Psychosocial and medication interventions to stop or reduce alcohol consumption during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Despite the known harms, alcohol consumption is common in pregnancy. Rates vary between countries, and are estimated to be 10% globally, with up to 25% in Europe. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of psychosocial interventions and medications to reduce or stop alcohol consumption during pregnancy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register (via CRSLive), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycINFO, from inception to 8 January 2024. We also searched for ongoing and unpublished studies via ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared medications or psychosocial interventions, or both, to placebo, no intervention, usual care, or other medications or psychosocial interventions used to reduce or stop alcohol use during pregnancy. Our primary outcomes of interest were abstinence from alcohol, reduction in alcohol consumption, retention in treatment, and women with any adverse event. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies (1369 participants) in which pregnant women received an intervention to stop or reduce alcohol use during pregnancy. In one study, almost half of participants had a current diagnosis of alcohol use disorder (AUD); in another study, 40% of participants had a lifetime diagnosis of AUD. Six studies took place in the USA, one in Spain, and one in the Netherlands. All included studies evaluated the efficacy of psychosocial interventions; we did not find any study that evaluated the efficacy of medications for the treatment of AUD during pregnancy. Psychosocial interventions were mainly brief interventions ranging from a single session of 10 to 60 minutes to five sessions of 10 minutes each. Pregnant women received the psychosocial intervention approximately at the end of the first trimester of pregnancy, and the outcome of alcohol use was reassessed 8 to 24 weeks after the psychosocial intervention. Women in the control group received treatment as usual (TAU) or similar treatments such as comprehensive assessment of alcohol use and advice to stop drinking during pregnancy. Globally, we found that, compared to TAU, psychosocial interventions may increase the rate of continuously abstinent participants (risk ratio (RR) 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 1.57; I2 =0%; 3 studies; 378 women; low certainty evidence). Psychosocial interventions may have little to no effect on the number of drinks per day, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference -0.42, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.28; I2 = 86%; 2 studies; 157 women; very low certainty evidence). Psychosocial interventions probably have little to no effect on the number of women who completed treatment (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.02; I2 = 0%; 7 studies; 1283 women; moderate certainty evidence). None of the included studies assessed adverse events of treatments. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to risk of bias and imprecision of the estimates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Brief psychosocial interventions may increase the rate of continuous abstinence among pregnant women who report alcohol use during pregnancy. Further studies should be conducted to investigate the efficacy and safety of psychosocial interventions and other treatments (e.g. medications) for women with AUD. These studies should provide detailed information on alcohol use before and during pregnancy using consistent measures such as the number of drinks per drinking day. When heterogeneous populations are recruited, more detailed information on alcohol use during pregnancy should be provided to allow future systematic reviews to be conducted. Other important information that would enhance the usefulness of these studies would be the presence of other comorbid conditions such as anxiety, mood disorders, and the use of other psychoactive substances.

Psychosocial interventions for stimulant use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Stimulant use disorder is a continuously growing medical and social burden without approved medications available for its treatment. Psychosocial interventions could be a valid approach to help people reduce or cease stimulant consumption. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of psychosocial interventions for stimulant use disorder in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trials registers in September 2023. All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched the references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any psychosocial intervention with no intervention, treatment as usual (TAU), or a different intervention in adults with stimulant use disorder. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 64 RCTs (8241 participants). Seventy-three percent of studies included participants with cocaine or crack cocaine use disorder; 3.1% included participants with amphetamine use disorder; 10.9% included participants with methamphetamine use disorder; and 12.5% included participants with any stimulant use disorder. In 18 studies, all participants were in methadone maintenance treatment. In our primary comparison of any psychosocial treatment to no intervention, we included studies which compared a psychosocial intervention plus TAU to TAU alone. In this comparison, 12 studies evaluated cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), 27 contingency management, three motivational interviewing, one study looked at psychodynamic therapy, and one study evaluated CBT plus contingency management. We also compared any psychosocial intervention to TAU. In this comparison, seven studies evaluated CBT, two contingency management, two motivational interviewing, and one evaluated a combination of CBT plus motivational interviewing. Seven studies compared contingency management reinforcement related to abstinence versus contingency management not related to abstinence. Finally, seven studies compared two different psychosocial approaches. We judged 65.6% of the studies to be at low risk of bias for random sequence generation and 19% at low risk for allocation concealment. Blinding of personnel and participants was not possible for the type of intervention, so we judged all the studies to be at high risk of performance bias for subjective outcomes but at low risk for objective outcomes. We judged 22% of the studies to be at low risk of detection bias for subjective outcomes. We judged most of the studies (69%) to be at low risk of attrition bias. When compared to no intervention, we found that psychosocial treatments: reduce the dropout rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.91; 30 studies, 4078 participants; high-certainty evidence); make little to no difference to point abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.41; 12 studies, 1293 participants; high-certainty evidence); make little to no difference to point abstinence at the longest follow-up (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.62; 9 studies, 1187 participants; high-certainty evidence); probably increase continuous abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.97; 12 studies, 1770 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may make little to no difference in continuous abstinence at the longest follow-up (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.46; 4 studies, 295 participants; low-certainty evidence); reduce the frequency of drug intake at the end of treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.19; 10 studies, 1215 participants; high-certainty evidence); and increase the longest period of abstinence (SMD 0.54, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.68; 17 studies, 2118 participants; high-certainty evidence). When compared to TAU, we found that psychosocial treatments reduce the dropout rate (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.97; 9 studies, 735 participants; high-certainty evidence) and may make little to no difference in point abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.64 to 4.31; 1 study, 128 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether they make any difference in point abstinence at the longest follow-up (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.99; 2 studies, 124 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to TAU, psychosocial treatments may make little to no difference in continuous abstinence at the end of treatment (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.53; 1 study, 128 participants; low-certainty evidence); probably make little to no difference in the frequency of drug intake at the end of treatment (SMD -1.17, 95% CI -2.81 to 0.47, 4 studies, 479 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); and may make little to no difference in the longest period of abstinence (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.21; 1 study, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies for this comparison assessed continuous abstinence at the longest follow-up. Only five studies reported harms related to psychosocial interventions; four of them stated that no adverse events occurred. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review's findings indicate that psychosocial treatments can help people with stimulant use disorder by reducing dropout rates. This conclusion is based on high-certainty evidence from comparisons of psychosocial interventions with both no treatment and TAU. This is an important finding because many people with stimulant use disorders leave treatment prematurely. Stimulant use disorders are chronic, lifelong, relapsing mental disorders, which require substantial therapeutic efforts to achieve abstinence. For those who are not yet able to achieve complete abstinence, retention in treatment may help to reduce the risks associated with stimulant use. In addition, psychosocial interventions reduce stimulant use compared to no treatment, but they may make little to no difference to stimulant use when compared to TAU. The most studied and promising psychosocial approach is contingency management. Relatively few studies explored the other approaches, so we cannot rule out the possibility that the results were imprecise due to small sample sizes.

