A systematic survey of 200 systematic reviews with network meta-analysis (published 2020 - 2021) reveals that few reviews report structured evidence summaries.

OBJECTIVE: To map whether and how systematic reviews (SRs) with network meta-analysis (NMA) use presentation formats to report (a) structured evidence summaries - here defined as reporting of effects estimates in absolute effects with certainty ratings and with a method to rate interventions across one or more outcome(s) - and (b) NMA results in general. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a systematic survey, searching MEDLINE (Ovid) for SRs with NMA published between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021. We planned to include a random sample of publications, with predefined mechanisms in place for saturation, and included SRs that met pre-specified quality criteria and extracted data on presentation formats that reported: (a) estimates of effects, (b) certainty of the evidence, or (c) rating of interventions. RESULTS: The 200 eligible SRs, from 158 unique Journals, utilized 1133 presentation formats. We found structured evidence summaries in 10 publications (5.0%), with three (1.5%) reporting structured evidence summaries across all outcomes, including benefits and harms. Sixteen of the 133 SRs (11.7%) reporting dichotomous outcomes included estimates of absolute effects. Seventy-six SRs (38.0%) reported both benefits and harms and 26 SRs (13.0%) reported certainty ratings in presentation formats, 20 (76.9%) used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and six (23.1%) used Confidence In Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA). Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve (SUCRA) was the most common method to rate interventions (69 SRs, 34.5%). NMA results were most often reported using forest plots (108 SRs, 54.0%) and league tables (93 SRs, 46.5%). CONCLUSION: Most SRs with NMA do not report structured evidence summaries and only rarely do such summaries include reporting of both benefits and harms. Those that do offer effective user-friendly communication and provide models for optimal NMA presentation practice.

Restrictive versus liberal red blood cell transfusion strategies for people with haematological malignancies treated with intensive chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, with or without haematopoietic stem cell support.

