Use of 21-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine Among U.S. Adults: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2024.

On June 17, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration approved 21-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) (PCV21; CAPVAXIVE; Merck Sharp & Dohme, LLC) for adults aged ≥18 years. PCV21 does not contain certain serotypes that are included in other licensed pneumococcal vaccines but adds eight new serotypes. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends use of a PCV for all adults aged ≥65 years, as well as adults aged 19-64 years with certain risk conditions for pneumococcal disease if they have not received a PCV or whose vaccination history is unknown. Previously, options included either 20-valent PCV (PCV20; Prevnar20; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) alone or a 15-valent PCV (PCV15; VAXNEUVANCE; Merck Sharp & Dohme, LLC) in series with 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23; Pneumovax23; Merck Sharp & Dohme, LLC). Additional recommendations for use of PCV20 exist for adults who started their pneumococcal vaccination series with 13-valent PCV (PCV13; Prevnar13; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.). The ACIP Pneumococcal Vaccines Work Group employed the Evidence to Recommendations framework to guide its deliberations on PCV21 vaccination among U.S. adults. On June 27, 2024, ACIP recommended a single dose of PCV21 as an option for adults aged ≥19 years for whom PCV is currently recommended. Indications for PCV have not changed from previous recommendations. This report summarizes evidence considered for these recommendations and provides clinical guidance for use of PCV21.

GRADE guidance 39: using GRADE-ADOLOPMENT to adopt, adapt or create contextualized recommendations from source guidelines and evidence syntheses.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT methodology has been widely used to adopt, adapt, or de novo develop recommendations from existing or new guideline and evidence synthesis efforts. The objective of this guidance is to refine the operationalization for applying GRADE-ADOLOPMENT. METHODS: Through iterative discussions, online meetings, and email communications, the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT project group drafted the updated guidance. We then conducted a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and a scoping review of published and planned adolopment guideline projects. The lead authors refined the existing approach based on the scoping review findings and feedback from members of the GRADE working group. We presented the revised approach to the group in November 2022 (approximately 115 people), in May 2023 (approximately 100 people), and twice in September 2023 (approximately 60 and 90 people) for approval. RESULTS: This GRADE guidance shows how to effectively and efficiently contextualize recommendations using the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach by doing the following: (1) showcasing alternative pathways for starting an adolopment effort; (2) elaborating on the different essential steps of this approach, such as building on existing evidence-to-decision (EtDs), when available or developing new EtDs, if necessary; and (3) providing examples from adolopment case studies to facilitate the application of the approach. We demonstrate how to use contextual evidence to make judgments about EtD criteria, and highlight the importance of making the resulting EtDs available to facilitate adolopment efforts by others. CONCLUSION: This updated GRADE guidance further operationalizes the application of GRADE-ADOLOPMENT based on over 6 years of experience. It serves to support uptake and application by end users interested in contextualizing recommendations to a local setting or specific reality in a short period of time or with limited resources.

Non-Ergot Dopamine Agonists and the Risk of Heart Failure and Other Adverse Cardiovascular Reactions in Parkinson's Disease.

Reports suggest possible risks of adverse cardiovascular reactions, including heart failure, associated with non-ergot dopamine agonist (DA) use in Parkinson's disease (PD). The objectives of our review were to evaluate the risk of heart failure and other adverse cardiovascular reactions in PD patients who received a non-ergot DA compared with other anti-PD pharmacological interventions, placebo, or no intervention. Studies were identified via searches of six bibliographic databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRS) were eligible for study inclusion. Random-effect meta-analyses were performed to estimate adverse cardiovascular reaction risks. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. In total, forty-four studies (thirty-six RCTs and eight NRS) satisfied our inclusion criteria. A single RCT found no significant difference in the risk of heart failure with ropinirole compared with bromocriptine (odds ratio (OR) 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 2.04; low certainty). Conversely, three case-control studies reported a risk of heart failure with non-ergot DA treatment. The quality of evidence for the risk of heart failure was judged as low or very low. Findings suggest that non-ergot DA use may be associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including heart failure. Studies are needed to better understand cardiovascular risks associated with PD treatment.