Therapeutic exercises for idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is a pathology that changes the three-dimensional shape of the spine and trunk. While AIS can progress during growth and cause cosmetic issues, it is usually asymptomatic. However, a final spinal curvature above the critical threshold of 30° increases the risk of health problems and curve progression in adulthood. The use of therapeutic exercises (TEs) to reduce the progression of AIS and delay or avoid other, more invasive treatments is still controversial. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of TE, including generic therapeutic exercises (GTE) and physiotherapeutic scoliosis-specific exercises (PSSE) in treating AIS, compared to no treatment, other non-surgical treatments, or between treatments. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, and two clinical trials registers to 17 November 2022. We also screened reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TE with no treatment, other non-surgical treatments (braces, electrical stimulation, manual therapy), and different types of exercises. In the previous version of the review, we also included observational studies. We did not include observational studies in this update since we found sufficient RCTs to address our study aims. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology. Our major outcomes were progression of scoliosis (measured by Cobb angle, trunk rotation, progression, bracing, surgery), cosmetic issues (measured by surface measurements and perception), and quality of life (QoL). Our minor outcomes were back pain, mental health, and adverse effects. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs (583 participants). The percentage of females ranged from 50% to 100%; mean age ranged from 12 to 15 years. Studies included participants with Cobb angles from low to severe. We judged 61% of the studies at low risk for random sequence generation and 46% at low risk for allocation concealment. None of the studies could blind participants and personnel. We judged the subjective outcomes at high risk of performance and detection bias, and the objective outcomes at high risk of detection bias in six studies and at low risk of bias in the other six studies. One study did not assess any objective outcomes. Comparing TE versus no treatment, we are very uncertain whether TE reduces the Cobb angle (mean difference (MD) -3.6°, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.6 to -1.7; 2 studies, 52 participants). Low-certainty evidence indicates PSSE makes little or no difference in the angle of trunk rotation (ATR) (MD -0.8°, 95% CI -3.8 to 2.1; 1 study, 45 participants), may reduce the waist asymmetry slightly (MD -0.5 cm, 95% CI -0.8 to -0.3; 1 study, 45 participants), and may result in little to no difference in the score of cosmetic issues measured by the Spinal Appearance Questionnaire (SAQ) General (MD 0.7 points, 95% CI -0.1 to 1.4; 1 study, 16 participants). PSSE may result in little to no difference in self-image measured by the Scoliosis Research Society - 22 Patient Questionnaire (SRS-22) (MD 0.3 points, 95% CI -0.3 to 0.9; 1 study, 16 participants) and improve QoL slightly measured by SRS-22 Total score (MD 0.3 points, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.4; 2 studies, 61 participants). Only Cobb angle results were clinically meaningful. Comparing PSSE plus bracing versus bracing, low-certainty evidence indicates PSSE plus bracing may reduce Cobb angle (-2.2°, 95% CI -3.8 to -0.7; 2 studies, 84 participants). Comparing GTE plus other non-surgical interventions versus other non-surgical interventions, low-certainty evidence indicates GTE plus other non-surgical interventions may reduce Cobb angle (MD -8.0°, 95% CI -11.5 to -4.5; 1 study, 80 participants). We are uncertain whether PSSE plus other non-surgical interventions versus other non-surgical interventions reduces Cobb angle (MD -7.8°, 95% CI -12.5 to -3.1; 1 study, 18 participants) and ATR (MD -8.0°, 95% CI -12.7 to -3.3; 1 study, 18 participants). PSSE plus bracing versus bracing alone may make little to no difference in subjective measurement of cosmetic issues as measured by SAQ General (-0.2 points, 95% CI -0.9 to 0.5; 1 study, 34 participants), self-image score as measured by SRS-22 Self-Image (MD 0.1 points, 95% CI -0.3 to 0.5; 1 study, 34 participants), and QoL measured by SRS-22 Total score (MD 0.2 points, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.5; 1 study, 34 participants). None of these results were clinically meaningful. Comparing TE versus bracing, we are very uncertain whether PSSE allows progression of Cobb angle (MD 2.7°, 95% CI 0.3 to 5.0; 1 study, 60 participants), changes self-image measured by SRS-22 Self-Image (MD 0.1 points, 95% CI -1.0 to 1.1; 1 study, 60 participants), and QoL measured by SRS-22 Total score (MD 3.2 points, 95% CI 2.1 to 4.2; 1 study, 60 participants). None of these results were clinically meaningful. Comparing PSSE with GTE, we are uncertain whether PSSE makes little or no difference in Cobb angle (MD -3.0°, 95% CI -8.2 to 2.1; 4 studies, 192 participants; very low-certainty evidence). PSSE probably reduces ATR (clinically meaningful) (MD -3.0°, 95% CI -3.4 to -2.5; 2 studies, 138 participants). We are uncertain about the effect of PSSE on QoL measured by SRS-22 Total score (MD 0.26 points, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.62; 3 studies, 168 participants) and on self-image measured by SRS-22 Self-Image and Walter Reed Visual Assessment Scale (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.77, 95% CI -0.61 to 2.14; 3 studies, 168 participants). Further, low-certainty evidence indicates that 38/100 people receiving GTE may progress more than 5° Cobb versus 7/100 receiving PSSE (risk ratio (RR) 0.19, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.52; 1 study, 110 participants). None of the included studies assessed adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on the efficacy of TE is currently sparse due to heterogeneity, small sample size, and many different comparisons. We found only one study following participants to the end of growth showing the efficacy of PSSE over TE. This result was weakened by adding studies with short-term results and unclear preparation of treating physiotherapists. More RCTs are needed to strengthen the current evidence and study other highly clinically relevant outcomes such as QoL, psychological and cosmetic issues, and back pain.