BACKGROUND: An estimated one-quarter to one-half of people diagnosed with haematological malignancies experience anaemia. There are different strategies for red blood cell (RBC) transfusions to treat anaemia. A restrictive transfusion strategy permits a lower haemoglobin (Hb) level whereas a liberal transfusion strategy aims to maintain a higher Hb. The most effective and safest strategy is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion strategies for people diagnosed with haematological malignancies treated with intensive chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, with or without a haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). SEARCH METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRS) in MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1982), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2023, Issue 2), and eight other databases (including three trial registries) to 21 March 2023. We also searched grey literature and contacted experts in transfusion for additional trials. There were no language, date or publication status restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and prospective NRS that evaluated restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion strategies in children or adults with malignant haematological disorders receiving intensive chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, with or without HSCT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened references, full-text reports of potentially relevant studies, extracted data from the studies, and assessed the risk of bias. Any disagreement was discussed and resolved with a third review author. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Narrative syntheses were used for heterogeneous outcome measures. Review Manager Web was used to meta-analyse the data. Main outcomes of interest included: all-cause mortality at 31 to 100 days, quality of life, number of participants with any bleeding, number of participants with clinically significant bleeding, serious infections, length of hospital admission (days) and hospital readmission at 0 to 3 months. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Nine studies met eligibility; eight RCTs and one NRS. Six hundred and forty-four participants were included from six completed RCTs (n = 560) and one completed NRS (n = 84), with two ongoing RCTs consisting of 294 participants (260 adult and 34 paediatric) pending inclusion. Only one completed RCT included children receiving HSCT (n = 6); the other five RCTs only included adults: 239 with acute leukaemia receiving chemotherapy and 315 receiving HSCT (166 allogeneic and 149 autologous). The transfusion threshold ranged from 70 g/L to 80 g/L for restrictive and from 80 g/L to 120 g/L for liberal strategies. Effects were reported in the summary of findings tables only for the trials that included adults to reduce indirectness due to the limited evidence contributed by the prematurely terminated paediatric trial. Evidence from RCTs Overall, there may be little to no difference in the number of participants who die within 31 to 100 days using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy, but the evidence is very uncertain (three studies; 451 participants; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.70, P=0.99; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in quality of life at 0 to 3 months using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy, but the evidence is very uncertain (three studies; 431 participants; analysis unable to be completed due to heterogeneity; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in the number of participants who suffer from any bleeding at 0 to 3 months using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy (three studies; 448 participants; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06, P = 0.22; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in the number of participants who suffer from clinically significant bleeding at 0 to 3 months using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy (four studies; 511 participants; RR: 0.94, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.19, P = 0.60; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in the number of participants who experience serious infections at 0 to 3 months using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy (three studies, 451 participants; RR: 1.20, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.55, P = 0.17; low-certainty evidence). A restrictive transfusion strategy likely results in little to no difference in the length of hospital admission at 0 to 3 months compared to a liberal strategy (two studies; 388 participants; analysis unable to be completed due to heterogeneity in reporting; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between hospital readmission using a restrictive transfusion strategy compared to a liberal transfusion strategy (one study, 299 participants; RR: 0.89, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.50; P = 0.65; low-certainty evidence). Evidence from NRS The evidence is very uncertain whether a restrictive RBC transfusion strategy: reduces the risk of death within 100 days (one study, 84 participants, restrictive 1 death; liberal 1 death; very low-certainty evidence); or decreases the risk of clinically significant bleeding (one study, 84 participants, restrictive 3; liberal 8; very low-certainty evidence). No NRS reported on the other eligible outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this review were based on seven studies and 644 participants. Definite conclusions are challenging given the relatively few included studies, low number of included participants, heterogeneity of intervention and outcome reporting, and overall certainty of evidence. To increase the certainty of the true effect of a restrictive RBC transfusion strategy on clinical outcomes, there is a need for rigorously designed and executed studies. The evidence is largely based on two populations: adults with acute leukaemia receiving intensive chemotherapy and adults with haematologic malignancy requiring HSCT. Despite the addition of 405 participants from three RCTs to the previous review's results, there is still insufficient evidence to answer this review's primary outcome. If we assume a mortality rate of 3% within 100 days, we would need a total of 1492 participants to have an 80% chance of detecting, at a 5% level of significance, an increase in all-cause mortality from 3% to 6%. Further RCTs are needed overall, particularly in children.

Comparative Effectiveness of Sotatercept and Approved Add-On Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Therapies: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

RATIONALE: There are no direct comparisons of sotatercept to add-on therapies approved for PAH. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of add-on sotatercept versus other add-on therapies using a network meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane CENTRAL, and Clinicaltrials.gov until April 15, 2023, for randomized trials involving PAH patients treated with add-on sotatercept or add-on other PAH therapies. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed independently and in duplicate using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. We performed frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis using the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimator and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Our search found 18 trials (5777 patients) eligible for analysis. Sotatercept reduces clinical worsening as compared to placebo (RR 0.21 [95% CI 0.11 to 0.41]; high certainty). Sotatercept probably reduces clinical worsening more compared to add-on ERA (RR 0.28 [95% CI 0.14 to 0.55]), prostanoid (Inh) (RR 0.21 [95% CI 0.07 to 0.67]), and prostanoid (PO) (RR 0.32 [95% CI 0.16 to 0.67]) (all moderate certainty). Sotatercept probably improves 6MWD as compared to placebo (MD 36.89m [95% CI 25.26 to 48.51]). Although sotatercept probably improves 6MWD more than add-on ERA (MD 18.38m [95% CI 5.92 to 30.84]) and prostanoid (PO) (MD 25.66m [95% CI 13.71 to 37.61]), it did not exceed the MCID of 33m (both moderate certainty). CONCLUSION: Sotatercept is an effective add-on therapy for PAH, likely superior to many approved add-on PAH therapies in reducing clinical worsening.