The Omission of Anthracycline Chemotherapy in Women with Early HER2-Negative Breast Cancer-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Anthracycline-taxane is the standard chemotherapy strategy for treating high-risk early breast cancer despite the potentially life-threatening adverse events caused by anthracyclines. Commonly, the combination of docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC) is considered an alternative option. However, the efficacy of TC compared to anthracycline-taxane chemotherapy is unclear. This study compares disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and cardiotoxicity between adjuvant TC and anthracycline-taxane for stages I-III, HER2-negative breast cancer. METHODS: A systematic search on MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomized-controlled trials published until 11 March 2024, yielded 203 studies with 11,803 patients, and seven trials were included. RESULTS: TC results in little to no difference in DFS (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98-1.20; moderate-certainty of evidence); OS (1.02, 95% CI 0.89-1.16; high-certainty of evidence); and cardiotoxicity (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.16-1.76; high-certainty of evidence), compared to anthracycline-taxane. In the subgroup analysis, patients with ≥4 lymph nodes had improved DFS from anthracycline-taxane over TC. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there was no difference between TC and anthracycline-taxane in DFS, OS and cardiotoxicity. In women with ≥4 nodes, anthracycline-taxane was associated with a substantial reduction in relapse events, compared to TC. Our study supports the current standard of practice, which is to use anthracycline-taxane and TC chemotherapy as a reasonable option in select cases.

The role of influenza Hemagglutination-Inhibition antibody as a vaccine mediator in children.

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination may protect through the humoral immune response, cellular immune response, or possibly both. Immunity after vaccination can be mediated through antibodies that may be detected by the rise of serum hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) titers. Our objective was to investigate the proportion of protection against influenza mediated through antibodies by measuring the rise of HAI titer (indirect effect) compared to that induced through other immune mechanisms (direct effect) for influenza A and B. METHODS: We analysed data from a cluster randomized trial conducted during the 2008-2009 season in which Canadian Hutterite children were vaccinated against influenza. We used inverse probability weighting to calculate the indirect and direct effect of vaccination against influenza A/H3N2 and influenza B/Brisbane using HAI titres and overall vaccine efficacy. RESULTS: We included data on 617 children from 46 Hutterite colonies, aged between 3 and 15 years who were vaccinated with either inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine or hepatitis A vaccine. Vaccine efficacy was 63 % for influenza A (H3N2) and 28 % for influenza B. The hazard ratio for protection against influenza A/H3N2 due to an indirect effect of vaccination was 0.96 (95 % confidence interval (CI) of 0.00 to 2.89) while for the direct effect it was 0.38 (95 % CI of 0.00 to 5.47). The hazard ratio for influenza B indirect effect was 0.75 (95 % CI of 0.07 to 1) and for the direct effect 0.96 (95 % CI of 0.00 to 12.02). In contrast, repeating the analysis using microneutralization in a subgroup of 488 children revealed that the protective effect for vaccination for A/H3N2 was entirely mediated by antibodies but only for 13 % for influenza B. CONCLUSIONS: Although vaccination provided higher protective effectiveness against influenza A than B, most of the influenza A vaccine efficacy likely occurred through antibodies other than what could be detected by HAI titres. In contrast, for influenza B, while the HAI titres appeared to mediate most of the vaccine effectiveness, this was not confirmed by microneutralization analysis.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Noise Annoyance as a Determinant of Physiological Changes Linked to Disease Promotion.

This systematic review investigates the certainty of evidence (CoE) regarding noise annoyance as a determinant of biological changes known to contribute to disease development. We searched PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and CINAHL for English-language comparative studies conducted on humans of any age from 1 January 1940, to 28 August 2023. Further, studies that provided quantitative data on the relationship between noise annoyance and biomarkers of interest were included. Where possible, random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate the odds ratios of noise annoyance on biomarkers and biological conditions considered to be risk factors for developing health effects. The risk of bias of individual studies was assessed using the Risk of Bias of Non-randomized Studies of Exposures (ROBINS-E) instrument. The CoE for each outcome was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The search identified 23 primary studies reporting on relevant biomarkers. Although some studies and pooled estimates suggest a possible association between noise annoyance and biological measures, the CoE overall is very low due to concerns with the risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision in the estimates of effects. In the context of environmental impact assessment, where guidelines aim to mitigate the prevalence of populations experiencing a high level of noise annoyance, our results suggest that such practices should be grounded in the understanding that annoyance is health-relevant because it reflects an undesirable reaction to noise, rather than a precursor to chronic physical health conditions.