Disulfiram for the treatment of cocaine dependence.

BACKGROUND: Cocaine is a psychostimulant used by approximately 0.4% of the general population worldwide. Cocaine dependence is a chronic mental disorder characterised by the inability to control cocaine use and a host of severe medical and psychosocial complications. There is current no approved pharmacological treatment for cocaine dependence. Some researchers have proposed disulfiram, a medication approved to treat alcohol use disorder. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of disulfiram for the treatment of cocaine dependence. SEARCH METHODS: We updated our searches of the following databases to August 2022: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. We also searched for ongoing and unpublished studies via two trials registries. We handsearched the references of topic-related systematic reviews and included studies. The searches had no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated disulfiram alone or associated with psychosocial interventions versus placebo, no intervention, other pharmacological interventions, or any psychosocial intervention for the treatment of cocaine dependence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies (1191 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Disulfiram versus placebo or no treatment Disulfiram compared to placebo may increase the number of people who are abstinent at the end of treatment (point abstinence; risk ratio (RR) 1.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 2.36; 3 datasets, 142 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment, disulfiram may have little or no effect on frequency of cocaine use (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.11 standard deviations (SDs), 95% CI -0.39 to 0.17; 13 datasets, 818 participants), amount of cocaine use (SMD -0.00 SDs, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.30; 7 datasets, 376 participants), continuous abstinence (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.91; 6 datasets, 386 participants), and dropout for any reason (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.55; 14 datasets, 841 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low for all these outcomes. We are unsure about the effects of disulfiram versus placebo on dropout due to adverse events (RR 12.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 218.37; 1 study, 67 participants) and on the occurrence of adverse events (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 25.98), because the certainty of the evidence was very low for these outcomes. Disulfiram versus naltrexone Disulfiram compared with naltrexone may reduce the frequency of cocaine use (mean difference (MD) -1.90 days, 95% CI -3.37 to -0.43; 2 datasets, 123 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may have little or no effect on amount of cocaine use (SMD 0.12 SDs, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.51, 2 datasets, 123 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are unsure about the effect of disulfiram versus naltrexone on dropout for any reason (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.32, 3 datasets, 131 participants) and dropout due to adverse events (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55; 1 dataset, 8 participants), because the certainty of the evidence was very low for these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that disulfiram compared to placebo may increase point abstinence. However, disulfiram compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment may have little or no effect on frequency of cocaine use, amount of cocaine use, continued abstinence, and dropout for any reason. We are unsure if disulfiram has any adverse effects in this population. Caution is required when transferring our results to clinical practice.

Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Different therapeutic strategies are available for the treatment of people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), including immunomodulators, immunosuppressants and biological agents. Although each one of these therapies reduces relapse frequency and slows disability accumulation compared to no treatment, their relative benefit remains unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety, through network meta-analysis, of interferon beta-1b, interferon beta-1a, glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, mitoxantrone, fingolimod, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, alemtuzumab, pegylated interferon beta-1a, daclizumab, laquinimod, azathioprine, immunoglobulins, cladribine, cyclophosphamide, diroximel fumarate, fludarabine, interferon beta 1-a and beta 1-b, leflunomide, methotrexate, minocycline, mycophenolate mofetil, ofatumumab, ozanimod, ponesimod, rituximab, siponimod and steroids for the treatment of people with RRMS. SEARCH METHODS: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers were searched on 21 September 2021 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. A top-up search was conducted on 8 August 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that studied one or more of the available immunomodulators and immunosuppressants as monotherapy in comparison to placebo or to another active agent, in adults with RRMS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We considered both direct and indirect evidence and performed data synthesis by pairwise and network meta-analysis. Certainty of the evidence was assessed by the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 50 studies involving 36,541 participants (68.6% female and 31.4% male). Median treatment duration was 24 months, and 25 (50%) studies were placebo-controlled. Considering the risk of bias, the most frequent concern was related to the role of the sponsor in the authorship of the study report or in data management and analysis, for which we judged 68% of the studies were at high risk of other bias. The other frequent concerns were performance bias (34% judged as having high risk) and attrition bias (32% judged as having high risk). Placebo was used as the common comparator for network analysis. Relapses over 12 months: data were provided in 18 studies (9310 participants). Natalizumab results in a large reduction of people with relapses at 12 months (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.63; high-certainty evidence). Fingolimod (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.57; moderate-certainty evidence), daclizumab (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.73; moderate-certainty evidence), and immunoglobulins (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.79; moderate-certainty evidence) probably result in a large reduction of people with relapses at 12 months. Relapses over 24 months: data were reported in 28 studies (19,869 participants). Cladribine (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.64; high-certainty evidence), alemtuzumab (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.68; high-certainty evidence) and natalizumab (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.65; high-certainty evidence) result in a large decrease of people with relapses at 24 months. Fingolimod (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.60; moderate-certainty evidence), dimethyl fumarate (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.70; moderate-certainty evidence), and ponesimod (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.70; moderate-certainty evidence) probably result in a large decrease of people with relapses at 24 months. Glatiramer acetate (RR 0.84, 95%, CI 0.76 to 0.93; moderate-certainty evidence) and interferon beta-1a (Avonex, Rebif) (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91; moderate-certainty evidence) probably moderately decrease people with relapses at 24 months. Relapses over 36 months findings were available from five studies (3087 participants). None of the treatments assessed showed moderate- or high-certainty evidence compared to placebo. Disability worsening over 24 months was assessed in 31 studies (24,303 participants). Natalizumab probably results in a large reduction of disability worsening (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.75; moderate-certainty evidence) at 24 months. Disability worsening over 36 months was assessed in three studies (2684 participants) but none of the studies used placebo as the comparator. Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events data were available from 43 studies (35,410 participants). Alemtuzumab probably results in a slight reduction of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.79; moderate-certainty evidence). Daclizumab (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.40 to 4.63; moderate-certainty evidence), fingolimod (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.57; moderate-certainty evidence), teriflunomide (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.79; moderate-certainty evidence), interferon beta-1a (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.20; moderate-certainty evidence), laquinimod (OR 1.49, 95 % CI 1.00 to 2.15; moderate-certainty evidence), natalizumab (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.05), and glatiramer acetate (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.14; moderate-certainty evidence) probably result in a slight increase in the number of people who discontinue treatment due to adverse events. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in 35 studies (33,998 participants). There was probably a trivial reduction in SAEs amongst people with RRMS treated with interferon beta-1b as compared to placebo (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.54; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are highly confident that, compared to placebo, two-year treatment with natalizumab, cladribine, or alemtuzumab decreases relapses more than with other DMTs. We are moderately confident that a two-year treatment with natalizumab may slow disability progression. Compared to those on placebo, people with RRMS treated with most of the assessed DMTs showed a higher frequency of treatment discontinuation due to AEs: we are moderately confident that this could happen with fingolimod, teriflunomide, interferon beta-1a, laquinimod, natalizumab and daclizumab, while our certainty with other DMTs is lower. We are also moderately certain that treatment with alemtuzumab is associated with fewer discontinuations due to adverse events than placebo, and moderately certain that interferon beta-1b probably results in a slight reduction in people who experience serious adverse events, but our certainty with regard to other DMTs is lower. Insufficient evidence is available to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DMTs in a longer term than two years, and this is a relevant issue for a chronic condition like MS that develops over decades. More than half of the included studies were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and this may have influenced their results. Further studies should focus on direct comparison between active agents, with follow-up of at least three years, and assess other patient-relevant outcomes, such as quality of life and cognitive status, with particular focus on the impact of sex/gender on treatment effects.

The influence of bias in randomized controlled trials on rehabilitation intervention effect estimates: what we have learned from meta-epidemiological studies.

This study aimed to synthesize evidence from studies that addressed the influence of bias domains in randomized controlled trials on rehabilitation intervention effect estimates and discuss how these findings can maximize the trustworthiness of an RCT in rehabilitation. We screened studies about the influence of bias on rehabilitation intervention effect estimates published until June 2023. The characteristics and results of the included studies were categorized based on methodological characteristics and summarized narratively. We included seven studies with data on 227,806 RCT participants. Our findings showed that rehabilitation intervention effect estimates are likely exaggerated in trials with inadequate/unclear sequence generation and allocation concealment when using continuous outcomes. The influence of blinding was inconsistent and different from the rest of medical science, as meta-epidemiological studies showed overestimation, underestimation, or neutral associations for different types of blinding on rehabilitation treatment effect estimates. Still, it showed a more consistent pattern when looking at patient-reported outcomes. The impact of attrition bias and intention to treat has been analyzed only in two studies with inconsistent results. The risk of reporting bias seems to be associated with overestimation of treatment effects. Bias domains can influence rehabilitation treatment effects in different directions. The evidence is mixed and inconclusive due to the poor methodological quality of RCTs and the limited number and quality of studies looking at the influence of bias and treatment effects in rehabilitation. Further studies about the influence of bias in RCTs on rehabilitation intervention effect estimates are needed.

Multidisciplinary Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in 2023: Italian practice Treatment Guidelines of the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver (AISF), Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM), Italian Association of Hepato-Bilio-Pancreatic Surgery (AICEP), Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists (AIGO), Italian Association of Radiology and Clinical Oncology (AIRO), Italian Society of Pathological Anatomy and Diagnostic Cytology (SIAPeC-IAP), Italian Society of Surgery (SIC), Italian Society of Gastroenterology (SIGE), Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM), Italian Organ Transplant Society (SITO), and Association of Patients with Hepatitis and Liver Disease (EpaC) - Part I - Surgical treatments.

Worldwide, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third most common cause of cancer-related death. The remarkable improvements in treating HCC achieved in the last years have increased the complexity of HCC management. Following the need to have updated guidelines on the multidisciplinary treatment management of HCC, the Italian Scientific Societies involved in the management of this cancer have promoted the drafting of a new dedicated document. This document was drawn up according to the GRADE methodology needed to produce guidelines based on evidence. Here is presented the first part of guidelines, focused on the multidisciplinary tumor board of experts and surgical treatments of HCC.