Adverse Effects Related to Corticosteroid Use in Sepsis, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, and Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We postulate that corticosteroid-related side effects in critically ill patients are similar across sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). By pooling data across all trials that have examined corticosteroids in these three acute conditions, we aim to examine the side effects of corticosteroid use in critical illness. DATA SOURCES: We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention library of COVID research, CINAHL, and Cochrane center for trials. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared corticosteroids to no corticosteroids or placebo in patients with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. DATA EXTRACTION: We summarized data addressing the most described side effects of corticosteroid use in critical care: gastrointestinal bleeding, hyperglycemia, hypernatremia, superinfections/secondary infections, neuropsychiatric effects, and neuromuscular weakness. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 47 RCTs (n = 13,893 patients). Corticosteroids probably have no effect on gastrointestinal bleeding (relative risk [RR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.87-1.34; absolute risk increase [ARI], 0.3%; moderate certainty) or secondary infections (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.05; absolute risk reduction, 0.5%; moderate certainty) and may have no effect on neuromuscular weakness (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.03-1.45; ARI, 1.4%; low certainty) or neuropsychiatric events (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.82-1.74; ARI, 0.5%; low certainty). Conversely, they increase the risk of hyperglycemia (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.31; ARI, 5.4%; high certainty) and probably increase the risk of hypernatremia (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.29-1.96; ARI, 2.3%; moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: In ARDS, sepsis, and CAP, corticosteroids are associated with hyperglycemia and probably with hypernatremia but likely have no effect on gastrointestinal bleeding or secondary infections. More data examining effects of corticosteroids, particularly on neuropsychiatric outcomes and neuromuscular weakness, would clarify the safety of this class of drugs in critical illness.

Home respiratory strategies in COPD patients with chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background: Home non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) may improve chronic hypercarbia in COPD and patient important outcomes. The efficacy of home high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) as an alternative is unclear.Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, SCOPUS, and Clinicaltrials.gov for randomized trials of patients from inception to March 31st and updated the search on July 14, 2023. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We analyzed randomized trials (RCTs) comparing NPPV, HFNC, or standard care in adult COPD patients with chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure. Outcomes included mortality, COPD exacerbations, hospitalizations, and quality of life (SGRQ).Results: We analyzed twenty-four RCTs (1850 patients). We found that NPPV may reduce death risk compared to standard care (relative risk [RR] 0.82 [95% CI 0.66 to 1.00]) and probably reduces acute exacerbations (RR 0.71 [95% CI 0.58 to 0.87]). HFNC probably reduces acute exacerbations compared to standard care (RR 0.77 [0.68 to 0.88]) but its effect on mortality is uncertain (RR 1.20 [95% CI 0.63 to 2.28]). HFNC probably improves SGRQ scores (mean difference [MD] -7.01 [95% CI -12.27 to -1.77]) and may reduce hospitalizations (RR 0.87 [0.69 to 1.09]) compared to standard care. No significant difference was observed between HFNC and NPPV in reducing exacerbations.Conclusion: Both NPPV and HFNC reduce exacerbation risks in COPD patients compared to standard care. HFNC may offer advantages in improving quality of life.

Grilling the data: application of specification curve analysis to red meat and all-cause mortality.

