Measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: More than 767 million coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) cases and 6.9 million deaths with COVID-19 have been recorded as of August 2023. Several public health and social measures were implemented in schools to contain the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and prevent onward transmission. We built upon methods from a previous Cochrane review to capture current empirical evidence relating to the effectiveness of school measures to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission. OBJECTIVES: To provide an updated assessment of the evidence on the effectiveness of measures implemented in the school setting to keep schools open safely during the COVID-19 pandemic. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Educational Resources Information Center, World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program COVID-19 Evidence Reviews on 18 February 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies focused on measures implemented in the school setting to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, among students (aged 4 to 18 years) or individuals relating to the school, or both. We categorized studies that reported quantitative measures of intervention effectiveness, and studies that assessed the performance of surveillance measures as either 'main' or 'supporting' studies based on design and approach to handling key confounders. We were interested in transmission-related outcomes and intended or unintended consequences. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened titles, abstracts and full texts. We extracted minimal data for supporting studies. For main studies, one review author extracted comprehensive data and assessed risk of bias, which a second author checked. We narratively synthesized findings for each intervention-comparator-outcome category (body of evidence). Two review authors assessed certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: The 15 main studies consisted of measures to reduce contacts (4 studies), make contacts safer (7 studies), surveillance and response measures (6 studies; 1 assessed transmission outcomes, 5 assessed performance of surveillance measures), and multicomponent measures (1 study). These main studies assessed outcomes in the school population (12), general population (2), and adults living with a school-attending child (1). Settings included K-12 (kindergarten to grade 12; 9 studies), secondary (3 studies), and K-8 (kindergarten to grade 8; 1 study) schools. Two studies did not clearly report settings. Studies measured transmission-related outcomes (10), performance of surveillance measures (5), and intended and unintended consequences (4). The 15 main studies were based in the WHO regions of the Americas (12), Europe (2), and Eastern Mediterranean (1). Comparators were more versus less intense measures, single versus multicomponent measures, and measures versus no measures. We organized results into relevant bodies of evidence, or groups of studies relating to the same 'intervention-comparator-outcome' categories. Across all bodies of evidence, certainty of evidence ratings limit our confidence in findings. Where we describe an effect as 'beneficial', the direction of the point estimate of the effect favours the intervention; a 'harmful' effect does not favour the intervention and 'null' shows no effect either way. Measures to reduce contact (4 studies) We grouped studies into 21 bodies of evidence: moderate- (10 bodies), low- (3 bodies), or very low-certainty evidence (8 bodies). The evidence was very low to moderate certainty for beneficial effects of remote versus in-person or hybrid teaching on transmission in the general population. For students and staff, mostly harmful effects were observed when more students participated in remote teaching. Moderate-certainty evidence showed that in the general population there was probably no effect on deaths and a beneficial effect on hospitalizations for remote versus in-person teaching, but no effect for remote versus hybrid teaching. The effects of hybrid teaching, a combination of in-person and remote teaching, were mixed. Very low-certainty evidence showed that there may have been a harmful effect on risk of infection among adults living with a school student for closing playgrounds and cafeterias, a null effect for keeping the same teacher, and a beneficial effect for cancelling extracurricular activities, keeping the same students together and restricting entry for parents and caregivers. Measures to make contact safer (7 studies) We grouped studies into eight bodies of evidence: moderate- (5 bodies), and low-certainty evidence (3 bodies). Low-certainty evidence showed that there may have been a beneficial effect of mask mandates on transmission-related outcomes. Moderate-certainty evidence showed full mandates were probably more beneficial than partial or no mandates. Evidence of a beneficial effect of physical distancing on risk of infection among staff and students was mixed. Moderate-certainty evidence showed that ventilation measures probably reduce cases among staff and students. One study (very low-certainty evidence) found that there may be a beneficial effect of not sharing supplies and increasing desk space on risk of infection for adults living with a school student, but showed there may be a harmful effect of desk shields. Surveillance and response measures (6 studies) We grouped studies into seven bodies of evidence: moderate- (3 bodies), low- (1 body), and very low-certainty evidence (3 bodies). Daily testing strategies to replace or reduce quarantine probably helped to reduce missed school days and decrease the proportion of asymptomatic school contacts testing positive (moderate-certainty evidence). For studies that assessed the performance of surveillance measures, the proportion of cases detected by rapid antigen detection testing ranged from 28.6% to 95.8%, positive predictive value ranged from 24.0% to 100.0% (very low-certainty evidence). There was probably no onward transmission from contacts of a positive case (moderate-certainty evidence) and replacing or shortening quarantine with testing may have reduced missed school days (low-certainty evidence). Multicomponent measures (1 study) Combining multiple measures may have led to a reduction in risk of infection among adults living with a student (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A range of measures can have a beneficial effect on transmission-related outcomes, healthcare utilization and school attendance. We rated the current findings at a higher level of certainty than the original review. Further high-quality research into school measures to control SARS-CoV-2 in a wider variety of contexts is needed to develop a more evidence-based understanding of how to keep schools open safely during COVID-19 or a similar public health emergency.