Progestogens for maintenance tocolysis in symptomatic women. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Prevention of preterm birth (PTB) with progestogens after an episode of threatened preterm labour is still controversial. As different progestogens have distinct molecular structures and biological effects, we conducted a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis to investigate the individual role played by 17-alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-HP), vaginal progesterone (Vaginal P) and oral progesterone (Oral P). METHODS: The search was performed in MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to 31 October 2021. Published RCTs comparing progestogens to placebo or no treatment for maintenance tocolysis were considered. We included women with singleton gestations, excluding quasi-randomized trials, studies on women with preterm premature rupture of membrane, or receiving maintenance tocolysis with other drugs. Primary outcomes were preterm birth (PTB) < 37 weeks' and < 34 weeks'. We assessed risk of bias and evaluated certainty of evidence with the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs including 2152 women with singleton gestations were included. Twelve studies tested vaginal P, five 17-HP, and only 1 oral P. PTB < 34 weeks' did not differ among women receiving vaginal P (RR 1.21, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.61, 1077 participants, moderate certainty of evidence), or oral P (RR 0.89, 95%CI 0.38 to 2.10, 90 participants, low certainty of evidence) as opposed to placebo. Instead, 17-HP significantly reduced the outcome (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.95, 450 participants, moderate certainty of evidence). PTB < 37 weeks' did not differ among women receiving vaginal P (RR 0.95, 95%CI 0.72 to 1.26, 8 studies, 1231 participants, moderate certainty of evidence) or 17-HP (RR 0.86, 95%CI 0.60 to 1.21, 450 participants, low certainty of evidence) when compared to placebo/no treatment. Instead, oral P significantly reduced the outcome (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.93, 90 participants, low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: With a moderate certainty of evidence, 17-HP prevents PTB < 34 weeks' gestation among women that remained undelivered after an episode of threatened preterm labour. However, data are insufficient to generate recommendations in clinical practice. In the same women, both 17-HP and vaginal P are ineffective in the prevention of PTB < 37 weeks'.

Baclofen for alcohol use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is one of the most widespread psychiatric disorders leading to detrimental consequences to people with this disorder and others. Worldwide, the prevalence of heavy episodic drinking (30-day prevalence of at least one occasion of 60 g of pure alcohol intake among current drinkers) is estimated at 20% and the prevalence of AUD at 5% of the adult general population, with highest prevalence in Europe and North America. Therapeutic approaches, including pharmacotherapy, play an important role in treating people with AUD. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2018. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of baclofen on achieving and maintaining abstinence or reducing alcohol consumption in people with AUD compared to placebo, no treatment or any other pharmacological relapse prevention treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was 22 November 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least four weeks' treatment duration and 12 weeks' overall study duration comparing baclofen for AUD treatment with placebo, no treatment or other treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. relapse, 2. frequency of use, 3. amount of use, 4. adverse events, 5. dropouts from treatment and 6. dropouts from treatment due to adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 7. craving, 8. anxiety, 9. depression and 10. frequency of most relevant adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 RCTs (1818 participants) with a diagnosis of alcohol dependence according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition or International Classification of Diseases 10th edition criteria. Mean age was 46.5 years and 70% were men. Ten studies compared baclofen to placebo or another medication; seven compared two baclofen doses to placebo or another medication. Globally, 15 studies compared baclofen to placebo, two baclofen to acamprosate and two baclofen to naltrexone. In 16 studies, participants received psychosocial treatments. We judged most studies at low risk of selection, performance, detection (subjective outcome), attrition and reporting bias. Ten studies detoxified participants before treatment; in seven studies, participants were still drinking at the beginning of treatment. Treatment duration was 12 weeks for 15 RCTs and longer in two studies. Baclofen daily dose was 30 mg to 300 mg: 10 RCTs used low doses (30 mg or less); eight RCTs medium doses (above 30 and 100 mg or less) and four RCTs high doses (above 100 mg). Compared to placebo, moderate-certainty evidence found that baclofen probably decreases the risk to relapse (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.99; 12 studies, 1057 participants). This result was confirmed among detoxified participants but not among other subgroups of participants. High-certainty evidence found that baclofen increases the percentage of days abstinent (mean difference (MD) 9.07, 95% CI 3.30 to 14.85; 16 studies, 1273 participants). This result was confirmed among all subgroups of participants except non-detoxified or those who received medium doses. There was no difference between baclofen and placebo in the other primary outcomes: heavy drinking days (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.18, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.11; 13 studies, 840 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); number of drinks per drinking days (MD -0.45, 95% CI -1.20 to 0.30; 9 studies, 392 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.11; 10 studies, 738 participants; high-certainty evidence); dropouts (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03; 17 studies, 1563 participants; high-certainty evidence); dropouts due to adverse events (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.18; 16 studies, 1499 participants; high-certainty evidence). These results were confirmed by subgroup analyses except than for the dropouts that resulted lower among participants who received high doses of baclofen and studies longer than 12 weeks. Compared to placebo, there was no difference in craving (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.04; 17 studies, 1275 participants), anxiety (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.11; 15 studies, 1123 participants) and depression (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.27; 11 studies, 1029 participants). Concerning the specific adverse events, baclofen increases fatigue, dizziness, somnolence/sedation, dry mouth, paraesthesia and muscle spasms/rigidity. There was no difference in the other adverse events. Compared to acamprosate, one study (60 participants) found no differences in any outcomes but the evidence was very uncertain: relapse (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.20; very low-certainty evidence); number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.69; very low-certainty evidence); dropouts (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.46; very low-certainty evidence); dropouts due to adverse events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; very low-certainty evidence) and craving (MD 5.80, 95% CI -11.84 to 23.44); and all the adverse events evaluated. Compared to naltrexone, baclofen may increase the risk of relapse (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.56; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and decrease the number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.80; 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence) but the evidence is very uncertain. One study (60 participants) found no difference between baclofen and naltrexone in the dropouts at the end of treatment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.10; very low-certainty evidence), craving (MD 2.08, 95% CI -3.71 to 7.87), and all the adverse events evaluated. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Baclofen likely reduces the risk of relapse to any drinking and increases the percentage of abstinent days, mainly among detoxified participants. It does not increase the number of participants with at least one adverse event, those who dropout for any reason or due to adverse events. It probably does not reduce number of heavy drinking days and the number of drinks per drinking days. Current evidence suggests that baclofen may help people with AUD in maintaining abstinence. The results of comparisons of baclofen with acamprosate and naltrexone were mainly based on only one study.