OBJECTIVES: To present an application of specification curve analysis-a novel analytic method that involves defining and implementing all plausible and valid analytic approaches for addressing a research question-to nutritional epidemiology. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We reviewed all observational studies addressing the effect of red meat on all-cause mortality, sourced from a published systematic review, and documented variations in analytic methods (eg, choice of model, covariates, etc.). We enumerated all defensible combinations of analytic choices to produce a comprehensive list of all the ways in which the data may reasonably be analyzed. We applied specification curve analysis to data from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2007 to 2014 to investigate the effect of unprocessed red meat on all-cause mortality. The specification curve analysis used a random sample of all reasonable analytic specifications we sourced from primary studies. RESULTS: Among 15 publications reporting on 24 cohorts included in the systematic review on red meat and all-cause mortality, we identified 70 unique analytic methods, each including different analytic models, covariates, and operationalizations of red meat (eg, continuous vs quantiles). We applied specification curve analysis to National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, including 10,661 participants. Our specification curve analysis included 1208 unique analytic specifications, of which 435 (36.0%) yielded a hazard ratio equal to or more than 1 for the effect of red meat on all-cause mortality and 773 (64.0%) less than 1. The specification curve analysis yielded a median hazard ratio of 0.94 (interquartile range: 0.83-1.05). Forty-eight specifications (3.97%) were statistically significant, 40 of which indicated unprocessed red meat to reduce all-cause mortality and eight of which indicated red meat to increase mortality. CONCLUSION: We show that the application of specification curve analysis to nutritional epidemiology is feasible and presents an innovative solution to analytic flexibility.

2024 Focused Update: Guidelines on Use of Corticosteroids in Sepsis, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, and Community-Acquired Pneumonia.

RATIONALE: New evidence is available examining the use of corticosteroids in sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), warranting a focused update of the 2017 guideline on critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency. OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for use of corticosteroids in hospitalized adults and children with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. PANEL DESIGN: The 22-member panel included diverse representation from medicine, including adult and pediatric intensivists, pulmonologists, endocrinologists, nurses, pharmacists, and clinician-methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines. We followed Society of Critical Care Medicine conflict of interest policies in all phases of the guideline development, including task force selection and voting. METHODS: After development of five focused Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) questions, we conducted systematic reviews to identify the best available evidence addressing each question. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and formulated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. RESULTS: In response to the five PICOs, the panel issued four recommendations addressing the use of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. These included a conditional recommendation to administer corticosteroids for patients with septic shock and critically ill patients with ARDS and a strong recommendation for use in hospitalized patients with severe CAP. The panel also recommended against high dose/short duration administration of corticosteroids for septic shock. In response to the final PICO regarding type of corticosteroid molecule in ARDS, the panel was unable to provide specific recommendations addressing corticosteroid molecule, dose, and duration of therapy, based on currently available evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The panel provided updated recommendations based on current evidence to inform clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders on the use of corticosteroids for sepsis, ARDS, and CAP.

Corticosteroids in Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review, Pairwise, and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, up to January 10, 2023. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing corticosteroids with placebo or standard care with sepsis. DATA EXTRACTION: The critical outcomes of interest included mortality, shock reversal, length of stay in the ICU, and adverse events. DATA ANALYSIS: We performed both a pairwise and dose-response meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of different corticosteroid doses on outcomes. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to assess certainty in pooled estimates. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 45 RCTs involving 9563 patients. Corticosteroids probably reduce short-term mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99; moderate certainty) and increase shock reversal at 7 days (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.11-1.38; high certainty). Corticosteroids may have no important effect on duration of ICU stay (mean difference, -0.6 fewer days; 95% CI, 1.48 fewer to 0.27 more; low certainty); however, probably increase the risk of hyperglycemia (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.18; moderate certainty) and hypernatremia (RR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.32-2.03; moderate certainty) and may increase the risk of neuromuscular weakness (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.45; low certainty). The dose-response analysis showed a reduction in mortality with corticosteroids with optimal dosing of approximately 260 mg/d of hydrocortisone (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.98) or equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: We found that corticosteroids may reduce mortality and increase shock reversal but they may also increase the risk of hyperglycemia, hypernatremia, and neuromuscular weakness. The dose-response analysis indicates optimal dosing is around 260 mg/d of hydrocortisone or equivalent.

