European Academy of Neurology (EAN) guideline on the management of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in collaboration with European Reference Network for Neuromuscular Diseases (ERN EURO-NMD).

BACKGROUND: This update of the guideline on the management of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) was commissioned by the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) and prepared in collaboration with the European Reference Network for Neuromuscular Diseases (ERN EURO-NMD) and the support of the European Network for the Cure ALS (ENCALS) and the European Organization for Professionals and Patients with ALS (EUpALS). METHODS: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the effectiveness of interventions for ALS. Two systematic reviewers from Cochrane Response supported the guideline panel. The working group identified a total of 26 research questions, performed systematic reviews, assessed the quality of the available evidence, and made specific recommendations. Expert consensus statements were provided where insufficient evidence was available. RESULTS: A guideline mapping effort revealed only one other ALS guideline that used GRADE methodology (a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] guideline). The available evidence was scarce for many research questions. Of the 26 research questions evaluated, the NICE recommendations could be adapted for 8 questions. Other recommendations required updates of existing systematic reviews or de novo reviews. Recommendations were made on currently available disease-modifying treatments, multidisciplinary care, nutritional and respiratory support, communication aids, psychological support, treatments for common ALS symptoms (e.g., muscle cramps, spasticity, pseudobulbar affect, thick mucus, sialorrhea, pain), and end-of-life management. CONCLUSIONS: This update of the guideline using GRADE methodology provides a framework for the management of ALS. The treatment landscape is changing rapidly, and further updates will be prepared when additional evidence becomes available.

Interleukin-6 blocking agents for treating COVID-19: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It has been reported that people with COVID-19 and pre-existing autoantibodies against type I interferons are likely to develop an inflammatory cytokine storm responsible for severe respiratory symptoms. Since interleukin 6 (IL-6) is one of the cytokines released during this inflammatory process, IL-6 blocking agents have been used for treating people with severe COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To update the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to a placebo for people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Living OVerview of Evidence (L·OVE) platform, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify studies on 7 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of researchers independently conducted study selection, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for all critical and important outcomes. In this update we amended our protocol to update the methods used for grading evidence by establishing minimal important differences for the critical outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: This update includes 22 additional trials, for a total of 32 trials including 12,160 randomized participants all hospitalized for COVID-19 disease. We identified a further 17 registered RCTs evaluating IL-6 blocking agents without results available as of 7 June 2022.  The mean age range varied from 56 to 75 years; 66.2% (8051/12,160) of enrolled participants were men. One-third (11/32) of included trials were placebo-controlled. Twenty-two were published in peer-reviewed journals, three were reported as preprints, two trials had results posted only on registries, and results from five trials were retrieved from another meta-analysis. Eight were funded by pharmaceutical companies.  