuscitation fluids either according to a restrictive protocol or to receive usual care. The healthcare providers involved in the care of participants will not be blinded. The participants, outcome assessors at the 6-month follow-up and statisticians will be blinded. Primary outcome will be litres of fluids administered within 3 days of randomisation. Secondary outcomes will be proportion of randomised participants with outcome data on all-cause mortality; days alive and free of mechanical ventilation within 90 days of inclusion; any acute kidney injury and ischaemic events in the ICU (cerebral, cardiac, intestinal or limb ischaemia); proportion of surviving randomised patients who were assessed by European Quality of Life 5-Dimensions 5-Level questionnaire and Montreal Cognitive Assessment; proportion of all eligible patients who were randomised and proportion of participants experiencing at least one protocol violation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained in Sweden. Results of the primary and secondary outcomes will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05249088.

Pain treatment after total hip arthroplasty: Detailed statistical analysis plan for the RECIPE randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The RECIPE trial systematically investigates the effects of different combinations of paracetamol, ibuprofen and dexamethasone for pain treatment after total hip arthroplasty. To preserve transparency, minimise risk of bias and to prevent data-driven analysis, we present this detailed statistical analysis plan. METHODS: The RECIPE trial is a randomised, blinded, parallel four-group multicenter clinical trial for patients undergoing planned primary total hip arthroplasty. Interventions are initiated preoperatively and continued for 24 h postoperatively. Primary outcome is total opioid consumption 0-24 h after end of surgery. Primary analysis will be performed in the modified intention to treat population of all patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty, and all analyses will be stratified for site. We will perform pairwise comparisons between each of the four groups. The primary outcome will be analysed using the van Elteren test and we will present Hodges-Lehmann median differences and confidence intervals. Binary outcomes will be analysed using logistic regression. To preserve a family-wise error rate of <0.05, we will use a Bonferroni-adjusted alfa of 0.05/6 = 0.0083 for all six pairwise comparisons between groups when analysing the primary outcome. We will systematically assess the underlying statistical assumptions for each analysis. Data will be analysed by two blinded independent statisticians, and we will write abstracts covering all possible combinations of conclusions, before breaking the blind. DISCUSSION: The RECIPE trial will provide important information on benefit and harm of combinations of the most frequently used non-opioid analgesics for pain after primary hip arthroplasty.

Effect of Dexamethasone on Myocardial Injury After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Substudy of the Randomized Clinical DEX-2-TKA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS) carries a high postoperative mortality. In this preplanned, subgroup analysis of the randomized DEX-2-TKA Trial, we investigated the effect of dexamethasone versus placebo on the concentration of cardiac troponin I and T (TnI and TnT) on the first postoperative morning after total knee arthroplasty. In addition, frequency of MINS, myocardial infarction, and major adverse cardiovascular events where evaluated. METHODS: We included 290 patients who received either 24 mg of dexamethasone intravenously (given perioperatively) or placebo. Blood samples were analyzed as either TnI or T depending on trial site. RESULTS: A total of 236 samples were eligible for analysis of TnI and 38 samples for TnT on the first postoperative morning. The median (IQR) TnI concentration was 4.6 ng/L (0-7.2 ng/L) in the dexamethasone group and 4.5ng/l (0-7.0 ng/L) in the placebo group (P = .96) on the first postoperative morning. The median TnT was 9 ng/L (6-11 ng/L) in the dexamethasone group and 8 ng/L (5-10 ng/L) in the placebo group (P = .68). The frequencies of MINS, myocardial infarction, and major adverse cardiovascular events were similar in the compared groups, but these analyses were underpowered. CONCLUSION: We found no effect of dexamethasone on postoperative concentration of troponin I or T on the first postoperative morning after total knee arthroplasty.