Dexamethasone doses in patients with COVID-19 and hypoxia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal dose of dexamethasone for severe/critical COVID-19 is uncertain. We compared higher versus standard doses of dexamethasone in adults with COVID-19 and hypoxia. METHODS: We searched PubMed and trial registers until 23 June 2023 for randomised clinical trials comparing higher (>6 mg) versus standard doses (6 mg) of dexamethasone in adults with COVID-19 and hypoxia. The primary outcome was mortality at 1 month. Secondary outcomes were mortality closest to 90 days; days alive without life support; and the occurrence of serious adverse events/reactions (SAEs/SARs) closest to 1 month. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB2 tool, risk of random errors using trial sequential analysis, and certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: We included eight trials (2478 participants), of which four (1293 participants) had low risk of bias. Higher doses of dexamethasone probably resulted in little to no difference in mortality at 1 month (relative risk [RR] 0.97, 95% CI: 0.79-1.19), mortality closest to Day 90 (RR 1.01, 95% CI: 0.86-1.20), and SAEs/SARs (RR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.97-1.02). Higher doses of dexamethasone probably increased the number of days alive without invasive mechanical ventilation and circulatory support but had no effect on days alive without renal replacement therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Based on low to moderate certainty evidence, higher versus standard doses of dexamethasone probably result in little to no difference in mortality, SAEs/SARs, and days alive without renal replacement therapy, but probably increase the number of days alive without invasive mechanical ventilation and circulatory support.

Prognostic factors associated with mortality in acute exacerbations of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acute exacerbations of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (AE-IPF) increases mortality risk, but which factors increase mortality is unknown. We aimed to perform a prognostic review of factors associated with mortality in patients with IPF. STUDY DESIGN: and methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL for studies that reported on the association between any prognostic factor and AE-IPF. We assessed risk of bias using the QUIPS tool. We conduced pairwise meta-analyses using REML heterogeneity estimator, and GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: We included 35 studies in our analysis. We found that long-term supplemental oxygen at baseline (aHR 2.52 [95 % CI 1.68 to 3.80]; moderate certainty) and a diagnosis of IPF compared to non-IPF ILD (aHR 2.19 [95 % CI 1.22 to 3.92]; moderate certainty) is associated with a higher risk of death in patients with AE-IPF. A diffuse pattern on high resolution computed tomography (HRCT) compared to a non-diffuse pattern (aHR 2.61 [95 % CI 1.32 to 2.90]; moderate certainty) is associated with a higher risk of death in patients with AE-IPF. We found that using corticosteroids prior to hospital admission (aHR 2.19 [95 % CI 1.26 to 3.82]; moderate certainty) and those with increased neutrophils (by % increase) in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) during the exacerbation is associated with a higher risk of death (aHR 1.02 [1.01 to 1.04]; moderate certainty). INTERPRETATION: Our results have implications for healthcare providers in making treatment decisions and prognosticating the clinical trajectory of patients, for researchers to design future interventions to improve patient trajectory, and for guideline developers in making decisions about resource allocation.

Systemic corticosteroids in fibrotic lung disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the available evidence for corticosteroids in fibrotic interstitial lung disease (fILD) to inform the randomised embedded multifactorial adaptive platform ILD. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched Embase, Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL and Web of Science databases from inception to April 17 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies that compared corticosteroids with standard care, placebo or no treatment in adult patients with fILD. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We report on the change in forced vital capacity (FVC) and mortality. We used random-effects meta-analysis to estimate relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) and standardised MDs for continuous outcomes, with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Of the 13 229 unique citations identified, we included 10 observational studies comprising 1639 patients. Corticosteroids had an uncertain effect on mortality compared with no treatment (RR 1.03 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.25); very low certainty evidence). The effect of corticosteroids on the rate of decline in FVC (% predicted) was uncertain when compared with no treatment (MD 4.29% (95% CI -8.26% to 16.83%); very low certainty evidence). However, corticosteroids might reduce the rate of decline in FVC in patients with non-idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) fILD (MD 10.89% (95% CI 5.25% to 16.53%); low certainty evidence), while an uncertain effect was observed in patients with IPF (MD -3.80% (95% CI -8.94% to 1.34%); very low certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence on the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in fILD is limited and of low certainty. Randomised trials are needed to address this significant research gap.