Considering planetary health in health guidelines and health technology assessments: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: This protocol outlines a scoping review with the objective of identifying and exploring planetary health considerations within existing health guidelines and health technology assessments (HTA). The insights gained from this review will serve as a basis for shaping future Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) guidance on planetary health. METHODS: We will adhere to the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. We will conduct a comprehensive search and screening of results in all languages across various databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Global Health, Health Systems Evidence, Greenfile, and Environmental Issues. Additionally, we will supplement this search with resources such as the GIN library, BIGG database, Epistemonikos, GRADE guidelines repository, GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool Database, MAGICapp, NICE website, WHO websites, and a manual exploration of unpublished relevant documents using Google incognito mode. Two independent reviewers will screen and assess the full texts of identified documents according to the eligibility criteria. The following information from each full text will be extracted: document title; first author's name; publication year; language; document type; document as a guideline or HTA; the topic/discipline; document purpose/study objective; developing/sponsoring organization; the country in which the study/guideline/HTA report was conducted; definition of planetary health or related concept provided; types of planetary health experts engaged; study methods; suggested methods to assess planetary health; use of secondary data on planetary health outcomes; description for use of life cycle assessment; description for assessing the quality of life cycle; population/intended audience; interventions; category; applicable planetary health boundaries; consideration of social justice/global equity; phase of intervention in life cycle related to planetary health addressed; the measure of planetary health impact; impact on biodiversity/land use; one health/animal welfare mention; funding; and conflict of interest. Data analysis will involve a combination of descriptive statistics and directed content analysis, with results presented in a narrative format and displayed in tables and graphs. DISCUSSION: The final review results will be submitted to open-access peer-reviewed journals for publication when they become available. The research findings will also be disseminated at relevant planetary health conferences and workshops. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/3jmsa ).

Use of the Pfizer Pentavalent Meningococcal Vaccine Among Persons Aged ≥10 Years: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2023.

Meningococcal disease is a life-threatening invasive infection caused by Neisseria meningitidis. Two quadrivalent (serogroups A, C, W, and Y) meningococcal conjugate vaccines (MenACWY) (MenACWY-CRM [Menveo, GSK] and MenACWY-TT [MenQuadfi, Sanofi Pasteur]) and two serogroup B meningococcal vaccines (MenB) (MenB-4C [Bexsero, GSK] and MenB-FHbp [Trumenba, Pfizer Inc.]), are licensed and available in the United States and have been recommended by CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). On October 20, 2023, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of a pentavalent meningococcal vaccine (MenACWY-TT/MenB-FHbp [Penbraya, Pfizer Inc.]) for prevention of invasive disease caused by N. meningitidis serogroups A, B, C, W, and Y among persons aged 10-25 years. On October 25, 2023, ACIP recommended that MenACWY-TT/MenB-FHbp may be used when both MenACWY and MenB are indicated at the same visit for the following groups: 1) healthy persons aged 16-23 years (routine schedule) when shared clinical decision-making favors administration of MenB vaccine, and 2) persons aged ≥10 years who are at increased risk for meningococcal disease (e.g., because of persistent complement deficiencies, complement inhibitor use, or functional or anatomic asplenia). Different manufacturers' serogroup B-containing vaccines are not interchangeable; therefore, when MenACWY-TT/MenB-FHbp is used, subsequent doses of MenB should be from the same manufacturer (Pfizer Inc.). This report summarizes evidence considered for these recommendations and provides clinical guidance for the use of MenACWY-TT/MenB-FHbp.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Serologic Testing.

BACKGROUND: The role of serologic testing for SARS-CoV-2 has evolved during the pandemic as seroprevalence in global populations has increased. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) serology literature and construct updated best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing. This guideline is an update to the fourth in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 guidelines developed by IDSA. OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based recommendations and identify unmet research needs pertaining to the use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for diagnosis, decisions related to vaccination and administration of monoclonal antibodies or convalescent plasma in immunocompromised patients, and identification of a serologic correlate of immunity. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists and experts in systematic literature reviewed, identified, and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. RESULTS: The panel recommends against serologic testing to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first two weeks after symptom onset (strong recommendations, low certainty of evidence). Serologic testing should not be used to provide evidence of COVID-19 in symptomatic patients with a high clinical suspicion and repeatedly negative nucleic acid amplification test results (strong recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). Serologic testing may assist with the diagnosis of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (strong recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). To seek evidence for prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, the panel suggests testing for IgG, IgG/IgM, or total antibodies to nucleocapsid protein three to five weeks after symptom onset (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence). In individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination, we suggest against routine serologic testing given no demonstrated benefit to improving patient outcomes (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence.) The panel acknowledges further that a negative spike antibody test may be a useful metric to identify immunocompromised patients who are candidates for immune therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The high seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 worldwide limits the utility of detecting anti-SARS CoV-2 antibody. The certainty of available evidence supporting the use of serology for diagnosis was graded as very low to low. Future studies should use serologic assays calibrated to a common reference standard.