Calcium supplementation for people with overweight or obesity.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a major health problem worldwide as it can lead to high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and insulin resistance. The prevalence of overweight and obesity is increasing worldwide across different age groups. There is evidence of an inverse relationship between calcium intake and body weight. The clinical relevance of a small reduction in body weight has been questioned. However, at a population level, a small effect could mitigate the observed global trends. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of calcium supplementation on weight loss in individuals living with overweight or obesity. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database), and two clinical trials registries. The date of the last search of all databases (except Embase) was 10 May 2023. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of calcium in participants with overweight or obesity of any age or gender. We excluded studies in participants with absorption problems. We included studies of any dose with a minimum duration of two months. We included the following comparisons: calcium supplementation versus placebo, calcium-fortified food or beverage versus placebo, or calcium-fortified food or beverage versus non-calcium-fortified food or beverage. We excluded studies that evaluated the effect of calcium and vitamin D or mixed minerals compared to placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were body weight, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were anthropometric measures other than body weight, all-cause mortality, and morbidity. MAIN RESULTS: We found 18 studies that evaluated the effect of calcium compared to placebo or control, with a total of 1873 randomised participants (950 participants in the calcium supplementation groups and 923 in the control groups). All included studies gave oral calcium supplementation as the intervention. We did not find any studies evaluating calcium-fortified foods. We excluded 38 studies, identified four ongoing studies, and listed one study as 'awaiting classification'. Sixteen studies compared calcium supplementation to placebo; two studies compared different doses of calcium supplementation. Doses ranged from very low (0.162 g of calcium/day) to high (1.5 g of calcium/day). Most studies were performed in the USA and Iran, lasted less than six months, and included only women. Low-certainty evidence suggests that calcium supplementation compared to placebo or control may result in little to no difference in body weight (mean difference (MD) -0.15 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.55 to 0.24; P = 0.45, I2 = 46%; 17 studies, 1317 participants; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by two levels for risk of bias and heterogeneity. None of the included studies reported health-related quality of life, all-cause mortality, or morbidity/complications as outcomes. Only five studies assessed or reported adverse events. Low-certainty evidence suggests a low frequency of adverse events, with no clear difference between intervention and control groups. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that calcium supplementation compared to placebo or control probably results in a small reduction in body mass index (BMI) (MD -0.18 kg/m2,95% CI -0.22 to -0.13; P < 0.001, I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 731 participants) and waist circumference (MD -0.51 cm, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.29; P < 0.001, I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 273 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggests that calcium supplementation compared to placebo or control may result in a small reduction in body fat mass (MD -0.34 kg, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.05; P < 0.001, I2 = 97%; 12 studies, 812 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Calcium supplementation for eight weeks to 24 months may result in little to no difference in body weight in people with overweight or obesity. The current evidence is of low certainty, due to concerns regarding risk of bias and statistical heterogeneity. We found that the degree of heterogeneity might be partly explained by calcium dosage, the presence or absence of a co-intervention, and whether an intention-to-treat analysis was pursued. While our analyses suggest that calcium supplementation may result in a small reduction in BMI, waist circumference, and fat mass, this evidence is of low to moderate certainty. Future studies could investigate the effect of calcium supplementation on lean body mass to explore if there is a change in body composition.

Pharmacological interventions for the management of children and adolescents living with obesity-An update of a Cochrane systematic review with meta-analyses.

IMPORTANCE: The effectiveness of anti-obesity medications for children and adolescents is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To update the evidence on the benefits and harms of anti-obesity medication. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP (1/1/16-17/3/23). STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials ≥6 months in people <19 years living with obesity. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Screening, data extraction and quality assessment conducted in duplicate, independently. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Body mass index (BMI): 95th percentile BMI, adverse events and quality of life. RESULTS: Thirty-five trials (N = 4331), follow-up: 6-24 months; age: 8.8-16.3 years; BMI: 26.2-41.7 kg/m2. Moderate certainty evidence demonstrated a -1.71 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.27 to -1.14)-unit BMI reduction, ranging from -0.8 to -5.9 units between individual drugs with semaglutide producing the largest reduction of -5.88 kg/m2 (95% CI: -6.99 to -4.77, N = 201). Drug type explained ~44% of heterogeneity. Low certainty evidence demonstrated reduction in 95th percentile BMI: -11.88 percentage points (95% CI: -18.43 to -5.30, N = 668). Serious adverse events and study discontinuation due to adverse events did not differ between medications and comparators, but medication dose adjustments were higher compared to comparator (10.6% vs 1.7%; RR = 3.74 [95% CI: 1.51 to 9.26], I2 = 15%), regardless of approval status. There was a trend towards improved quality of life. Evidence gaps exist for children, psychosocial outcomes, comorbidities and weight loss maintenance. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Anti-obesity medications in addition to behaviour change improve BMI but may require dose adjustment, with 1 in 100 adolescents experiencing a serious adverse event.