Twenty-six included studies were multicenter trials; four were multinational and 22 took place in single countries. Recruitment of participants occurred between February 2020 and June 2021, with a mean enrollment duration of 21 weeks (range 1 to 54 weeks). Nineteen trials (60%) had a follow-up of 60 days or more. Disease severity ranged from mild to critical disease. The proportion of participants who were intubated at study inclusion also varied from 5% to 95%. Only six trials reported vaccination status; there were no vaccinated participants included in these trials, and 17 trials were conducted before vaccination was rolled out. We assessed a total of six treatments, each compared to placebo or standard care. Twenty trials assessed tocilizumab, nine assessed sarilumab, and two assessed clazakizumab. Only one trial was included for each of the other IL-6 blocking agents (siltuximab, olokizumab, and levilimab). Two trials assessed more than one treatment. Efficacy and safety of tocilizumab and sarilumab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 At day (D) 28, tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement (tocilizumab: risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.11; 15 RCTs, 6116 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; sarilumab: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 2425 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For clinical improvement at ≥ D60, the certainty of evidence is very low for both tocilizumab (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.48; 1 RCT, 97 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and sarilumab (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.63; 2 RCTs, 239 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The effect of tocilizumab on the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score (WHO-CPS) of level 7 or above remains uncertain at D28 (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 13 RCTs, 2117 participants; low-certainty evidence) and that for sarilumab very uncertain (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.33; 5 RCTs, 886 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab reduces all cause-mortality at D28 compared to standard care/placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94; 18 RCTs, 7428 participants; high-certainty evidence). The evidence about the effect of sarilumab on this outcome is very uncertain (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30; 9 RCTs, 3305 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain for all cause-mortality at ≥ D60 for tocilizumab (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.04; 9 RCTs, 2775 participants; low-certainty evidence) and very uncertain for sarilumab (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; 6 RCTs, 3379 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab probably results in little to no difference in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 9 RCTs, 1811 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence about adverse events for sarilumab is uncertain (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.28; 4 RCT, 860 participants; low-certainty evidence).  The evidence about serious adverse events is very uncertain for tocilizumab (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; 16 RCTs; 2974 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and uncertain for sarilumab (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.21; 6 RCTs; 2936 participants; low-certainty evidence). Efficacy and safety of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab and levilimab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 The evidence about the effects of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab, and levilimab comes from only one or two studies for each blocking agent, and is uncertain or very uncertain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized people with COVID-19, results show a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on all-cause mortality in the short term and probably little or no difference in the risk of adverse events compared to standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, both tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28. Evidence for an effect of sarilumab and the other IL-6 blocking agents on critical outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. Most of the trials included in our review were done before the waves of different variants of concern and before vaccination was rolled out on a large scale. An additional 17 RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents are currently registered with no results yet reported. The number of pending studies and the number of participants planned is low. Consequently, we will not publish further updates of this review.

Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Different forms of vaccines have been developed to prevent the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent COVID-19 disease. Several are in widespread use globally.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines (as a full primary vaccination series or a booster dose) against SARS-CoV-2. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L·OVE platform (last search date 5 November 2021). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, and Retraction Watch. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID-19 vaccines to placebo, no vaccine, other active vaccines, or other vaccine schedules. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for all except immunogenicity outcomes.  We synthesized data for each vaccine separately and presented summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).  MAIN RESULTS: We included and analyzed 41 RCTs assessing 12 different vaccines, including homologous and heterologous vaccine schedules and the effect of booster doses. Thirty-two RCTs were multicentre and five were multinational. The sample sizes of RCTs were 60 to 44,325 participants. Participants were aged: 18 years or older in 36 RCTs; 12 years or older in one RCT; 12 to 17 years in two RCTs; and three to 17 years in two RCTs. Twenty-nine RCTs provided results for individuals aged over 60 years, and three RCTs included immunocompromized patients. No trials included pregnant women. Sixteen RCTs had two-month follow-up or less, 20 RCTs had two to six months, and five RCTs had greater than six to 12 months or less. Eighteen reports were based on preplanned interim analyses. Overall risk of bias was low for all outcomes in eight RCTs, while 33 had concerns for at least one outcome. We identified 343 registered RCTs with results not yet available.  This abstract reports results for the critical outcomes of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, severe and critical COVID-19, and serious adverse events only for the 10 WHO-approved vaccines. For remaining outcomes and vaccines, see main text. The evidence for mortality was generally sparse and of low or very low certainty for all WHO-approved vaccines, except AD26.COV2.S (Janssen), which probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants; high-certainty evidence). Confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (ModernaTx), ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), Ad26.COV2.S, BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm-Beijing), and BBV152 (Bharat Biotect) reduce the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (vaccine efficacy (VE): BNT162b2: 97.84%, 95% CI 44.25% to 99.92%; 2 RCTs, 44,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 93.20%, 95% CI 91.06% to 94.83%; 2 RCTs, 31,632 participants; ChAdOx1: 70.23%, 95% CI 62.10% to 76.62%; 2 RCTs, 43,390 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 66.90%, 95% CI 59.10% to 73.40%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 78.10%, 95% CI 64.80% to 86.30%; 1 RCT, 25,463 participants; BBV152: 77.80%, 95% CI 65.20% to 86.40%; 1 RCT, 16,973 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) probably reduces the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE 82.91%, 95% CI 50.49% to 94.10%; 3 RCTs, 42,175 participants). There is low-certainty evidence for CoronaVac (Sinovac) for this outcome (VE 69.81%, 95% CI 12.27% to 89.61%; 2 RCTs, 19,852 participants). Severe or critical COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 result in a large reduction in incidence of severe or critical disease due to COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE: BNT162b2: 95.70%, 95% CI 73.90% to 99.90%; 1 RCT, 46,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 98.20%, 95% CI 92.80% to 99.60%; 1 RCT, 28,451 participants; AD26.COV2.S: 76.30%, 95% CI 57.90% to 87.50%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBV152: 93.40%, 95% CI 57.10% to 99.80%; 1 RCT, 16,976 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 probably reduces the incidence of severe or critical COVID-19 (VE 100.00%, 95% CI 86.99% to 100.00%; 1 RCT, 25,452 participants). Two trials reported high efficacy of CoronaVac for severe or critical disease with wide CIs, but these results could not be pooled. Serious adverse events (SAEs) mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca)/SII-ChAdOx1 (Serum Institute of India), Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 probably result in little or no difference in SAEs compared to placebo (RR: mRNA-1273: 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 34,072 participants; ChAdOx1/SII-ChAdOx1: 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07; 7 RCTs, 58,182 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants); BBV152: 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; 1 RCT, 25,928 participants). In each of these, the likely absolute difference in effects was fewer than 5/1000 participants. Evidence for SAEs is uncertain for BNT162b2, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, and NVX-CoV2373 compared to placebo (RR: BNT162b2: 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; 2 RCTs, 46,107 participants; CoronaVac: 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 23,139 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06; 1 RCT, 26,924 participants; NVX-CoV2373: 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 4 RCTs, 38,802 participants). For the evaluation of heterologous schedules, booster doses, and efficacy against variants of concern, see main text of review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, and for some, there is high-certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com). Implications for practice Due to the trial exclusions, these results cannot be generalized to pregnant women, individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, or immunocompromized people. Most trials had a short follow-up and were conducted before the emergence of variants of concern. Implications for research Future research should evaluate the long-term effect of vaccines, compare different vaccines and vaccine schedules, assess vaccine efficacy and safety in specific populations, and include outcomes such as preventing long COVID-19. Ongoing evaluation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against emerging variants of concern is also vital.