Publication of pharmacy resident research projects: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Pharmacy residents often aspire to develop research skills through conducting a research project. Project publication rates among pharmacy residents are variable and at times low; however, previous studies have been limited to specific geographic regions and timeframes. This study sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the proportion of pharmacy resident research projects published in the peer-reviewed literature. METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, and the Web of Science Core Collection was performed from database inception to May 25, 2023. Articles were included if they were full-text, peer-reviewed manuscripts of original research presenting observational data regarding pharmacy resident research project publication rates. Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were conducted by 2 independent reviewers. A proportional meta-analysis using a random effects model of the included studies was conducted to generate a pooled, overall proportion. RESULTS: The search yielded 5,225 records and 12 articles that met the inclusion criteria. All studies were retrospective and observational. Risk of selection and cohort identification biases was "high," whereas that of detection and timeframe biases was "low." The included studies represented 6,990 resident research projects, 777 of which were published in the peer-reviewed literature. Publication rates across individual studies ranged from 1.8% to 36.2%. The pooled proportion (scale of 0 to 1) of projects published was 0.13 (95% CI, 0.09-0.19). CONCLUSION: Pharmacy resident research project publication rates are low at 13%. Furthermore, studies reporting project publication rates over time suggest a neutral or negative trend in publication rates despite an exponential increase in the number of pharmacy residents.

Prevalence of Emergent Dolutegravir Resistance Mutations in People Living with HIV: A Rapid Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Dolutegravir (DTG) is a cornerstone of global antiretroviral (ARV) therapy (ART) due to its high efficacy and favorable tolerability. However, limited data exist regarding the risk of emergent integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) drug-resistance mutations (DRMs) in individuals receiving DTG-containing ART. METHODS: We performed a PubMed search using the term "Dolutegravir", last updated 18 December 2023, to estimate the prevalence of VF with emergent INSTI DRMs in people living with HIV (PLWH) without previous VF on an INSTI who received DTG-containing ART. RESULTS: Of 2131 retrieved records, 43 clinical trials, 39 cohorts, and 6 cross-sectional studies provided data across 6 clinical scenarios based on ART history, virological status, and co-administered ARVs: (1) ART-naïve PLWH receiving DTG plus two NRTIs; (2) ART-naïve PLWH receiving DTG plus lamivudine; (3) ART-experienced PLWH with VF on a previous regimen receiving DTG plus two NRTIs; (4) ART-experienced PLWH with virological suppression receiving DTG plus two NRTIs; (5) ART-experienced PLWH with virological suppression receiving DTG and a second ARV; and (6) ART-experienced PLWH with virological suppression receiving DTG monotherapy. The median proportion of PLWH in clinical trials with emergent INSTI DRMs was 1.5% for scenario 3 and 3.4% for scenario 6. In the remaining four trial scenarios, VF prevalence with emergent INSTI DRMs was ≤0.1%. Data from cohort studies minimally influenced prevalence estimates from clinical trials, whereas cross-sectional studies yielded prevalence data lacking denominator details. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical trials, the prevalence of VF with emergent INSTI DRMs in PLWH receiving DTG-containing regimens has been low. Novel approaches are required to assess VF prevalence with emergent INSTI DRMs in PLWH receiving DTG in real-world settings.

A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E).

BACKGROUND: Observational epidemiologic studies provide critical data for the evaluation of the potential effects of environmental, occupational and behavioural exposures on human health. Systematic reviews of these studies play a key role in informing policy and practice. Systematic reviews should incorporate assessments of the risk of bias in results of the included studies. OBJECTIVE: To develop a new tool, Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Exposures (ROBINS-E) to assess risk of bias in estimates from cohort studies of the causal effect of an exposure on an outcome. METHODS AND RESULTS: ROBINS-E was developed by a large group of researchers from diverse research and public health disciplines through a series of working groups, in-person meetings and pilot testing phases. The tool aims to assess the risk of bias in a specific result (exposure effect estimate) from an individual observational study that examines the effect of an exposure on an outcome. A series of preliminary considerations informs the core ROBINS-E assessment, including details of the result being assessed and the causal effect being estimated. The assessment addresses bias within seven domains, through a series of 'signalling questions'. Domain-level judgements about risk of bias are derived from the answers to these questions, then combined to produce an overall risk of bias judgement for the result, together with judgements about the direction of bias. CONCLUSION: ROBINS-E provides a standardized framework for examining potential biases in results from cohort studies. Future work will produce variants of the tool for other epidemiologic study designs (e.g. case-control studies). We believe that ROBINS-E represents an important development in the integration of exposure assessment, evidence synthesis and causal inference.