Home high flow nasal cannula for chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure in COPD: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) with chronic hypercapnia is usually treated with non-invasive ventilation (NIV). High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) may be an appropriate alternative. However, the efficacy of HFNC in COPD patients with chronic hypercapnia is yet to be optimally summarized. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using random effects with inverse variance methods. Randomized controlled trials involving adult COPD patients initiated on HFNC for at least one month were included. Outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, acute exacerbations, hospitalizations, and change in St. George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). We assessed the risk of bias using ROB 2.0 and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE. RESULTS: We included four randomized trials involving 440 patients. HFNC probably reduces acute exacerbations compared to standard care (RR 0.77 [95 % CI 0.66 to 0.89]; moderate certainty), suggesting 69 fewer acute exacerbations per 1000 patients. HFNC may reduce hospital admissions (RR 0.87 [95 % CI 0.69 to 1.09]; low certainty) and may lower the SGRQ score (MD 8.12 units lower [95 % CI 13.30 to 2.95 lower]; low certainty). However, HFNC may have no effect on mortality (RR 1.22 [95 % CI 0.64 to 2.35]; low certainty). CONCLUSION: HFNC probably reduces acute exacerbations and might reduce hospital admissions in COPD patients with chronic hypercapnia. However, its effect on mortality is uncertain. Future larger RCTs with longer follow-up periods are recommended to provide more robust evidence on the efficacy of HFNC in patients with COPD.

Intraoperative use of balanced crystalloids versus 0.9% saline: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled studies.

BACKGROUND: The evidence regarding optimal crystalloid use in the perioperative period remains unclear. As the primary aim of this study, we sought to summarise the data from RCTs examining whether use of balanced crystalloids compared with 0.9% saline (saline) leads to differences in patient-important outcomes. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane library, and Clinicaltrials.gov, from inception until December 15, 2022, and included RCTs that intraoperatively randomised adult participants to receive either balanced fluids or saline. We pooled data using a random-effects model and present risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs), along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed individual study risk of bias using the modified Cochrane tool, and certainty of evidence using GRADE. RESULTS: Of 5959 citations, we included 38 RCTs (n=3776 patients). Pooled analysis showed that intraoperative use of balanced fluids compared with saline had an uncertain effect on postoperative mortality analysed at the longest point of follow-up (RR 1.51, 95% CI: 0.42-5.36) and postoperative need for renal replacement therapy (RR 0.95, 95% CI: 0.56-1.59), both very low certainty. Furthermore, use of balanced crystalloids probably leads to a higher postoperative serum pH (MD 0.05, 95% CI: 0.04-0.06), moderate certainty. CONCLUSIONS: Use of balanced crystalloids, compared with saline, in the perioperative setting has an uncertain effect on mortality and need for renal replacement therapy but probably improves postoperative acid-base status. Further research is needed to determine whether balanced crystalloid use affects patient-important outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42022367593.

Impact of Allocation Concealment and Blinding in Trials Addressing Treatments for COVID-19: A Methods Study.