Risks of serious adverse events associated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in gastrointestinal surgery. A protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Post-operative pain is frequent following gastrointestinal surgery and may result in prolonged hospitalisation, delayed recovery, and lower quality of life. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are effective analgesics and recommended by Enhanced Recovery After Surgery guidelines as part of opioid-sparing multimodal treatment. However, perioperative NSAID treatment may be associated with increased risk of harm. We will investigate the risks of serious adverse events associated with perioperative NSAID treatment in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. METHODS: This protocol uses the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. We wish to assess the effects of NSAIDs versus placebo, usual care, or no intervention on the incidence of serious adverse in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. We will include all randomised trials. To identify trials, we will search the medical literature analysis and retrieval system online, excerpta medica database, cochrane central register of controlled trials, web of science core collection, and BIOSIS. Two authors will screen the literature and extract data. We will use the 'Risk of Bias 2 tool' to assess the risks of systematic errors. We will perform meta-analyses using R. We will use Trial Sequential Analysis to account for the risks of random errors. We will create a "Summary of Findings"-table in which we will present our primary and secondary outcome results. We will assess the certainty of the evidence using grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation. DISCUSSION: This systematic review can potentially elucidate the risks of perioperative NSAID treatment in gastrointestinal surgery and inform the already established non-opioid multimodal pain treatment regimen recommended by enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines.

Influence of temperature management at 33 °C versus normothermia on survival in patients with vasopressor support after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a post hoc analysis of the TTM-2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Targeted temperature management at 33 °C (TTM33) has been employed in effort to mitigate brain injury in unconscious survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Current guidelines recommend prevention of fever, not excluding TTM33. The main objective of this study was to investigate if TTM33 is associated with mortality in patients with vasopressor support on admission after OHCA. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of patients included in the TTM-2 trial, an international, multicenter trial, investigating outcomes in unconscious adult OHCA patients randomized to TTM33 versus normothermia. Patients were grouped according to level of circulatory support on admission: (1) no-vasopressor support, mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) ≥ 70 mmHg; (2) moderate-vasopressor support MAP < 70 mmHg or any dose of dopamine/dobutamine or noradrenaline/adrenaline dose ≤ 0.25 µg/kg/min; and (3) high-vasopressor support, noradrenaline/adrenaline dose > 0.25 µg/kg/min. Hazard ratios with TTM33 were calculated for all-cause 180-day mortality in these groups. RESULTS: The TTM-2 trial enrolled 1900 patients. Data on primary outcome were available for 1850 patients, with 662, 896, and 292 patients in the, no-, moderate-, or high-vasopressor support groups, respectively. Hazard ratio for 180-day mortality was 1.04 [98.3% CI 0.78-1.39] in the no-, 1.22 [98.3% CI 0.97-1.53] in the moderate-, and 0.97 [98.3% CI 0.68-1.38] in the high-vasopressor support groups with regard to TTM33. Results were consistent in an imputed, adjusted sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory analysis, temperature control at 33 °C after OHCA, compared to normothermia, was not associated with higher incidence of death in patients stratified according to vasopressor support on admission. Trial registration Clinical trials identifier NCT02908308 , registered September 20, 2016.

Ventilatory settings in the initial 72 h and their association with outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: a preplanned secondary analysis of the targeted hypothermia versus targeted normothermia after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (TTM2) trial.