Towards a better understanding of real-world home-visiting programs: a large-scale effectiveness study of parenting mechanisms in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: The scale-up of parenting programmes to support early childhood development (ECD) is poorly understood. Little is known about how and when early interventions are most effective. Sustainability of ECD programming requires a better understanding of the mechanisms of real-world interventions. We examined the effects on caregiving practices of Primeira Infância Melhor (PIM), a state-wide home-visiting programme in Brazil. METHODS: This propensity score matched, longitudinal, quasiexperimental study uses data from the 2015 Pelotas Birth Cohort. We matched children who received PIM at any age with other cohort children on 25 key covariates. Sensitivity, guidance and responsiveness were assessed using video-recorded play tasks. Coerciveness and the parent-child relationship were assessed using the Parenting and Family Adjustment Scales. All parenting outcomes were examined at age 4 years. Separate moderation analyses were conducted for each effect modifier: family income, child age and duration of participation. RESULTS: Out of 4275 children in the cohort, 797 were enrolled in PIM up to age 4 years. 3018 children (70.6%) were included in the analytic sample, of whom 587 received PIM and 2431 were potential controls. We found a positive effect of PIM on responsiveness (ß=0.08, 95% CIs 0.002 to 0.16) and sensitivity (ß=0.10, 95% CIs 0.02 to 0.19). No effect was found for any secondary outcomes. Moderation analyses revealed a stronger positive effect on sensitivity for low-income parents (ß=0.18, 95% CIs 0.03 to 0.34). CONCLUSION: A state-wide, home-visiting programme in Brazil improved aspects of responsive caregiving. Effects were more pronounced for low-income families, suggesting benefits of purposeful targeting.

Certainty of Evidence Assessment in Systematic Reviews Published by High-Impact Sports Science Journals: A Meta-epidemiological Study.

BACKGROUND: Assessing certainty of evidence is a key element of any systematic review. The aim of this meta-epidemiology study was to understand the frequency and ways with which certainty of evidence is assessed in contemporary systematic reviews published in high-impact sports science journals. METHODS: We searched PubMed and relevant journal web sites from 1 August 2016 to 11 October 2022 for systematic reviews published in the top-ten highest-impact journals within the 2020 Journal Citation Report for the Sports Sciences category. Pairs of independent reviewers screened items using a priori established criteria. RESULTS: Of 1250 eligible documents, 258 (20.6%) assessed the certainty of evidence, defined as using two or more distinct domains to provide an overall rating of the trustworthiness of findings across studies. Nine methods were cited for assessing certainty, with the most common being the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach (61.6%). The proportion of systematic reviews assessing certainty of evidence appeared to increase over the 6-year timeframe analyzed. Across all reviews analyzed, a large majority addressed the domains of risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency of the results. Other certainty domains including indirectness/applicability were less commonly assessed. DISCUSSION: Only one in five recent contemporary systematic reviews in the field of exercise and sports science assessed certainty of evidence. Organizational and institutional education on methods for assessing evidence may help further increase uptake of these methods and improve both the quality and clinical impact of systematic reviews in the field.

Failure of scabies treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Treatment failure is considered to be an important factor in relation to the increase in scabies incidence over the last decade. However, the regional and temporal differences, in addition to the predictors of therapy failure, are unclear. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the prevalence of treatment failure in patients with scabies and investigation of associated factors. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, Global Health and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to August 2021 for randomized and quasi-randomized trials, in addition to observational studies that enrolled children or adults diagnosed with confirmed or clinical scabies treated with permethrin, ivermectin, crotamiton, benzyl benzoate, malathion, sulfur or lindane, and measured treatment failure or factors associated with treatment failure. We performed a random effects meta-analysis for all outcomes reported by at least two studies. RESULTS: A total of 147 studies were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. The overall prevalence of treatment failure was 15.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.9-17.6; I2 = 95.3%, moderate-certainty evidence] with regional differences between World Health Organization regions (P = 0.003) being highest in the Western Pacific region (26.9%, 95% CI 14.5-41.2). Oral ivermectin (11.8%, 95% CI 8.4-15.4), topical ivermectin (9.3%, 95% CI 5.1-14.3) and permethrin (10.8%, 95% CI 7.5-14.5) had relatively lower failure prevalence compared with the overall prevalence. Failure prevalence was lower in patients treated with two doses of oral ivermectin (7.1%, 95% CI 3.1-12.3) compared with those treated with one dose (15.2%, 95% CI 10.8-20.2; P = 0.021). Overall and permethrin treatment failure prevalence in the included studies (1983-2021) increased by 0.27% and 0.58% per year, respectively. Only three studies conducted a multivariable risk factor analysis; no studies assessed resistance. CONCLUSIONS: A second dose of ivermectin showed lower failure prevalence than single-dose ivermectin, which should be considered in all guidelines. The increase in treatment failure over time hints at decreasing mite susceptibility for several drugs, but reasons for failure are rarely assessed. Ideally, scabicide susceptibility testing should be implemented in future studies.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Diagnosis of COVID-19: Molecular Diagnostic Testing (December 2023).

