Intensive glucose control in critically ill adults: a protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis / Controle intensivo da glicose em adultos em estado grave: um protocolo de revisão sistemática e metanálise de dados individuais de pacientes

ABSTRACT Objective: The optimal target for blood glucose concentration in critically ill patients is unclear. We will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis with aggregated and individual patient data from randomized controlled trials, comparing intensive glucose control with liberal glucose control in critically ill adults. Data sources: MEDLINE®, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, and clinical trials registries (World Health Organization, clinical trials.gov). The authors of eligible trials will be invited to provide individual patient data. Published trial-level data from eligible trials that are not at high risk of bias will be included in an aggregated data meta-analysis if individual patient data are not available. Methods: Inclusion criteria: randomized controlled trials that recruited adult patients, targeting a blood glucose of ≤ 120mg/dL (≤ 6.6mmol/L) compared to a higher blood glucose concentration target using intravenous insulin in both groups. Excluded studies: those with an upper limit blood glucose target in the intervention group of > 120mg/dL (> 6.6mmol/L), or where intensive glucose control was only performed in the intraoperative period, and those where loss to follow-up exceeded 10% by hospital discharge. Primary endpoint: In-hospital mortality during index hospital admission. Secondary endpoints: mortality and survival at other timepoints, duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive agents, and renal replacement therapy. A random effect Bayesian meta-analysis and hierarchical Bayesian models for individual patient data will be used. Discussion: This systematic review with aggregate and individual patient data will address the clinical question, 'what is the best blood glucose target for critically ill patients overall?' Protocol version 0.4 - 06/26/2023 PROSPERO registration: CRD42021278869

RESUMO Objetivo: Não está claro qual é a meta ideal de concentração de glicose no sangue em pacientes em estado grave. Realizaremos uma revisão sistemática e uma metanálise com dados agregados e de pacientes individuais de estudos controlados e randomizados, comparando o controle intensivo da glicose com o controle liberal da glicose em adultos em estado grave. Fontes de dados: MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials e registros de ensaios clínicos (Organização Mundial da Saúde, clinical trials.gov). Os autores dos estudos qualificados serão convidados a fornecer dados individuais de pacientes. Os dados publicados em nível de ensaio qualificado que não apresentem alto risco de viés serão incluídos em uma metanálise de dados agregados se os dados individuais de pacientes não estiverem disponíveis. Métodos: Critérios de inclusão: ensaios clínicos controlados e randomizados que recrutaram pacientes adultos, com meta de glicemia ≤ 120mg/dL (≤ 6,6mmol/L) comparada a uma meta de concentração de glicemia mais alta com insulina intravenosa em ambos os grupos. Estudos excluídos: aqueles com meta de glicemia no limite superior no grupo de intervenção > 120mg/dL (> 6,6mmol/L), ou em que o controle intensivo de glicose foi realizado apenas no período intraoperatório, e aqueles em que a perda de seguimento excedeu 10% até a alta hospitalar. Desfecho primário: Mortalidade intra-hospitalar durante a admissão hospitalar. Desfechos secundários: Mortalidade e sobrevida em outros momentos, duração da ventilação mecânica invasiva, agentes vasoativos e terapia de substituição renal. Utilizaremos metanálise bayesiana de efeito randômico e modelos bayesianos hierárquicos para dados individuais de pacientes. Discussão: Essa revisão sistemática com dados agregados e de pacientes individuais abordará a questão clínica: Qual é a melhor meta de glicose no sangue de pacientes graves em geral? Protocolo versão 0.4 - 26/06/2023 Registro PROSPERO: CRD42021278869

Intensive glucose control in critically ill adults: a protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal target for blood glucose concentration in critically ill patients is unclear. We will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis with aggregated and individual patient data from randomized controlled trials, comparing intensive glucose control with liberal glucose control in critically ill adults. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE®, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, and clinical trials registries (World Health Organization, clinical trials.gov). The authors of eligible trials will be invited to provide individual patient data. Published trial-level data from eligible trials that are not at high risk of bias will be included in an aggregated data meta-analysis if individual patient data are not available. METHODS: Inclusion criteria: randomized controlled trials that recruited adult patients, targeting a blood glucose of ≤ 120mg/dL (≤ 6.6mmol/L) compared to a higher blood glucose concentration target using intravenous insulin in both groups. Excluded studies: those with an upper limit blood glucose target in the intervention group of > 120mg/dL (> 6.6mmol/L), or where intensive glucose control was only performed in the intraoperative period, and those where loss to follow-up exceeded 10% by hospital discharge. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: In-hospital mortality during index hospital admission. Secondary endpoints: mortality and survival at other timepoints, duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive agents, and renal replacement therapy. A random effect Bayesian meta-analysis and hierarchical Bayesian models for individual patient data will be used. DISCUSSION: This systematic review with aggregate and individual patient data will address the clinical question, 'what is the best blood glucose target for critically ill patients overall?'Protocol version 0.4 - 06/26/2023PROSPERO registration:CRD42021278869.

The cost-effectiveness of digital health interventions: A systematic review of the literature.

Background: Digital health interventions have significant potential to improve safety, efficacy, and quality of care, reducing waste in healthcare costs. Despite these premises, the evidence regarding cost and effectiveness of digital tools in health is scarce and limited. Objectives: The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of digital health interventions and to assess whether the studies meet the established quality criteria. Methods: We queried PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases for articles in English published from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020 that performed economic evaluations of digital health technologies. The methodological rigorousness of studies was assessed with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2009 checklist. Results: Search identified 1,476 results, 552 of which were selected for abstract and 35 were included in this review. The studies were heterogeneous by country (mostly conducted in upper and upper-middle income countries), type of eHealth intervention, method of implementation, and reporting perspectives. The qualitative analysis identified the economic and effectiveness evaluation of six different types of interventions: (1) seventeen studies on new video-monitoring service systems; (2) five studies on text messaging interventions; (3) five studies on web platforms and digital health portals; (4) two studies on telephone support; (5) three studies on new mobile phone-based systems and applications; and (6) three studies on digital technologies and innovations. Conclusion: Findings on cost-effectiveness of digital interventions showed a growing body of evidence and suggested a generally favorable effect in terms of costs and health outcomes. However, due to the heterogeneity across study methods, the comparison between interventions still remains difficult. Further research based on a standardized approach is needed in order to methodically analyze incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, costs, and health benefits.