Mobile health (m-health) smartphone interventions for adolescents and adults with overweight or obesity.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is considered to be a risk factor for various diseases, and its incidence has tripled worldwide since 1975. In addition to potentially being at risk for adverse health outcomes, people with overweight or obesity are often stigmatised. Behaviour change interventions are increasingly delivered as mobile health (m-health) interventions, using smartphone apps and wearables. They are believed to support healthy behaviours at the individual level in a low-threshold manner. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of integrated smartphone applications for adolescents and adults with overweight or obesity. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and LILACS, as well as the trials registers ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 2 October 2023 (date of last search for all databases). We placed no restrictions on the language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Participants were adolescents and adults with overweight or obesity. Eligible interventions were integrated smartphone apps using at least two behaviour change techniques. The intervention could target physical activity, cardiorespiratory fitness, weight loss, healthy diet, or self-efficacy. Comparators included no or minimal intervention (NMI), a different smartphone app, personal coaching, or usual care. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials of any duration with a follow-up of at least three months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology and the RoB 2 tool. Important outcomes were physical activity, body mass index (BMI) and weight, health-related quality of life, self-efficacy, well-being, change in dietary behaviour, and adverse events. We focused on presenting studies with medium- (6 to < 12 months) and long-term (≥ 12 months) outcomes in our summary of findings table, following recommendations in the core outcome set for behavioural weight management interventions. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 studies with 2703 participants. Interventions lasted from 2 to 24 months. The mean BMI in adults ranged from 27 to 50, and the median BMI z-score in adolescents ranged from 2.2 to 2.5. Smartphone app versus no or minimal intervention Thirteen studies compared a smartphone app versus NMI in adults; no studies were available for adolescents. The comparator comprised minimal health advice, handouts, food diaries, smartphone apps unrelated to weight loss, and waiting list. Measures of physical activity: at 12 months' follow-up, a smartphone app compared to NMI probably reduces moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) slightly (mean difference (MD) -28.9 min/week (95% confidence interval (CI) -85.9 to 28; 1 study, 650 participants; moderate-certainty evidence)). We are very uncertain about the results of estimated energy expenditure and cardiorespiratory fitness at eight months' follow-up. A smartphone app compared with NMI probably results in little to no difference in changes in total activity time at 12 months' follow-up and leisure time physical activity at 24 months' follow-up. Anthropometric measures: a smartphone app compared with NMI may reduce BMI (MD of BMI change -2.6 kg/m2, 95% CI -6 to 0.8; 2 studies, 146 participants; very low-certainty evidence) at six to eight months' follow-up, but the evidence is very uncertain. At 12 months' follow-up, a smartphone app probably resulted in little to no difference in BMI change (MD -0.1 kg/m2, 95% CI -0.4 to 0.3; 1 study; 650 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A smartphone app compared with NMI may result in little to no difference in body weight change (MD -2.5 kg, 95% CI -6.8 to 1.7; 3 studies, 1044 participants; low-certainty evidence) at 12 months' follow-up. At 24 months' follow-up, a smartphone app probably resulted in little to no difference in body weight change (MD 0.7 kg, 95% CI -1.2 to 2.6; 1 study, 245 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A smartphone app compared with NMI may result in little to no difference in self-efficacy for a physical activity score at eight months' follow-up, but the results are very uncertain. A smartphone app probably results in little to no difference in quality of life and well-being at 12 months (moderate-certainty evidence) and in little to no difference in various measures used to inform dietary behaviour at 12 and 24 months' follow-up. We are very uncertain about adverse events, which were only reported narratively in two studies (very low-certainty evidence). Smartphone app versus another smartphone app Two studies compared different versions of the same app in adults, showing no or minimal differences in outcomes. One study in adults compared two different apps (calorie counting versus ketogenic diet) and suggested a slight reduction in body weight at six months in favour of the ketogenic diet app. No studies were available for adolescents. Smartphone app versus personal coaching Only one study compared a smartphone app with personal coaching in adults, presenting data at three months. Two studies compared these interventions in adolescents. A smartphone app resulted in little to no difference in BMI z-score compared to personal coaching at six months' follow-up (MD 0, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.2; 1 study; 107 participants). Smartphone app versus usual care Only one study compared an app with usual care in adults but only reported data at three months on participant satisfaction. No studies were available for adolescents. We identified 34 ongoing studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is limited and does not demonstrate a clear benefit of smartphone applications as interventions for adolescents or adults with overweight or obesity. While the number of studies is growing, the evidence remains incomplete due to the high variability of the apps' features, content and components, which complicates direct comparisons and assessment of their effectiveness. Comparisons with either no or minimal intervention or personal coaching show minor effects, which are mostly not clinically significant. Minimal data for adolescents also warrants further research. Evidence is also scarce for low- and middle-income countries as well as for people with different socio-economic and cultural backgrounds. The 34 ongoing studies suggest sustained interest in the topic, with new evidence expected to emerge within the next two years. In practice, clinicians and healthcare practitioners should carefully consider the potential benefits, limitations, and evolving research when recommending smartphone apps to adolescents and adults with overweight or obesity.

Surgical and non-surgical interventions for primary and salvage treatment of growth hormone-secreting pituitary adenomas in adults.