Accurate molecular diagnostic tests are necessary for confirming a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and for identifying asymptomatic carriage of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The number of available SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection tests continues to increase as does the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. Thus, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed an evidence-based diagnostic guideline to assist clinicians, clinical laboratorians, patients, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests. In addition, we provide a conceptual framework for understanding molecular diagnostic test performance, discuss nuances of test result interpretation in a variety of practice settings, and highlight important unmet research needs related to COVID-19 diagnostic testing. IDSA convened a multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review to identify and prioritize clinical questions and outcomes related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. The panel agreed on 12 diagnostic recommendations. Access to accurate SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing is critical for patient care, hospital infection prevention, and the public health response to COVID-19 infection. Information on the clinical performance of available tests continues to grow, but the quality of evidence of the current literature to support this updated molecular diagnostic guideline remains moderate to very low. Recognizing these limitations, the IDSA panel weighed available diagnostic evidence and recommends nucleic acid testing for all symptomatic individuals suspected of having COVID-19. In addition, testing is suggested for asymptomatic individuals with known or suspected contact with a COVID-19 case when the results will impact isolation/quarantine/personal protective equipment (PPE) usage decisions. Evidence in support of rapid testing and testing of upper respiratory specimens other than nasopharyngeal swabs, which offer logistical advantages, is sufficient to warrant conditional recommendations in favor of these approaches.

Management of chronic pain secondary to temporomandibular disorders: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVE: We explored the comparative effectiveness of available therapies for chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and SCOPUS were searched to May 2021, and again in January 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Interventional RCTs that enrolled patients presenting with chronic pain associated with TMD. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Pairs of reviewers independently identified eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We captured all reported patient-important outcomes, including pain relief, physical functioning, emotional functioning, role functioning, social functioning, sleep quality, and adverse events. We conducted frequentist network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence and categorise interventions from most to least beneficial. RESULTS: 233 trials proved eligible for review, of which 153-enrolling 8713 participants and exploring 59 interventions or combinations of interventions-were included in network meta-analyses. All subsequent effects refer to comparisons with placebo or sham procedures. Effects on pain for eight interventions were supported by high to moderate certainty evidence. The three therapies probably most effective for pain relief were cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) augmented with biofeedback or relaxation therapy (risk difference (RD) for achieving the minimally important difference (MID) in pain relief of 1 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale: 36% (95% CI 33 to 39)), therapist-assisted jaw mobilisation (RD 36% (95% CI 31 to 40)), and manual trigger point therapy (RD 32% (29 to 34)). Five interventions were less effective, yet more effective than placebo, showing RDs ranging between 23% and 30%: CBT, supervised postural exercise, supervised jaw exercise and stretching, supervised jaw exercise and stretching with manual trigger point therapy, and usual care (such as home exercises, self stretching, reassurance).Moderate certainty evidence showed four interventions probably improved physical functioning: supervised jaw exercise and stretching (RD for achieving the MID of 5 points on the short form-36 physical component summary score: 43% (95% CI 33 to 51)), manipulation (RD 43% (25 to 56)), acupuncture (RD 42% (33 to 50)), and supervised jaw exercise and mobilisation (RD 36% (19 to 51)). The evidence for pain relief or physical functioning among other interventions, and all evidence for adverse events, was low or very low certainty. CONCLUSION: When restricted to moderate or high certainty evidence, interventions that promote coping and encourage movement and activity were found to be most effective for reducing chronic TMD pain. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42021258567).