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology. OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS-CoV-2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non-SARS-CoV-2 cases. SEARCH METHODS: The COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) 'COVID-19: Living map of the evidence' and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health 'NIPH systematic and living map on COVID-19 evidence'. We did not apply language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT-PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS-CoV-2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre-pandemic samples). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta-analysis, we fitted univariate random-effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre-prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre-pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two-thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS-CoV-2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy-nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS-CoV-2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre-pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent-phase infection) and specific (pre-pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike-protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent-phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low-prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID-19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post-symptom onset or post-positive PCR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular- or antigen-based tests have failed to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero-epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination-induced antibodies is uncertain.

Accuracy of measures for antiretroviral adherence in people living with HIV.

BACKGROUND: Good patient adherence to antiretroviral (ART) medication determines effective HIV viral suppression, and thus reduces the risk of progression and transmission of HIV. With accurate methods to monitor treatment adherence, we could use simple triage to target adherence support interventions that could help in the community or at health centres in resource-limited settings. OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy of simple measures of ART adherence (including patient self-report, tablet counts, pharmacy records, electronic monitoring, or composite methods) for detecting non-suppressed viral load in people living with HIV and receiving ART treatment. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Information Specialists searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, African-Wide information, and Web of Science up to 22 April 2021. They also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing studies. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of all designs that evaluated a simple measure of adherence (index test) such as self-report, tablet counts, pharmacy records or secondary database analysis, or both, electronic monitoring or composite measures of any of those tests, in people living with HIV and receiving ART treatment. We used a viral load assay with a limit of detection ranging from 10 copies/mL to 400 copies/mL as the reference standard. We created 2 × 2 tables to calculate sensitivity and specificity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using QUADAS-2 independently and in duplicate. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE method. The results of estimated sensitivity and specificity were presented using paired forest plots and tabulated summaries. We encountered a high level of variation among studies which precluded a meaningful meta-analysis or comparison of adherence measures. We explored heterogeneity using pre-defined subgroup analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 51 studies involving children and adults with HIV, mostly living in low- and middle-income settings, conducted between 2003 and 2021. Several studies assessed more than one index test, and the most common measure of adherence to ART was self-report. - Self-report questionnaires (25 studies, 9211 participants; very low-certainty): sensitivity ranged from 10% to 85% and specificity ranged from 10% to 99%. - Self-report using a visual analogue scale (VAS) (11 studies, 4235 participants; very low-certainty): sensitivity ranged from 0% to 58% and specificity ranged from 55% to 100%. - Tablet counts (12 studies, 3466 participants; very low-certainty): sensitivity ranged from 0% to 100% and specificity ranged from 5% to 99%. - Electronic monitoring devices (3 studies, 186 participants; very low-certainty): sensitivity ranged from 60% to 88% and the specificity ranged from 27% to 67%. - Pharmacy records or secondary databases (6 studies, 2254 participants; very low-certainty): sensitivity ranged from 17% to 88% and the specificity ranged from 9% to 95%. - Composite measures (9 studies, 1513 participants; very low-certainty): sensitivity ranged from 10% to 100% and specificity ranged from 49% to 100%. Across all included studies, the ability of adherence measures to detect viral non-suppression showed a large variation in both sensitivity and specificity that could not be explained by subgroup analysis. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence as very low due to risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, and imprecision. The risk of bias and the applicability concerns for patient selection, index test, and reference standard domains were generally low or unclear due to unclear reporting. The main methodological issues identified were related to flow and timing due to high numbers of missing data. For all index tests, we assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low due to limitations in the design and conduct of the studies, applicability concerns and inconsistency of results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We encountered high variability for all index tests, and the overall certainty of evidence in all areas was very low. No measure consistently offered either a sufficiently high sensitivity or specificity to detect viral non-suppression. These concerns limit their value in triaging patients for viral load monitoring or enhanced adherence support interventions.

Health-related guilt in chronic primary pain: A systematic review of evidence.

PURPOSE: Chronic primary pain conditions are characterized by significant functional disability, emotional distress, and diagnostic uncertainty. Health-related guilt associated with coping and living with chronic pain is poorly understood. There had been no attempts to synthesize findings on health-related guilt across studies. Therefore, the aim of this study was to conduct a systemic review of evidence, to enable an understanding of the role of health-related guilt in chronic primary pain, and to provide directions for future research. METHOD: A search strategy was developed based on our eligibility criteria. Four databases (PsycINFO, Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science) were searched for relevant papers from inception to 8 July 2020. Data from 12 qualitative and six quantitative studies were synthesized narratively. RESULTS: The review of qualitative studies resulted in three themes, relating to the management of pain, diagnostic uncertainty/legitimizing pain, and how participants' actions or inactions affect others. These findings were integrated with evidence from quantitative studies, which showed that higher levels of guilt were associated with more pain and pain interference, functional impairment, and poorer psychological and social functioning. CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrate that health-related guilt is an important psychological factor associated with more pain and poorer function in people with chronic primary pain conditions. Future research should examine health-related guilt as a potential mediating/moderating factor leading to more distress and suffering in this population and as a potential target for interventions.