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.

School closures and mental health, wellbeing and health behaviours among children and adolescents during the second COVID-19 wave: a systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVES: to evaluate the impact of school closures, as a measure to contain the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection, on the psychological well-being of students of all levels starting from the 2020-2021 school year. DESIGN: a systematic literature review was conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 Guidelines. The literature search was conducted on 4 different databases: MedLine, Embase, PsycINFO, and L.OVE Platform. Quantitative observational studies published until 10.01.2022 were included. Studies conducted during the first pandemic wave, i.e., during the 2019-2020 school year and/or during the mandatory lockdown or confinement period, were excluded. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed with validated scales. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were carried out independently by two authors. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: children, adolescents, and young people attending all levels of education (including universities) and, for reasons related to COVID-19, having a suspension of "in presence" school or attending classes remotely. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: a. outcomes directly related to mental health: suicides, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations for psychiatric problems; anxiety and depression, emotional difficulties, feelings of loneliness and isolation; b. well-being outcomes: sleep quality, perceived well-being (by child/adolescent/youth or referred by parents); c. health-related behaviours: tobacco smoking, alcohol, drug use. Outcomes related to school/academic performance, physical health, and those related to parents were not considered. RESULTS: after having removed duplicate articles, 2,830 records were retrieved with the bibliographic search. Twelve studies (2 uncontrolled before-after studies and 10 cross sectional surveys) were included, involving a total of 27,787 participants. Three studies involved university students, 2 involved high school students, and the remaining involved a mixed population of students attending primary and middle schools. The studies were conducted between September 2020 and April 2021. The methodological quality was rated as high in five studies and intermediate in the remaining studies. Due to the high heterogeneity of outcome measures and statistical analyses performed among the included studies, it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis of the results of the considered publications. Nevertheless, the present review showed a clear signal of increase in mental health problems in relation to school closure or virtual instruction. In particular, results suggest evidence of association between school closure and risk of suicidal attempts or thoughts, mental health symptoms such as anxiety, depression, emotional disorders, psychological stress. Sleeping problems, drug and alcohol addiction were poorly studied. CONCLUSIONS: despite the limitations of the included studies and possible residual confounding and contamination due to restrictive measures and social isolation implemented during the pandemic, the available evidence confirms the negative impact on students' mental health associated with school closures and distance learning. Given the availability of vaccination also for young children, a long period of school closure should be avoided also in the case of the emergence of new pandemic waves.

Adherence of systematic reviews to Cochrane RoB2 guidance was frequently poor: a meta epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether the use of the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2) in systematic reviews (SRs) adheres to RoB2 guidance. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library from 2019 to May 2021 to identify SRs using RoB2. We analyzed methods and results sections to see whether risk of bias was assessed at outcome measure level and applied to primary outcomes of the SR as per RoB2 guidance. The relation between SR characteristics and adequacy of RoB2 use was examined by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Two hundred-eight SRs were included. We could assess adherence in 137 SRs as 12 declared using RoB2 but actually used RoB1 and 59 did not report the number of primary outcomes. The tool usage was adherent in 69.3% SRs. Considering SRs with multiple primary outcomes, adherence dropped to 28.8%. We found a positive association between RoB2 guidance adherence and the methodological quality of the reviews assessed by AMSTAR2 (p-for-trend 0.007). Multivariable regression analysis suggested journal impact factor [first quartile vs. other quartiles] was associated with RoB2 adherence (OR 0.34; 95% CI: 0.16-0.72). CONCLUSIONS: Many SRs did not adhere to RoB2 guidance as they applied the tool at the study level rather than at the outcome measure level. Lack of adherence was more likely among low and very low quality reviews.