BACKGROUND: Growth hormone (GH)-secreting pituitary adenoma is a severe endocrine disease. Surgery is the currently recommended primary therapy for patients with GH-secreting tumours. However, non-surgical therapy (pharmacological therapy and radiation therapy) may be performed as primary therapy or may improve surgical outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of surgical and non-surgical interventions for primary and salvage treatment of GH-secreting pituitary adenomas in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search of all databases was 1 August 2022. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of more than 12 weeks' duration, reporting on surgical, pharmacological, radiation, and combination interventions for GH-secreting pituitary adenomas in any healthcare setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance, screened for inclusion, completed data extraction, and performed a risk of bias assessment. We assessed studies for overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We estimated treatment effects using random-effects meta-analysis. We expressed results as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes together with 95% confidence intervals (CI) or mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, or in descriptive format when meta-analysis was not possible. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs that evaluated 445 adults with GH-secreting pituitary adenomas. Four studies reported that they included participants with macroadenomas, one study included a small number of participants with microadenomas. The remaining studies did not specify tumour subtypes. Studies evaluated surgical therapy alone, pharmacological therapy alone, or combination surgical and pharmacological therapy. Methodological quality varied, with many studies providing insufficient information to compare treatment strategies or accurately judge the risk of bias. We identified two main comparisons, surgery alone versus pharmacological therapy alone, and surgery alone versus pharmacological therapy and surgery combined. Surgical therapy alone versus pharmacological therapy alone Three studies with a total of 164 randomised participants investigated this comparison. Only one study narratively described hyperglycaemia as a disease-related complication. All three studies reported adverse events, yet only one study reported numbers separately for the intervention arms; none of the 11 participants were observed to develop gallbladder stones or sludge on ultrasonography following surgery, while five of 11 participants experienced any biliary problems following pharmacological therapy (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.47; 1 study, 22 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life was reported to improve similarly in both intervention arms during follow-up. Surgery alone compared to pharmacological therapy alone may slightly increase the biochemical remission rate from 12 weeks to one year after intervention, but the evidence is very uncertain; 36/78 participants in the surgery-alone group versus 15/66 in the pharmacological therapy group showed biochemical remission. The need for additional surgery or non-surgical therapy for recurrent or persistent disease was described for single study arms only. Surgical therapy alone versus preoperative pharmacological therapy and surgery Five studies with a total of 281 randomised participants provided data for this comparison. Preoperative pharmacological therapy and surgery may have little to no effect on the disease-related complication of a difficult intubation (requiring postponement of surgery) compared to surgery alone, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.34; 1 study, 98 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Surgery alone may have little to no effect on (transient and persistent) adverse events when compared to preoperative pharmacological therapy and surgery, but again, the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.03; 5 studies, 267 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Concerning biochemical remission, surgery alone compared to preoperative pharmacological therapy and surgery may not increase remission rates up until 16 weeks after surgery; 23 of 134 participants in the surgery-alone group versus 51 of 133 in the preoperative pharmacological therapy and surgery group showed biochemical remission. Furthermore, the very low-certainty evidence did not suggest benefit or detriment of preoperative pharmacological therapy and surgery compared to surgery alone for the outcomes 'requiring additional surgery' (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.06; 1 study, 61 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or 'non-surgical therapy for recurrent or persistent disease' (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.28; 2 studies, 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies measured health-related quality of life. None of the eight included studies measured disease recurrence or socioeconomic effects. While three of the eight studies reported no deaths to have occurred, one study mentioned that overall, two participants had died within five years of the start of the study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Within the context of GH-secreting pituitary adenomas, patient-relevant outcomes, such as disease-related complications, adverse events and disease recurrence were not, or only sparsely, reported. When reported, we found that surgery may have little or no effect on the outcomes compared to the comparator treatment. The current evidence is limited by the small number of included studies, as well as the unclear risk of bias in most studies. The high uncertainty of evidence significantly limits the applicability of our findings to clinical practice. Detailed reporting on the burden of recurrent disease is an important knowledge gap to be evaluated in future research studies. It is also crucial that future studies in this area are designed to report on outcomes by tumour subtype (that is, macroadenomas versus microadenomas) so that future subgroup analyses can be conducted. More rigorous and larger studies, powered to address these research questions, are required to assess the merits of neoadjuvant pharmacological therapy or first-line pharmacotherapy.

Post-covid-19 conditions in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of health outcomes in controlled studies.

Objective: To assess the impact of post-covid-19 conditions among adults. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of health outcomes in controlled studies. Data sources: Two sources were searched from database inception to 20 October 2022: Cochrane covid-19 study register (comprising Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, clinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv) and WHO's covid-19 research database. Eligibility criteria: Cohort studies recruiting more than 100 participants with a control group and a follow-up of at least 12 weeks were included. Adults who were documented to have SARS-CoV-2 infection based on clinical, imaging, or laboratory criteria were included. Data extraction and synthesis: Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes included quality of life, functionality in daily activities, use of resources, recovery rates (cluster of symptoms), and the incidence of new medical diagnoses. Data were pooled using a random effects model. The risk of bias was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool for cohort studies. Results: We included 63 controlled cohort studies, encompassing more than 96 million participants. Based on five studies, we found a reduction in overall quality of life between individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection versus controls at six to 24 months follow-up, although heterogeneity was very high (mean difference in EQ-5D scale -5.28 (95% confidence interval -7.88 to 2.68; I2=93.81%). Evidence from ten studies, which could not be pooled in a meta-analysis, indicated that an increased rate of functional impairment associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Use of care increased compared with controls at six to 24 months follow-up at intensive care units (risk ratio 2.00 (95% confidence interval 0.69 to 5.80), five studies, I2=91.96%) and in outpatient care (1.12 (1.01 to 1.24), seven studies, I2=99.51%). Regarding persistent symptoms, individuals with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection had an increased risk of having two or more persistent symptoms at follow-up, especially those related to neurological clusters (ie, risk ratio 1.51 (95% confidence interval 1.17 to 1.93), I2=98.91%). Evidence also showed an increased incidence of a wide variety of metabolic, cardiovascular, neurological, respiratory, haematological and other incident diagnoses. Conclusion: Evidence suggests functional impairment after SARS-CoV-2 infection, in addition to a higher use of resources and a higher incidence of widely varying medical diagnoses. These results should be interpreted with caution, considering the high heterogeneity across studies and study limitations related to outcome measurement and attrition of participants. Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework, osf.io/drm39.