We aimed to assess the impact of allocation concealment and blinding on the results of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) trials, using the World Health Organization COVID-19 database (to February 2022). We identified 488 randomized trials comparing drug therapeutics with placebo or standard care in patients with COVID-19. We performed random-effects meta-regressions comparing the results of trials with and without allocation concealment and blinding of health-care providers and patients. We found that, compared with trials with allocation concealment, trials without allocation concealment may estimate treatments to be more beneficial for mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital admission, duration of hospitalization, and duration of mechanical ventilation, but results were imprecise. We did not find compelling evidence that, compared with trials with blinding, trials without blinding produce consistently different results for mortality, mechanical ventilation, and duration of hospitalization. We found that trials without blinding may estimate treatments to be more beneficial for hospitalizations and duration of mechanical ventilation. We did not find compelling evidence that COVID-19 trials in which health-care providers and patients are blinded produce different results from trials without blinding, but trials without allocation concealment estimate treatments to be more beneficial compared with trials with allocation concealment. Our study suggests that lack of blinding may not always bias results but that evidence users should remain skeptical of trials without allocation concealment.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Wakefulness-Promoting Agents for Excessive Daytime Sleepiness in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea : A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) is common among patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic agents is unknown. PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of drugs for EDS in OSA using network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov to 7 November 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Reviewers identified randomized trials that enrolled patients with EDS-associated OSA on or eligible for conventional therapy assigned to any pharmacologic intervention. DATA EXTRACTION: Paired reviewers independently extracted data addressing effects of drugs on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT), and adverse events at the longest reported follow-up. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fourteen trials (3085 patients) were eligible. At 4 weeks, compared with placebo, solriamfetol improves ESS scores (mean difference [MD], -3.85 [95% CI, -5.24 to -2.50]; high certainty), and armodafinil-modafinil (MD, -2.25 [CI, -2.85 to -1.64]; moderate certainty) and pitolisant-H3-autoreceptor blockers (MD, -2.78 [CI, -4.03 to -1.51]; moderate certainty) probably improve ESS scores. At 4 weeks, compared with placebo, solriamfetol (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.9 [CI, 0.64 to 1.17]) and armodafinil-modafinil (SMD, 0.41 [CI, 0.27 to 0.55]) improve MWT (both high certainty), whereas pitolisant-H3-autoreceptor blockers probably do not (moderate certainty). At 4 weeks, armodafinil-modafinil probably increases the risk for discontinuation due to adverse events (relative risk [RR], 2.01 [CI, 1.14 to 3.51]; moderate certainty); solriamfetol may increase the risk for discontinuation due to adverse events (RR, 2.07 [CI, 0.67 to 6.25]; low certainty). Low certainty evidence suggests these interventions may not increase the risk for serious adverse events. LIMITATIONS: There is limited evidence on long term or effectiveness among patients nonadherent or with mixed adherence to conventional OSA therapies. CONCLUSION: Solriamfetol, armodafinil-modafinil, and pitolisant reduce daytime sleepiness for patients with OSA already on conventional therapy, with solriamfetol likely superior. Adverse events probably increase the risk for discontinuation of armodafinil-modafinil and may increase the risk for discontinuation with solriamfetol. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Corticosteroids in Community-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia: a Systematic Review, Pairwise and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: International guidelines provide heterogenous guidance on use of corticosteroids for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). METHODS: We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials examining corticosteroids in hospitalized adult patients with suspected or probable CAP. We performed a pairwise and dose-response meta-analysis using the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) heterogeneity estimator. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE methodology and the credibility of subgroups using the ICEMAN tool. RESULTS: We identified 18 eligible studies that included 4661 patients. Corticosteroids probably reduce mortality in more severe CAP (RR 0.62 [95% CI 0.45 to 0.85]; moderate certainty) with possibly no effect in less severe CAP (RR 1.08 [95% CI 0.83 to 1.42]; low certainty). We found a non-linear dose-response relationship between corticosteroids and mortality, suggesting an optimal dose of approximately 6 mg of dexamethasone (or equivalent) for a duration of therapy of 7 days (RR 0.44 [95% 0.30 to 0.66]). Corticosteroids probably reduce the risk of requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.56 [95% CI 0.42 to 74] and probably reduce intensive care unit (ICU) admission (RR 0.65 [95% CI 0.43 to 0.97]) (both moderate certainty). Corticosteroids may reduce the duration of hospitalization and ICU stay (both low certainty). Corticosteroids may increase the risk of hyperglycemia (RR 1.76 [95% CI 1.46 to 2.14]) (low certainty). CONCLUSION: Moderate certainty evidence indicates that corticosteroids reduce mortality in patients with more severe CAP, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, and ICU admission.