Efficacy and safety of pharmacological, physical, and psychological interventions for the management of chronic pain in children: a WHO systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Chronic pain in childhood is an international public health problem. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide a summary of the published evidence of pharmacological, physical, and psychological therapies for children with chronic pain conditions. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO from inception to April 2020; clinical trial registries; and other sources for randomised controlled trials or comparative observational trials. We extracted critical outcomes of pain intensity, quality of life, physical functioning, role functioning, emotional functioning, sleep, and adverse events. We assessed studies for risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We included 34 pharmacological (4091 participants), 25 physical therapy (1470 participants), and 63 psychological trials (5025 participants). Participants reported a range of chronic pain conditions. Most studies were assessed to have unclear or high risk of bias across multiple domains. Pharmacological, physical, and psychological therapies showed some benefit for reducing pain, posttreatment, but only physical and psychological therapies improved physical functioning. We found no benefit of any treatment modality for health-related quality of life, role functioning, emotional functioning, or sleep. Adverse events were poorly reported, particularly for psychological and physical interventions. The largest evidence base for the management of chronic pain in children supports the use of psychological therapies, followed by pharmacological and physical therapies. However, we rated most outcomes as low or very low certainty, meaning further evidence is likely to change our confidence in the estimates of effects. This protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020172451).

The effects of supported employment interventions in populations of people with conditions other than severe mental health: a systematic review.

AIM: To assess the effectiveness of supported employment interventions for improving competitive employment in populations of people with conditions other than only severe mental illness. BACKGROUND: Supported employment interventions have been extensively tested in severe mental illness populations. These approaches may be beneficial outside of these populations. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Scopus, JSTOR, PEDro, OTSeeker, and NIOSHTIC for trials including unemployed people with any condition and including severe mental illness if combined with other co-morbidities or other specific circumstances (e.g., homelessness). We excluded trials where inclusion was based on severe mental illness alone. Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias (RoB v2.0) and four reviewers extracted data. We assessed rates of competitive employment as compared to traditional vocational rehabilitation or waiting list/services as usual. FINDINGS: Ten randomised controlled trials (913 participants) were included. Supported employment was more effective than control interventions for improving competitive employment in seven trials: in people with affective disorders [risk ratio (RR) 10.61 (1.49, 75.38)]; mental disorders and justice involvement [RR 4.44 (1.36,14.46)]; veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) [RR 2.73 (1.64, 4.54)]; formerly incarcerated veterans [RR 2.17 (1.09, 4.33)]; people receiving methadone treatment [RR 11.5 (1.62, 81.8)]; veterans with spinal cord injury at 12 months [RR 2.46 (1.16, 5.22)] and at 24 months [RR 2.81 (1.98, 7.37)]; and young people not in employment, education, or training [RR 5.90 (1.91-18.19)]. Three trials did not show significant benefits from supported employment: populations of workers with musculoskeletal injuries [RR 1.38 (1.00, 1.89)]; substance abuse [RR 1.85 (0.65, 5.41)]; and formerly homeless people with mental illness [RR 1.55 (0.76, 3.15)]. Supported employment interventions may be beneficial to people from more diverse populations than those with severe mental illness alone. Defining competitive employment and increasing (and standardising) measurement of non-vocational outcomes may help to improve research in this area.

Chemotherapy for second-stage human African trypanosomiasis: drugs in use.