Obesity intervention evidence synthesis: Where are the gaps and which should we address first?

Health professionals and policymakers rely on evidence synthesized from high quality research studies. Yet, there remain unanswered questions about how to prevent and treat obesity. In this research project, international practice guidelines and Cochrane systematic reviews were examined in order to identify gaps in the synthesized obesity intervention evidence base. One hundred and forty-two partial or complete gaps were found. Systematic review questions to address these gaps were formulated and subjected to a prioritization consultation process with 36 international obesity expert stakeholders. Forty-three review questions were priority-assessed. The top 10 ranked review questions received support from at least 75.0% of stakeholders. The leading questions focused on preventive and community-based approaches, including those delivered through primary-care. Children within the context of their families were a highly-prioritized target group, as were persons with diabetes or disabilities. Experts also prioritized reviews to determine which elements of programs are the most effective, and by which mode they are best delivered. Experts recommended that negative, psycho-social, and longer-term outcomes be captured in reviews. We request reviewers and funders to strongly consider addressing the top 10 leading prioritized review questions presented here.

Benefits and Harms of Edible Vegetable Oils and Fats Fortified with Vitamins A and D as a Public Health Intervention in the General Population: A Systematic Review of Interventions.

This systematic review aims to assess whether edible vegetable oils and fats fortified with vitamin A and/or D are effective and safe in improving vitamin intake and ameliorating deficiency states in the general population. In November 2022, we systematically searched MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, Global Index Medicus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI) investigating the fortification of edible vegetable oils and fats with either vitamin A or vitamin D or both as compared to the same vegetable oils and/or fats without vitamin A and D fortification or no interventions, in the general population, without age restriction. We assessed the methodological quality of included RCTs using Cochrane's risk of bias tool 2.0 and of NRSIs using ROBINS-I tool. We performed random-effects meta-analysis and assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE. We included eight studies. Available evidence showed no significant effect of fortification with vitamin A on serum retinol levels (RCTs: MD 0.35 µmol/L, 95% CI -0.43 to 1.12; two trials; 514 participants; low-certainty evidence; CCTs: MD 0.31 µmol/L, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.80; two trials; 205 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and on subclinical vitamin A deficiency. Low-certainty evidence showed no effect of vitamin D fortification on serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D concentration (MD 6.59 nmol/L, 95% CI -6.89 to 20.07; one trial; 62 participants). In conclusion, vitamin A-fortified vegetable oils and fats may result in little to no difference in serum retinol levels in general populations. The dose of vitamin A used in the trials may be safe but may not be sufficient to reduce subclinical vitamin A deficiency. Further, the evidence suggests that vitamin D fortification results in little to no difference in serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D concentration. Several aspects of providing fortified oils and fats to the general population as a public health intervention should be further investigated, including optimal fortification dose, effects on vitamin D deficiency and its clinical symptoms and potential adverse effects.

Nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir for preventing and treating COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) aims to avoid severe COVID-19 in asymptomatic people or those with mild symptoms, thereby decreasing hospitalization and death. It remains to be evaluated for which indications and patient populations the drug is suitable. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus standard of care (SoC) compared to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treating COVID-19 or preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. To explore equity aspects in subgroup analyses. To keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review (LSR) approach and make new relevant studies available to readers in-between publication of review updates. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Scopus, and World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database, identifying completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions and incorporating studies up to 15 May 2023. This is a LSR. We conduct update searches every two months and make them publicly available on the open science framework (OSF) platform. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo, or any other intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We screened all studies for research integrity. Studies were ineligible if they had been retracted, or if they were not prospectively registered including appropriate ethics approval. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology and used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: 1. to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19; 2. to treat inpatients with moderate to severe COVID-19: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, quality of life, (serious) adverse events, and viral clearance; 3. to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in postexposure prophylaxis (PEP); and 4. pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) scenarios: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, mortality, admission to hospital, quality of life, and (serious) adverse events. We explored inequity by subgroup analysis for elderly people, socially-disadvantaged people with comorbidities, populations from low-income countries and low- to middle-income countries, and people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds. MAIN RESULTS: As of 15 May 2023, we included two RCTs with 2510 participants with mild and mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 in outpatient and inpatient settings comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC to SoC with or without placebo. All trial participants were without previous confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at high risk for progression to severe disease. Randomization coincided with the Delta wave for outpatients and Omicron wave for inpatients. Outpatient trial participants and 73% of inpatients were unvaccinated. Symptom onset in outpatients was no more than five days before randomisation and prior or concomitant therapies including medications highly dependent on CYP3A4 were not allowed. We excluded two studies due to concerns with research integrity. We identified 13 ongoing studies. Three studies are currently awaiting classification. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 in outpatient settings Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC plus placebo may reduce all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.68; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence) and admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.27; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC may reduce serious adverse events during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study, 2224 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably has little or no effect on treatment-emergent adverse events (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.10; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably increases treatment-related adverse events such as dysgeusia and diarrhoea during the study period compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.95; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC probably decreases discontinuation of study drug due to adverse events compared to SoC plus placebo (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; 1 study, 2224 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement of clinical status, quality of life, or viral clearance. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for treating people with moderate to severe COVID-19 in inpatient settings We are uncertain whether nirmatrelvir/ritonavir plus SoC compared to SoC reduces all-cause mortality at 28 days (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.86; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or increases viral clearance at seven days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.58; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 14 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20; 1 study, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported improvement or worsening of clinical status and quality of life. We did not include data for safety outcomes due to insufficient and inconsistent information. Subgroup analyses for equity For outpatients, the outcome 'admission to hospital or death' was investigated for equity regarding age (less than 65 years versus 65 years or greater) and ethnicity. There were no subgroup differences for age or ethnicity. For inpatients, the outcome 'all-cause mortality' was investigated for equity regarding age (65 years or less versus greater than 65 years). There was no difference between subgroups of age. No further equity-related subgroups were reported, and no subgroups were reported for other outcomes. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (PrEP and PEP) No studies available. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-certainty evidence suggests nirmatrelvir/ritonavir reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and hospital admission or death in high-risk, unvaccinated COVID-19 outpatients infected with the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence of the safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Very low-certainty evidence exists regarding the effects of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir on all-cause mortality and viral clearance in mildly to moderately affected, mostly unvaccinated COVID-19 inpatients infected with the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. Insufficient and inconsistent information prevents the assessment of safety outcomes. No reliable differences in effect size and direction were found regarding equity aspects. There is no available evidence supporting the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. We are continually updating our search and making search results available on the OSF platform.