Cannabis and cannabinoids for symptomatic treatment for people with multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Spasticity and chronic neuropathic pain are common and serious symptoms in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). These symptoms increase with disease progression and lead to worsening disability, impaired activities of daily living and quality of life. Anti-spasticity medications and analgesics are of limited benefit or poorly tolerated. Cannabinoids may reduce spasticity and pain in people with MS. Demand for symptomatic treatment with cannabinoids is high. A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and harms of these drugs is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess benefit and harms of cannabinoids, including synthetic, or herbal and plant-derived cannabinoids, for reducing symptoms for adults with MS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from inception to December 2021: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library), CINAHL (EBSCO host), LILACS, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the US National Institutes of Health clinical trial register, the European Union Clinical Trials Register, the International Association for Cannabinoid Medicines databank. We hand searched citation lists of included studies and relevant reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised parallel or cross-over trials (RCTs) evaluating any cannabinoid (including herbal Cannabis, Cannabis flowers, plant-based cannabinoids, or synthetic cannabinoids) irrespective of dose, route, frequency, or duration of use for adults with MS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane Risk of bias 2 tool for parallel RCTs and crossover trials. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: reduction of 30% in the spasticity Numeric Rating Scale, pain relief of 50% or greater in the Numeric Rating Scale-Pain Intensity, much or very much improvement in the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL), withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs) (tolerability), serious adverse events (SAEs), nervous system disorders, psychiatric disorders, physical dependence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 RCTs with 3763 participants of whom 2290 received cannabinoids. Age ranged from 18 to 60 years, and between 50% and 88% participants across the studies were female.  The included studies were 3 to 48 weeks long and compared nabiximols, an oromucosal spray with a plant derived equal (1:1) combination of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) (13 studies), synthetic cannabinoids mimicking THC (7 studies), an oral THC extract of Cannabis sativa (2 studies), inhaled herbal Cannabis (1 study) against placebo. One study compared dronabinol, THC extract of Cannabis sativa and placebo, one compared inhaled herbal Cannabis, dronabinol and placebo. We identified eight ongoing studies. Critical outcomes • Spasticity: nabiximols probably increases the number of people who report an important reduction of perceived severity of spasticity compared with placebo (odds ratio (OR) 2.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56 to 4.04; 5 RCTs, 1143 participants; I2 = 67%; moderate-certainty evidence). The absolute effect was 216 more people (95% CI 99 more to 332 more) per 1000 reporting benefit with cannabinoids than with placebo. • Chronic neuropathic pain: we found only one small trial that measured the number of participants reporting substantial pain relief with a synthetic cannabinoid compared with placebo (OR 4.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 16.17; 1 study, 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether cannabinoids reduce chronic neuropathic pain intensity. • Treatment discontinuation due to AEs: cannabinoids may increase slightly the number of participants who discontinue treatment compared with placebo (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.51 to 3.84; 21 studies, 3110 participants; I² = 17%; low-certainty evidence); the absolute effect is 39 more people (95% CI 15 more to 76 more) per 1000 people. Important outcomes • PGIC: cannabinoids probably increase the number of people who report 'very much' or 'much' improvement in health status compared with placebo (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.36; 8 studies, 1215 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). The absolute effect is 113 more people (95% CI 57 more to 175 more) per 1000 people reporting improvement. • HRQoL: cannabinoids may have little to no effect on HRQoL (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.02; 8 studies, 1942 participants; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence); • SAEs: cannabinoids may result in little to no difference in the number of participants who have SAEs compared with placebo (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.99; 20 studies, 3124 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence); • AEs of the nervous system: cannabinoids may increase nervous system disorders compared with placebo (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.53 to 4.44; 7 studies, 1154 participants; I² = 63%; low-certainty evidence); • Psychiatric disorders: cannabinoids may increase psychiatric disorders compared with placebo (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.88; 6 studies, 1122 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence); • Drug tolerance: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of cannabinoids on drug tolerance (OR 3.07, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.95; 2 studies, 458 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, nabiximols probably reduces the severity of spasticity in the short-term in people with MS. We are uncertain about the effect on chronic neurological pain and health-related quality of life. Cannabinoids may increase slightly treatment discontinuation due to AEs, nervous system and psychiatric disorders compared with placebo. We are uncertain about the effect on drug tolerance. The overall certainty of evidence is limited by short-term duration of the included studies.

Comparative efficacy and safety of vaccines to prevent seasonal influenza: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background: Influenza is one of the most common respiratory viral infections worldwide. Numerous vaccines are used to prevent influenza. Their selection should be informed by the best available evidence. We aimed to estimate the comparative efficacy and safety of seasonal influenza vaccines in children, adults and the elderly. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). We searched the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, and websites of regulatory agencies, through December 15th, 2020. We included placebo- or no vaccination-controlled, and head-to-head randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Pairs of reviewers independently screened the studies, abstracted the data, and appraised the risk of bias in accordance to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed influenza. We also synthesized data for hospitalization, mortality, influenza-like illness (ILI), pneumonia or lower respiratory-tract disease, systemic and local adverse events (AEs). We estimated summary risk ratios (RR) using pairwise and NMA with random effects. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018091895. Findings: We identified 13,439 citations. A total of 231 RCTs were included after screening: 11 studies did not provide useful data for the analysis; 220 RCTs [100,677 children (< 18 years) and 329,127 adults (18-60 years) and elderly (≥ 61 years)] were included in the NMA. In adults and the elderly, all vaccines, except the trivalent inactivated intradermal vaccine (3-IIV ID), were more effective than placebo in reducing the risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza, with a RR between 0.33 (95% credible interval [CrI] 0.21-0.55) for trivalent inactivated high-dose (3-IIV HD) and 0.56 (95% CrI 0.41-0.74) for trivalent live-attenuated vaccine (3-LAIV). In adults and the elderly, compared with trivalent inactivated vaccine (3-IIV), no significant differences were found for any, except 3-LAIV, which was less efficacious [RR 1.41 (95% CrI 1.04-1.88)]. In children, compared with placebo, RR ranged between 0.13 (95% CrI 0.03-0.51) for trivalent inactivated vaccine adjuvanted with MF59/AS03 and 0.55 (95% CrI 0.36-0.83) for trivalent inactivated vaccine. Compared with 3-IIV, 3-LAIV and trivalent inactivated adjuvanted with MF59/AS03 were more efficacious [RR 0.52 (95% CrI 0.32-0.82) and RR 0.23 (95% CrI 0.06-0.87)] in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza. With regard to safety, higher systemic AEs rates after vaccination with 3-IIV, 3-IIV HD, 3-IIV ID, 3-IIV MF59/AS03-adj, quadrivalent inactivated (4-IIV), quadrivalent adjuvanted (4-IIV MF59/AS03-adj), quadrivalent recombinant (4-RIV), 3-LAIV or quadrivalent live attenuated (4-LAIV) vaccines were noted in adults and the elderly [RR 1.5 (95% CrI 1.18-1.89) to 1.15 (95% CrI 1.06-1.23)] compared with placebo. In children, the systemic AEs rate after vaccination was not significantly higher than placebo. Interpretation: All vaccines cumulatively achieved major reductions in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza in children, adults, and the elderly. While the live-attenuated was more efficacious than the inactivated vaccine in children, many vaccine types can be used in adults and the elderly. Funding: The directorate general of welfare, Lombardy region.