BACKGROUND: Human African trypanosomiasis, or sleeping sickness, is a severe disease affecting people in the poorest parts of Africa. It is usually fatal without treatment. Conventional treatments require days of intravenous infusion, but a recently developed drug, fexinidazole, can be given orally. Another oral drug candidate, acoziborole, is undergoing clinical development and will be considered in subsequent editions.   OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of currently used drugs for treating second-stage Trypanosoma brucei gambiense trypanosomiasis (gambiense human African trypanosomiasis, g-HAT). SEARCH METHODS: On 14 May 2021, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database, BIOSIS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We also searched reference lists of included studies, contacted researchers working in the field, and contacted relevant organizations. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that included adults and children with second-stage g-HAT, treated with anti-trypanosomal drugs currently in use. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias; a third review author acted as an arbitrator if needed. The included trial only reported dichotomous outcomes, which we presented as risk ratio (RR) or risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).   MAIN RESULTS: We included one trial comparing fexinidazole to nifurtimox combined with eflornithine (NECT). This trial was conducted between October 2012 and November 2016 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic, and included 394 participants. The study reported on efficacy and safety, with up to 24 months' follow-up.  We judged the study to be at low risk of bias in all domains except blinding;  as the route of administration and dosing regimens differed between treatment groups,  participants and personnel were not blinded, resulting in a high risk of performance bias.   Mortality with fexinidazole may be higher at 24 months compared to NECT. There were 9/264 deaths in the fexinidazole group and 2/130 deaths in the NECT group (RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.49 to 10.11; 394 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the deaths were related to treatment. Fexinidazole likely results in an increase in the number of people relapsing during follow-up, with 14 participants in the fexinidazole group (14/264) and none in the NECT group (0/130) relapsing at 24 months (RD 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.08; 394 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).   We are uncertain whether there is any difference between the drugs regarding the incidence of serious adverse events at 24 months. (31/264 with fexinidazole and 13/130 with NECT group at 24 months). Adverse events were common with both drugs (247/264 with fexinidazole versus 121/130 with NECT), with no difference between groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.06; 394 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oral treatment with fexinidazole is much easier to administer than conventional treatment, but deaths and relapse appear to be more common. However, the advantages or an oral option are considerable, in terms of convenience, avoiding hospitalisation and multiple intravenous infusions, thus increasing adherence.

Diagnostic and classification tools for chronic headache disorders: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND OR AIM: Despite guidelines and the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-III beta) criteria, the diagnosis of common chronic headache disorders can be challenging for non-expert clinicians. The aim of the review was to identify headache classification tools that could be used by a non-expert clinician to classify common chronic disorders in primary care. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review of studies validating diagnostic and classification headache tools published between Jan 1988 and June 2016 from key databases: MEDLINE, ASSIA, Embase, Web of Knowledge and PsycINFO. Quality assessment was assessed using items of the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). RESULTS: The search identified 38 papers reporting the validation of 30 tools designed to diagnose, classify or screen for headache disorders; nine for multiple headache types, and 21 for one headache type only. We did not identify a tool validated in a primary care that can be used by a non-expert clinician to classify common chronic headache disorders and screen for primary headaches other than migraine and tension-type headache in primary care. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the availability of many headache classification tools we propose the need for a tool that could support primary care clinicians in diagnosing and managing chronic headache disorders within primary care, and allow more targeted referral to headache specialists.

Non-pharmacological self-management for people living with migraine or tension-type headache: a systematic review including analysis of intervention components.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of non-pharmacological self-management interventions against usual care, and to explore different components and delivery methods within those interventions PARTICIPANTS: People living with migraine and/or tension-type headache INTERVENTIONS: Non-pharmacological educational or psychological self-management interventions; excluding biofeedback and physical therapy.We assessed the overall effectiveness against usual care on headache frequency, pain intensity, mood, headache-related disability, quality of life and medication consumption in meta-analysis.We also provide preliminary evidence on the effectiveness of intervention components and delivery methods. RESULTS: We found a small overall effect for the superiority of self-management interventions over usual care, with a standardised mean difference (SMD) of -0.36 (-0.45 to -0.26) for pain intensity; -0.32 (-0.42 to -0.22) for headache-related disability, 0.32 (0.20 to 0.45) for quality of life and a moderate effect on mood (SMD=0.53 (-0.66 to -0.40)). We did not find an effect on headache frequency (SMD=-0.07 (-0.22 to 0.08)).Assessment of components and characteristics suggests a larger effect on pain intensity in interventions that included explicit educational components (-0.51 (-0.68 to -0.34) vs -0.28 (-0.40 to -0.16)); mindfulness components (-0.50 (-0.82 to -0.18) vs 0.34 (-0.44 to -0.24)) and in interventions delivered in groups vs one-to-one delivery (0.56 (-0.72 to -0.40) vs -0.39 (-0.52 to -0.27)) and larger effects on mood in interventions including a cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) component with an SMD of -0.72 (-0.93 to -0.51) compared with those without CBT -0.41 (-0.58 to -0.24). CONCLUSION: Overall we found that self-management interventions for migraine and tension-type headache are more effective than usual care in reducing pain intensity, mood and headache-related disability, but have no effect on headache frequency. Preliminary findings also suggest that including CBT, mindfulness and educational components in interventions, and delivery in groups may increase effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO 2016:CRD42016041291.