PURPOSE: The optimal ventilatory settings in patients after cardiac arrest and their association with outcome remain unclear. The aim of this study was to describe the ventilatory settings applied in the first 72 h of mechanical ventilation in patients after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and their association with 6-month outcomes. METHODS: Preplanned sub-analysis of the Target Temperature Management-2 trial. Clinical outcomes were mortality and functional status (assessed by the Modified Rankin Scale) 6 months after randomization. RESULTS: A total of 1848 patients were included (mean age 64 [Standard Deviation, SD = 14] years). At 6 months, 950 (51%) patients were alive and 898 (49%) were dead. Median tidal volume (VT) was 7 (Interquartile range, IQR = 6.2-8.5) mL per Predicted Body Weight (PBW), positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) was 7 (IQR = 5-9) cmH20, plateau pressure was 20 cmH20 (IQR = 17-23), driving pressure was 12 cmH20 (IQR = 10-15), mechanical power 16.2 J/min (IQR = 12.1-21.8), ventilatory ratio was 1.27 (IQR = 1.04-1.6), and respiratory rate was 17 breaths/minute (IQR = 14-20). Median partial pressure of oxygen was 87 mmHg (IQR = 75-105), and partial pressure of carbon dioxide was 40.5 mmHg (IQR = 36-45.7). Respiratory rate, driving pressure, and mechanical power were independently associated with 6-month mortality (omnibus p-values for their non-linear trajectories: p < 0.0001, p = 0.026, and p = 0.029, respectively). Respiratory rate and driving pressure were also independently associated with poor neurological outcome (odds ratio, OR = 1.035, 95% confidence interval, CI = 1.003-1.068, p = 0.030, and OR = 1.005, 95% CI = 1.001-1.036, p = 0.048). A composite formula calculated as [(4*driving pressure) + respiratory rate] was independently associated with mortality and poor neurological outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Protective ventilation strategies are commonly applied in patients after cardiac arrest. Ventilator settings in the first 72 h after hospital admission, in particular driving pressure and respiratory rate, may influence 6-month outcomes.

Aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention in vaccine randomised clinical trials: a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention in randomised clinical trials in relation to human vaccine development. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis assessing the certainty of evidence with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). DATA SOURCES: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, BIOSIS, Science Citation Index Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science until 29 June 2021, and Chinese databases until September 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials irrespective of type, status and language of publication, with trial participants of any sex, age, ethnicity, diagnosis, comorbidity and country of residence. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias with Cochrane's RoB tool 1. Dichotomous data were analysed as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous data as mean differences. We explored both fixed-effect and random-effects models, with 95% CI. Heterogeneity was quantified with I2 statistic. We GRADE assessed the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: We included 102 randomised clinical trials (26 457 participants). Aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention may have no effect on serious adverse events (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.43; very low certainty) and on all-cause mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.41; very low certainty). No trial reported on quality of life. Aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention may increase adverse events (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.20; very low certainty). We found no or little evidence of a difference between aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention when assessing serology with geometric mean titres or concentrations or participants' seroprotection. CONCLUSIONS: Based on evidence at very low certainty, we were unable to identify benefits of aluminium adjuvants, which may be associated with adverse events considered non-serious.

Protocol for an individual patient data meta-analysis on blood pressure targets after cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: Hypotension is common after cardiac arrest (CA), and current guidelines recommend using vasopressors to target mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) higher than 65 mmHg. Pilot trials have compared higher and lower MAP targets. We will review the evidence on whether higher MAP improves outcome after cardiac arrest. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted based on a systematic search of relevant major medical databases from their inception onwards, including MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), as well as clinical trial registries. We will identify randomised controlled trials published in the English language that compare targeting a MAP higher than 65-70 mmHg in CA patients using vasopressors, inotropes and intravenous fluids. The data extraction will be performed separately by two authors (a third author will be involved in case of disagreement), followed by a bias assessment with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool using an eight-step procedure for assessing if thresholds for clinical significance are crossed. The outcomes will be all-cause mortality, functional long-term outcomes and serious adverse events. We will contact the authors of the identified trials to request individual anonymised patient data to enable individual patient data meta-analysis, aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses and multivariable regression, controlling for baseline characteristics. The certainty of the evidence will be assessed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. We will register this systematic review with Prospero and aim to redo it when larger trials are published in the near future. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol defines the performance of a systematic review on whether a higher MAP after cardiac arrest improves patient outcome. Repeating this systematic review including more data likely will allow for more certainty regarding the effect of the intervention and possible sub-groups differences.

Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: A living systematic review with Trial Sequential Analysis and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is rapidly spreading causing extensive burdens across the world. Effective vaccines to prevent COVID-19 are urgently needed. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Our objective was to assess the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines through analyses of all currently available randomized clinical trials. We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and other sources from inception to June 17, 2021 for randomized clinical trials assessing vaccines for COVID-19. At least two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We conducted meta-analyses, network meta-analyses, and Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA). Our primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, vaccine efficacy, and serious adverse events. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We identified 46 trials; 35 trials randomizing 219 864 participants could be included in our analyses. Our meta-analyses showed that mRNA vaccines (efficacy, 95% [95% confidence interval (CI), 92% to 97%]; 71 514 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); inactivated vaccines (efficacy, 61% [95% CI, 52% to 68%]; 48 029 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); protein subunit vaccines (efficacy, 77% [95% CI, -5% to 95%]; 17 737 participants; 2 trials; low certainty); and viral vector vaccines (efficacy 68% [95% CI, 61% to 74%]; 71 401 participants; 5 trials; low certainty) prevented COVID-19. Viral vector vaccines decreased mortality (risk ratio, 0.25 [95% CI 0.09 to 0.67]; 67 563 participants; 3 trials, low certainty), but comparable data on inactivated, mRNA, and protein subunit vaccines were imprecise. None of the vaccines showed evidence of a difference on serious adverse events, but observational evidence suggested rare serious adverse events. All the vaccines increased the risk of non-serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that all the included vaccines are effective in preventing COVID-19. The mRNA vaccines seem most effective in preventing COVID-19, but viral vector vaccines seem most effective in reducing mortality. Further trials and longer follow-up are necessary to provide better insight into the safety profile of these vaccines.

Percutaneous coronary intervention in calcified stenoses: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis and network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Severely calcified coronary stenoses are difficult to treat with percutaneous coronary interventions. The presence of severe calcifications complicates lesion preparation, advancement of stents and achievement of full stent expansion. Intervention in these lesions is associated with an increased risk of complications and procedural failure compared with treatment of less calcified lesions. Due to the high burden of comorbidity, patients with severely calcified lesions are often excluded from interventional trials, and there is little evidence on how to treat these patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review of randomised trials enrolling patients with calcified coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. We will investigate any percutaneous treatment option including any lesion preparation, stenting or postdilatation technique. We will search The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Excerpta Medica database for studies from inception to 31 October 2022. The coprimary outcome is all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. If appropriate, we will conduct meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis and network meta-analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required for this study. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal in this field. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021226034.

Guided self-determination intervention versus attention control for people with type 2 diabetes in outpatient clinics: a protocol for a randomised clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: In the management of type 2 diabetes, autonomy-supporting interventions may be a prerequisite to achieving more long-term improvement. Preliminary evidence has shown that the guided self-determination (GSD) method might have an effect on haemoglobin A1c and diabetes distress in people with type 1 diabetes. Previous trials were at risk of uncertainty. Thus, the objective is to investigate the benefits and harms of a GSD intervention versus an attention control group intervention in adults with type 2 diabetes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This trial protocol is guided by the The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for International Trials Statement. We describe the protocol for a pragmatic randomised, dual-centre, parallel-group, superiority clinical trial testing a GSD intervention versus an attention control for people with type 2 diabetes in outpatient clinics. The participants (n=224) will be recruited from two diverse regions of Denmark. The experimental stepped-care intervention will consist of three to five GSD sessions lasting up to 1 hour with a trained GSD facilitator. The sessions will be conducted face to face, by video conference or over the telephone. The attention controls will receive three to five sessions lasting up to an hour with a communication-trained healthcare professional provided face to-face, by video conference, or over the telephone. Participants will be included if they have type 2 diabetes,>18 years old, are not pregnant. Participants will be assessed before randomisation, at 5-month, and 12-month follow-up, the latter being the primary. The primary outcome is diabetes distress. Secondary outcomes are quality of life, depressive symptoms and non-serious adverse events. Exploratory outcomes are haemoglobin A1c, motivation and serious adverse events. Data will be collected using REDCap and analysed using Stata V.16. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial will be conducted in compliance with the protocol, the Helsinki Declaration in its latest form, International Harmonisation of Good Clinical Practice guidelines and the applicable regulatory requirement(s). The trial has been approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency (P-2020-864). The Ethics Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark reviewed the trial protocol, but exempted the trial protocol from full review (H-20003638). The results of the trial will be presented at the outpatient clinics treating people with type 2 diabetes, at national and international conferences as well as to associations for people with diabetes and their relatives. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04601311.