[10 years of stagnant clinical research in the Italian academic context.] / Dieci anni di stagnazione della ricerca, non solo clinica, nel contesto accademico italiano.

This article is about current challenges to evidence-based medicine (EMB) in Italy. The authors, who share a 20-year commitment to the field of clinical research, discuss what they define as a phase of "stagnation" in practicing and teaching methods and research tactics, both in clinical and academic settings. Early success of EBM cultural movement was not persistent. The authors reason about how the teaching of EBM has remained a niche, concerning few professionals compared to the needs of the country. The authors identify some reasons that might have led to inconsistent attention to research methodology and address ways to strengthen the contribution of academic medicine to clinical research.

School Closures During Social Lockdown and Mental Health, Health Behaviors, and Well-being Among Children and Adolescents During the First COVID-19 Wave: A Systematic Review.

IMPORTANCE: School closures as part of broader social lockdown measures during the COVID-19 pandemic may be associated with the health and well-being of children and adolescents. OBJECTIVE: To review published reports on the association of school closures during broader social lockdown with mental health, health behaviors, and well-being in children and adolescents aged 0 to 19 years, excluding associations with transmission of infection. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Eleven databases were searched from inception to September 2020, and machine learning was applied for screening articles. A total of 16 817 records were screened, 151 were reviewed in full text, and 36 studies were included. Quality assessment was tailored to study type. A narrative synthesis of results was undertaken because data did not allow meta-analysis. FINDINGS: A total of 36 studies from 11 countries were identified, involving a total of 79 781 children and adolescents and 18 028 parents, which occurred during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (February to July 2020). All evaluated school closure as part of broader social lockdown during the first COVID-19 wave, and the duration of school closure ranged from 1 week to 3 months. Of those, 9 (25%) were longitudinal pre-post studies, 5 (14%) were cohort, 21 (58%) were cross-sectional, and 1 (3%) was a modeling study. Thirteen studies (36%) were high quality, 17 (47%) were medium quality, and 6 (17%) were low quality. Twenty-three studies (64%) were published, 8 (22%) were online reports, and 5 (14%) were preprints. Twenty-five studies (69%) concerning mental health identified associations across emotional, behavioral, and restlessness/inattention problems; 18% to 60% of children and adolescents scored above risk thresholds for distress, particularly anxiety and depressive symptoms, and 2 studies reported no significant association with suicide. Three studies reported that child protection referrals were lower than expected number of referrals originating in schools. Three studies suggested higher screen time usage, 2 studies reported greater social media use, and 6 studies reported lower physical activity. Studies on sleep (10 studies) and diet (5 studies) provided inconclusive evidence on harms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this narrative synthesis of reports from the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, studies of short-term school closures as part of social lockdown measures reported adverse mental health symptoms and health behaviors among children and adolescents. Associations between school closure and health outcomes and behaviors could not be separated from broader lockdown measures.

Reliability of the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB2) improved with the use of implementation instruction.

OBJECTIVE: to assess the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB2). METHODS: Four raters independently applied RoB2 on critical and important outcomes of individually randomized parallel-group trials (RCTs) included in the Cochrane Review "Cannabis and cannabinoids for people with multiple sclerosis." We calculated Fleiss' Kappa for multiple raters and time to complete the tool; we performed a calibration exercise on five studies, then we developed an implementation document (ID) specific for the condition, and the intervention addressed by the review with instructions on how to answer the signalling questions of RoB2 tool. We measured IRR before and after the ID adoption RESULTS: Eighty results related to seven outcomes from 16 RCTs were assessed. During calibration exercise we reached no agreement for overall judgment (IRR -0.15); IRR for individual domains ranged from no agreement to fair. Mean time to apply the tool was 168.5 minutes per study. Time to complete the calibration exercise and develop the ID was about 40 hours. After the ID adoption ID, overall agreement increased to slightly (IRR 0.11) for the first five studies and moderate (IRR 0.42) for the remaining 11. IRR for individual domains ranged from no agreement to almost perfect. Mean time to apply the tool decreased to 41 minutes. CONCLUSION: RoB2 tool is comprehensive but complex even for high experienced raters. The development of an ID specific for the review may improve reliability substantially.

GRADE Notes 2: Criteria for searching non-randomized or indirect evidence should be defined early in the guideline production process.

OBJECTIVE: To discuss two alternative approaches for complementing the body of direct evidence from Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) when it is judged insufficient from a guideline panel making recommendations. The approaches included expanding the evidence's body to non-randomises studies on the population of interest or to RCTs on indirect populations. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In this report, we adopt the perspective of an evidence review team developing guidelines following the GRADE approach. Our experience is based on the development of two evidence-based guidelines promoted by The Italian National Institute of Health (ISS) and focusing on diagnosis and treatment of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) in children/adolescents and adults. RESULTS: We left panel members deciding case by case whether the direct evidence from RCTs was sufficient or not and indicating which alternative to implement. This strategy presented unanticipated challenges both from an organizational and methodological standpoint. CONCLUSION: We suggest an early-stage production of a research protocol to define the criteria for expanding the body of evidence. These criteria should be informed by considerations around the certainty in the evidence, the clinical applicability of the results, feasibility and conflict of interest.