Prognostic factors for chronic headache: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify predictors of prognosis and trial outcomes in prospective studies of people with chronic headache. METHODS: This was a systematic review of published literature in peer-reviewed journals. We included (1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for chronic headache that reported subgroup analyses and (2) prospective cohort studies, published in English, since 1980. Participants included adults with chronic headache (including chronic headache, chronic migraine, and chronic tension-type headache with or without medication overuse headache). We searched key databases using free text and MeSH terms. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodologic quality of studies and overall quality of evidence identified using appropriate published checklists. RESULTS: We identified 16,556 titles, removed 663 duplicates, and reviewed 199 articles, of which 27 were included in the review-17 prospective cohorts and 10 RCTs with subgroup analyses reported. There was moderate-quality evidence indicating that depression, anxiety, poor sleep and stress, medication overuse, and poor self-efficacy for managing headaches are potential prognostic factors for poor prognosis and unfavorable outcomes from preventive treatment in chronic headache. There was inconclusive evidence about treatment expectations, age, age at onset, body mass index, employment, and several headache features. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified several potential predictors of poor prognosis and worse outcome postinterventions in people with chronic headache. The majority of these are modifiable. The findings also highlight the need for more longitudinal high-quality research of prognostic factors in chronic headache.

Rehabilitation following surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. A Cochrane review.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of active rehabilitation on functional outcome after lumbar spinal stenosis surgery when compared with "usual postoperative care." SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Surgery rates for lumbar spinal stenosis have risen, yet outcomes remain suboptimal. Postoperative rehabilitation has been suggested as a tool to improve postoperative function but, to date, there is limited evidence to support its use. METHODS: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), the Cochrane Back Review Group Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PEDro electronic databases were searched. Randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of active rehabilitation with usual care in adults with lumbar spinal stenosis who had undergone primary spinal decompression surgery were included. Two authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted the data in line with the recommendations of the Cochrane Back Review Group. Study results were pooled in a meta-analysis when appropriate using functional status as the primary outcome, with secondary outcomes including measures of leg pain, low back pain, and global improvement/general health. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of the evidence. RESULTS: Our searches yielded 1726 articles, of which 3 studies (N = 373 participants) were suitable for inclusion in meta-analysis. All included studies were deemed to have low risk of bias; no study had unacceptably high dropout rates. There was moderate evidence suggesting that active rehabilitation was more effective than usual care in improving both short- and long-term functional status after surgery. Similar findings were noted for secondary outcomes, including short-term improvement in low back pain and long-term improvement in both low back pain and leg pain. CONCLUSION: We obtained moderate-quality evidence indicating that postoperative active rehabilitation after decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis is more effective than usual care. Further work is required particularly with respect to the cost-effectiveness of such interventions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.