Thermal stability and storage of human insulin.

BACKGROUND: Health authorities stress the temperature sensitivity of human insulin, advising protection from heat and freezing, with manufacturers suggesting low-temperature storage for intact vials, and once opened, storage at room temperature for four to six weeks, though usage time and maximum temperature recommendations vary. For human insulin, the recommendations of current shelf life in use may range from 10 to 45 days, and the maximum temperature in use varies between 25 °C and 37 °C. Optimal cold-chain management of human insulin from manufacturing until the point of delivery to people with diabetes should always be maintained, and people with diabetes and access to reliable refrigeration should follow manufacturers' recommendations. However, a growing segment of the diabetes-affected global population resides in challenging environments, confronting prolonged exposure to extreme heat due to the climate crisis, all while grappling with limited access to refrigeration. OBJECTIVES: To analyse the effects of storing human insulin above or below the manufacturers' recommended insulin temperature storage range or advised usage time, or both, after dispensing human insulin to people with diabetes. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 12 July 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included clinical and laboratory studies investigating the storage of human insulin above or below manufacturers' recommended temperature storage range, advised usage time, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for the clinical study. Most information emerged from in vitro studies, mainly from pharmaceutical companies. There is no validated risk of bias and certainty of evidence rating for in vitro studies. We thus presented a narrative summary of the results. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 eligible studies (22 articles) and additional information from pharmaceutical companies. Pilot clinical study One pilot clinical study investigated temperature conditions for insulin stored for six weeks in an unglazed clay pot with temperatures ranging between 25 °C and 27 °C. The mean fall in plasma glucose in eight healthy volunteers after clay pot-stored insulin injection was comparable to refrigerator-stored insulin injection (very low-certainty evidence). In-vitro studies Nine, three and four laboratory studies investigated storage conditions for insulin vials, insulin cartridges/pens and prefilled plastic syringes, respectively. The included studies reported numerous methods, laboratory measurements and storage conditions. Three studies on prefilled syringes investigating insulin potency at 4 °C up to 23 °C for up to 28 days showed no clinically relevant loss of insulin activity. Nine studies examined unopened vials and cartridges. In studies with no clinically relevant loss of insulin activity for human short-acting insulin (SAI), intermediate-acting insulin (IAI) and mixed insulin (MI) temperatures ranged between 28.9 °C and 37 °C for up to four months. Two studies reported up to 18% loss of insulin activity after one week to 28 days at 37 °C. Four studies examined opened vials and cartridges at up to 37 °C for up to 12 weeks, indicating no clinically relevant reduction in insulin activity. Two studies analysed storage conditions for oscillating temperatures ranging between 25 °C and 37 °C for up to 12 weeks and observed no loss of insulin activity for SAI, IAI and MI. Four studies, two on vials (including one on opened vials), and two on prefilled syringes, investigated sterility and reported no microbial contamination. Data from pharmaceutical companies Four manufacturers (BIOTON, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi) provided previously unreleased human insulin thermostability data mostly referring to unopened containers (vials, cartridges). We could not include the data from Sanofi because the company announced the permanent discontinuation of the production of human insulins Insuman Rapid, Basal and Comb 25. BIOTON provided data on SAI after one, three and six months at 25 °C: all investigated parameters were within reference values, and, compared to baseline, loss of insulin activity was 1.1%, 1.0% and 1.7%, respectively. Eli Lilly and Company provided summary data: at below 25 °C or 30 °C SAI/IAI/MI could be stored for up to 25 days or 12 days, respectively. Thereafter, patient in-use was possible for up to 28 days. Novo Nordisk provided extensive data: compared to baseline, after three and six months at 25 °C, loss of SAI activity was 1.8% and 3.2% to 3.5%, respectively. Loss of IAI activity was 1.2% to 1.9% after three months and 2.0% to 2.3% after six months. Compared to baseline, after one, two and three months at 37 °C, loss of SAI activity was 2.2% to 2.8%, 5.7% and 8.3% to 8.6%, respectively. Loss IAI activity was 1.4% to 1.8%, 3.0% to 3.8% and 4.7% to 5.3%, respectively. There was no relevant increase in insulin degradation products observed. Up to six months at 25 °C and up to two months at 37 °C high molecular weight proteins were within specifications. Appearance, visible particles or macroscopy, particulate matter, zinc, pH, metacresol and phenol complied with specifications. There were no data for cold environmental conditions and insulin pumps. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Under difficult living conditions, pharmaceutical companies' data indicate that it is possible to store unopened SAI and IAI vials and cartridges at up to 25 °C for a maximum of six months and at up to 37 °C for a maximum of two months without a clinically relevant loss of insulin potency. Also, oscillating temperatures between 25 °C and 37 °C for up to three months result in no loss of insulin activity for SAI, IAI and MI. In addition, ambient temperature can be lowered by use of simple cooling devices such as clay pots for insulin storage. Clinical studies on opened and unopened insulin containers should be performed to measure insulin potency and stability after varying storage conditions. Furthermore, more data are needed on MI, insulin pumps, sterility and cold climate conditions.