Short-term outcomes of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors for fetal growth restriction: a study protocol for a systematic review with individual participant data meta-analysis, aggregate meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Early onset fetal growth restriction secondary to placental insufficiency can lead to severe maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Pre-clinical studies and a few small randomised clinical trials have suggested that phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE-5) inhibitors may have protective effects against placental insufficiency in this context; however, robust evidence is lacking. The STRIDER Consortium conducted four randomised trials to investigate the use of a PDE-5 inhibitor, sildenafil, for the treatment of early onset fetal growth restriction. We present a protocol for the pre-planned systematic review with individual participant data meta-analysis, aggregate meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis of these and other eligible trials. The main objective of this study will be to evaluate the effects of PDE-5 inhibitors on neonatal morbidity compared with placebo or no intervention among pregnancies with fetal growth restriction. METHODS: We will search the following electronic databases with no language or date restrictions: OVID MEDLINE, OVID EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), and the clinical trial registers Clinicaltrials.gov and World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We will identify randomised trials of PDE-5 inhibitors in singleton pregnancies with growth restriction. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. Our primary outcome will be infant survival without evidence of serious adverse neonatal outcome. Secondary outcomes will include gestational age at birth and birth weight z-scores. We will assess bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We will conduct aggregate meta-analysis using fixed and random effects models, Trial Sequential Analysis, and individual participant data meta-analysis using one- and two-stage approaches. The certainty of evidence will be assessed with GRADE. DISCUSSION: This pre-defined protocol will minimise bias during analysis and interpretation of results, toward the goal of providing robust evidence regarding the use of PDE-5 inhibitors for the treatment of early onset fetal growth restriction. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42017069688).

Antibiotics for hospital-acquired pneumonia in neonates and children.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired pneumonia is one of the most common hospital-acquired infections in children worldwide. Most of our understanding of hospital-acquired pneumonia in children is derived from adult studies. To our knowledge, no systematic review with meta-analysis has assessed the benefits and harms of different antibiotic regimens in neonates and children with hospital-acquired pneumonia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of different antibiotic regimens for hospital-acquired pneumonia in neonates and children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trial registers to February 2021, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials comparing one antibiotic regimen with any other antibiotic regimen for hospital-acquired pneumonia in neonates and children. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events; our secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, pneumonia-related mortality, non-serious adverse events, and treatment failure. Our primary time point of interest was at maximum follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: We included four randomised clinical trials (84 participants). We assessed all trials as having high risk of bias. We did not conduct any meta-analyses, as the included trials did not compare similar antibiotic regimens. Each of the four trials assessed a different comparison, as follows: cefepime versus ceftazidime; linezolid versus vancomycin; meropenem versus cefotaxime; and ceftobiprole versus cephalosporin. Only one trial reported our primary outcomes of all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Three trials reported our secondary outcome of treatment failure. Two trials primarily included community-acquired pneumonia and hospitalised children with bacterial infections, hence the children with hospital-acquired pneumonia constituted subgroups of the total sample sizes. Where outcomes were reported, the certainty of the evidence was very low for each of the comparisons. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. None of the included trials assessed health-related quality of life, pneumonia-related mortality, or non-serious adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The relative beneficial and harmful effects of different antibiotic regimens remain unclear due to the very low certainty of the available evidence. The current evidence is insufficient to support any antibiotic regimen being superior to another. Randomised clinical trials assessing different antibiotic regimens for hospital-acquired pneumonia in children and neonates are warranted.