Rehabilitation following surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis is a common cause of back pain that can also give rise to pain in the buttock, thigh or leg, particularly when walking. Several possible treatments are available, of which surgery appears to be best at restoring function and reducing pain. Surgical outcome is not ideal, and a sizeable proportion of patients do not regain good function. No accepted evidence-based approach to postoperative care is known-a fact thathas prompted this review. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether active rehabilitation programmes following primary surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis have an impact on functional outcomes and whether such programmes are superior to 'usual postoperative care'. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from their first issues to March 2013: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, most recent issue), the Cochrane Back Review Group Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PEDro. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effectiveness of active rehabilitation versus usual care in adults (> 18 years of age) with confirmed lumbar spinal stenosis who had undergone spinal decompressive surgery (with or without fusion) for the first time. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials by using a predeveloped form. We contacted authors of original trials to request additional unpublished data as required. We recorded baseline characteristics of participants, interventions, comparisons, follow-up and outcome measures to enable assessment of clinical homogeneity. Clinical relevance was independently assessed by using the five questions recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG), and risk of bias within studies was determined by using CBRG criteria.We pooled individual study results in a meta-analysis when appropriate. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) when the same measurement scales were used in all studies and the standardised mean difference (SMD) when different measurement scales were used. Whenreported means and standard deviations of the outcomes showed that outcome data were skewed, we log-transformed data for all studies in the comparison and performed a meta-analysis on the log-scale. Results of analyses performed on the log-scale were converted back to the original scale. We used a fixed-effect inverse variance model to measure treatment effect when no substantial evidence of statistical heterogeneity was found. When we detected substantial statistical heterogeneity, we used a random-effects inverse variance model.The primary outcome measure was functional status as measured by a back-specific functional scale. Secondary outcomes included measures of leg pain, low back pain and global improvement/general health. We considered statistical significance and clinical relevance of outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of evidence for each outcome on the basis of five criteria, for which evidence was ranked from high to very low quality, depending on the number of criteria met. MAIN RESULTS: Our searches yielded 1,726 results, and a total of three studies (N = 373 participants) were included in the review and meta-analysis. All studies were deemed to have low risk of bias; no study had unacceptably high dropout rates. Also, no unacceptably unbalanced dropout rates, unacceptably low adherence rates or non-adherence to the protocol or clearly significant unbalanced baseline differences were noted for the primary outcome. Outcomes in the short term (within six months postoperative)Evidence of moderate quality from three RCTs (N = 340) shows that active rehabilitation is more effective than usual care for functional status (log SMD -0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.44 to 0.00, corresponding to an average percentage improvement (reduction in standardised functional score) of 20%, 95% CI 0% to 36%) and for reported low back pain (log MD -0.18, 95% CI-0.35 to -0.02, corresponding to an average percentage improvement (reduction in VAS score) of 16%, 95% CI 2% to 30%). In contrast, evidence of low quality suggests that rehabilitation is no more effective than usual care for leg pain (log MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.19, corresponding to an average percentage improvement (reduction in VAS score) of 16%, 95% CI 21% worsening to 41% improvement). Low-quality evidence from two RCTs (N = 238) indicates that rehabilitation has no additional benefit on general health status as compared to usual care (MD 1.30, 95% CI -4.45 to 7.06). Outcomes in the long term (at 12 months postoperative)Evidence of moderate quality from three RCTs (N = 373) shows that rehabilitation is more effective than usual care for functional status (log SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.05, corresponding to an average percentage improvement (reduction in standardised functional score) of 23%, 95% CI 5% to 37%), for reported low back pain (log MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.05, corresponding to an average percentage improvement (reduction in VAS score) of 18%, 95% CI 5% to 30%]. Evidence of moderate quality (N = 373) and for leg pain (log MD -0.24, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.01, corresponding to an average percentage improvement (reduction in VAS score) of 21%, 95% CI 1% to 37%). In contrast, evidence of low quality from two studies (N = 273) suggests that rehabilitation is no more effective than usual care with respect to improvement in general health (MD -0.48, 95% CI -6.41 to 5.4).None of the included papers reported any relevant adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that active rehabilitation is more effective than usual care in improving both short- and long-term (back-related) functional status. Similar findings were noted for secondary outcomes, including short-term improvement in low back pain and long-term improvement in both low back pain and leg pain, although limited impact was observed in relation to improvements in general health status. The clinical relevance of these effects is medium to small. Our evaluation is limited by the small number of relevant studies identified, and further research is required.