Perioperative glycaemic control for people with diabetes undergoing surgery.

BACKGROUND: People with diabetes mellitus are at increased risk of postoperative complications. Data from randomised clinical trials and meta-analyses point to a potential benefit of intensive glycaemic control, targeting near-normal blood glucose, in people with hyperglycaemia (with and without diabetes mellitus) being submitted for surgical procedures. However, there is limited evidence concerning this question in people with diabetes mellitus undergoing surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of perioperative glycaemic control for people with diabetes undergoing surgery. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of last search for all databases was 25 July 2022. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that prespecified different targets of perioperative glycaemic control for participants with diabetes (intensive versus conventional or standard care). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, hypoglycaemic events and infectious complications. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular events, renal failure, length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, health-related quality of life, socioeconomic effects, weight gain and mean blood glucose during the intervention. We summarised studies using meta-analysis with a random-effects model and calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, using a 95% confidence interval (CI), or summarised outcomes with descriptive methods. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence (CoE). MAIN RESULTS: A total of eight additional studies were added to the 12 included studies in the previous review leading to 20 RCTs included in this update. A total of 2670 participants were randomised, of which 1320 were allocated to the intensive treatment group and 1350 to the comparison group. The duration of the intervention varied from during surgery to five days postoperative. No included trial had an overall low risk of bias. Intensive glycaemic control resulted in little or no difference in all-cause mortality compared to conventional glycaemic control (130/1263 (10.3%) and 117/1288 (9.1%) events, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; I2 = 0%; 2551 participants, 18 studies; high CoE). Hypoglycaemic events, both severe and non-severe, were mainly experienced in the intensive glycaemic control group. Intensive glycaemic control may slightly increase hypoglycaemic events compared to conventional glycaemic control (141/1184 (11.9%) and 41/1226 (3.3%) events, RR 3.36, 95% CI 1.69 to 6.67; I2 = 64%; 2410 participants, 17 studies; low CoE), as well as those considered severe events (37/927 (4.0%) and 6/969 (0.6%), RR 4.73, 95% CI 2.12 to 10.55; I2 = 0%; 1896 participants, 11 studies; low CoE). Intensive glycaemic control, compared to conventional glycaemic control, may result in little to no difference in the rate of infectious complications (160/1228 (13.0%) versus 224/1225 (18.2%) events, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.04; P = 0.09; I2 = 55%; 2453 participants, 18 studies; low CoE). Analysis of the predefined secondary outcomes revealed that intensive glycaemic control may result in a decrease in cardiovascular events compared to conventional glycaemic control (107/955 (11.2%) versus 125/978 (12.7%) events, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97; P = 0.03; I2 = 44%; 1454 participants, 12 studies; low CoE). Further, intensive glycaemic control resulted in little or no difference in renal failure events compared to conventional glycaemic control (137/1029 (13.3%) and 158/1057 (14.9%), RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; P = 0.56; I2 = 38%; 2086 participants, 14 studies; low CoE). We found little to no difference between intensive glycaemic control and conventional glycaemic control in length of ICU stay (MD -0.10 days, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.38; P = 0.69; I2 = 69%; 1687 participants, 11 studies; low CoE), and length of hospital stay (MD -0.79 days, 95% CI -1.79 to 0.21; P = 0.12; I2 = 77%; 1520 participants, 12 studies; very low CoE). Due to the differences within included studies, we did not pool data for the reduction of mean blood glucose. Intensive glycaemic control resulted in a mean lowering of blood glucose, ranging from 13.42 mg/dL to 91.30 mg/dL. One trial assessed health-related quality of life in 12/37 participants in the intensive glycaemic control group, and 13/44 participants in the conventional glycaemic control group; no important difference was shown in the measured physical health composite score of the short-form 12-item health survey (SF-12). One substudy reported a cost analysis of the population of an included study showing a higher total hospital cost in the conventional glycaemic control group, USD 42,052 (32,858 to 56,421) compared to the intensive glycaemic control group, USD 40,884 (31.216 to 49,992). It is important to point out that there is relevant heterogeneity between studies for several outcomes. We identified two ongoing trials. The results of these studies could add new information in future updates on this topic. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High-certainty evidence indicates that perioperative intensive glycaemic control in people with diabetes undergoing surgery does not reduce all-cause mortality compared to conventional glycaemic control. There is low-certainty evidence that intensive glycaemic control may reduce the risk of cardiovascular events, but cause little to no difference to the risk of infectious complications after the intervention, while it may increase the risk of hypoglycaemia. There are no clear differences between the groups for the other outcomes. There are uncertainties among the intensive and conventional groups regarding the optimal glycaemic algorithm and target blood glucose concentrations. In addition, we found poor data on health-related quality of life, socio-economic effects and weight gain. It is also relevant to underline the heterogeneity among studies regarding clinical outcomes and methodological approaches. More studies are needed that consider these factors and provide a higher quality of evidence, especially for outcomes such as hypoglycaemia and infectious complications.

Interventions for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus fasting during Ramadan.

BACKGROUND: Fasting during Ramadan is obligatory for adult Muslims, except those who have a medical illness. Many Muslims with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) choose to fast, which may increase their risks of hypoglycaemia and dehydration. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for people with type 2 diabetes fasting during Ramadan. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov (29 June 2022) without language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted during Ramadan that evaluated all pharmacological or behavioural interventions in Muslims with T2DM. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors screened and selected records, assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently. Discrepancies were resolved by a third author. For meta-analyses we used a random-effects model, with risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes with their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 RCTs with 5359 participants, with a four-week study duration and at least four weeks of follow-up. All studies had at least one high-risk domain in the risk of bias assessment. Four trials compared dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors with sulphonylurea. DPP-4 inhibitors may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylureas (85/1237 versus 165/1258, RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.68; low-certainty evidence). Serious hypoglycaemia was similar between groups (no events were reported in two trials; 6/279 in the DPP-4 versus 4/278 in the sulphonylurea group was reported in one trial, RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.24; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of DPP-4 inhibitors on adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (141/1207 versus 157/1219, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.54) and HbA1c changes (MD -0.11%, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.36) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). No deaths were reported (moderate-certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and treatment satisfaction were not evaluated. Two trials compared meglitinides with sulphonylurea. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on hypoglycaemia (14/133 versus 21/140, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.28) and HbA1c changes (MD 0.38%, 95% CI 0.35% to 0.41%) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). Death, serious hypoglycaemic events, adverse events, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. One trial compared sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors with sulphonylurea. SGLT-2 may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylurea (4/58 versus 13/52, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.79; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for serious hypoglycaemia (one event reported in both groups, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.97) and adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (20/58 versus 18/52, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.67) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). SGLT-2 inhibitors result in little or no difference in HbA1c (MD 0.27%, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.58; 1 trial, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Death, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. Three trials compared glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) analogues with sulphonylurea. GLP-1 analogues may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylurea (20/291 versus 48/305, RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.74; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for serious hypoglycaemia (0/91 versus 1/91, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that GLP-1 analogues result in little to no difference in adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (78/244 versus 55/255, RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.61; very low-certainty evidence), treatment satisfaction (MD -0.18, 95% CI -3.18 to 2.82; very low-certainty evidence) or change in HbA1c (MD -0.04%, 95% CI -0.45% to 0.36%; 2 trials, 246 participants; low-certainty evidence). Death and HRQoL were not evaluated. Two trials compared insulin analogues with biphasic insulin. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of insulin analogues on hypoglycaemia (47/256 versus 81/244, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.40) and serious hypoglycaemia (4/131 versus 3/132, RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.31 to 5.89) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). The evidence was very uncertain for the effect of insulin analogues on adverse effects other than hypoglycaemia (109/256 versus 114/244, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.56; very low-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (1/131 versus 0/132, RR 3.02, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.53; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c changes (MD 0.03%, 95% CI -0.17% to 0.23%; 1 trial, 245 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. Two trials compared telemedicine with usual care. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of telemedicine on hypoglycaemia compared with usual care (9/63 versus 23/58, RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.74; very low-certainty evidence), HRQoL (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.15; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c change (MD -0.84%, 95% CI -1.51% to -0.17%; very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, AEs other than hypoglycaemia and treatment satisfaction were not evaluated. Two trials compared Ramadan-focused patient education with usual care. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of Ramadan-focused patient education on hypoglycaemia (49/213 versus 42/209, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.66; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c change (MD -0.40%, 95% CI -0.73% to -0.06%; very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, adverse events other than hypoglycaemia, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. One trial compared drug dosage reduction with usual care. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of drug dosage reduction on hypoglycaemia (19/452 versus 52/226, RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.30; very low-certainty evidence). No participants experienced adverse events other than hypoglycaemia during the study (very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, treatment satisfaction, HbA1c change and HRQoL were not evaluated. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no clear evidence of the benefits or harms of interventions for individuals with T2DM who fast during Ramadan. All results should be interpreted with caution due to concerns about risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency between studies, which give rise to low- to very low-certainty evidence. Major outcomes, such as mortality, health-related quality of life and severe hypoglycaemia, were rarely evaluated. Sufficiently powered studies that examine the effects of various interventions on these outcomes are needed.