Probiotic supplementation and risk of necrotizing enterocolitis and mortality among extremely preterm infants-the Probiotics in Extreme Prematurity in Scandinavia (PEPS) trial: study protocol for a multicenter, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, and registry-based randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Extremely preterm infants, defined as those born before 28 weeks' gestational age, are a very vulnerable patient group at high risk for adverse outcomes, such as necrotizing enterocolitis and death. Necrotizing enterocolitis is an inflammatory gastrointestinal disease with high incidence in this cohort and has severe implications on morbidity and mortality. Previous randomized controlled trials have shown reduced incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis among older preterm infants following probiotic supplementation. However, these trials were underpowered for extremely preterm infants, rendering evidence for probiotic supplementation in this population insufficient to date. METHODS: The Probiotics in Extreme Prematurity in Scandinavia (PEPS) trial is a multicenter, double-blinded, placebo-controlled and registry-based randomized controlled trial conducted among extremely preterm infants (n = 1620) born at six tertiary neonatal units in Sweden and four units in Denmark. Enrolled infants will be allocated to receive either probiotic supplementation with ProPrems® (Bifidobacterium infantis, Bifidobacterium lactis, and Streptococcus thermophilus) diluted in 3 mL breastmilk or placebo (0.5 g maltodextrin powder) diluted in 3 mL breastmilk per day until gestational week 34. The primary composite outcome is incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis and/or mortality. Secondary outcomes include incidence of late-onset sepsis, length of hospitalization, use of antibiotics, feeding tolerance, growth, and body composition at age of full-term and 3 months corrected age after hospital discharge. DISCUSSION: Current recommendations for probiotic supplementation in Sweden and Denmark do not include extremely preterm infants due to lack of evidence in this population. However, this young subgroup is notably the most at risk for experiencing adverse outcomes. This trial aims to investigate the effects of probiotic supplementation on necrotizing enterocolitis, death, and other relevant outcomes to provide sufficiently powered, high-quality evidence to inform probiotic supplementation guidelines in this population. The results could have implications for clinical practice both in Sweden and Denmark and worldwide. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ( Clinicaltrials.gov ): NCT05604846.

Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection outside of healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment. This is the first update of a Cochrane review published 6 May 2022, with one new study added. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces aimed at reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to other interventions or no intervention. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collections, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv to 13 April 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by coworkers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls (i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias, and GRADE methods to evaluate the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 2 studies including a total of 16,014 participants. Elimination-of-exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards, which was an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) working at 86 schools were assigned to the test-based attendance strategy. The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (rate ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 working days) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 working days) in the intervention group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71% in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention. The trial did not measure our other outcomes of SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, or hospitalisation. We found seven ongoing studies using elimination-of-hazard strategies, six RCTs and one non-randomised trial. Administrative control interventions We found one ongoing RCT that aims to evaluate the efficacy of the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine in preventing COVID-19 infection and reducing disease severity. Combinations of eligible interventions We included one non-randomised study examining a combination of elimination of hazards, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment. The study was conducted in two large retail companies in Italy in 2020. The study compared a safety operating protocol, measurement of body temperature and oxygen saturation upon entry, and a SARS-CoV-2 test strategy with a minimum activity protocol. Both groups received protective equipment. All employees working at the companies during the study period were included: 1987 in the intervention company and 1798 in the control company. The study did not report an outcome of interest for this systematic review. Other intervention categories We did not find any studies in this category. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. A test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absenteeism rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. The non-randomised study included in our updated search did not report any outcome of interest for this Cochrane review. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective. The included RCT did not report on any of our other primary outcomes (i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events). We identified no completed studies on any other interventions specified in this review; however, eight eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations.

Blood pressure trends following birth in infants born under 25 weeks' gestational age: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to describe postnatal blood pressure (BP) trends and evaluate relevant dynamics and outcomes for a subgroup of extremely preterm (EPT) infants. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Patients admitted to Karolinska University Hospital Stockholm. PATIENTS: EPT infants born between 22+0 and 24+6 weeks' gestational age (GA) undergoing invasive, continuous BP monitoring through an umbilical arterial catheter. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physiological BP trends, the influence of cardiovascular active interventions and fluid boluses on BP, and relevant adverse outcomes, including intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) and death, were mapped over the first week of life. RESULTS: We included 125 infants between January 2009 and November 2021. Mean BP values were 31 mm Hg, 32 mm Hg and 35 mm Hg, at 3 hours, 24 hours and 48 hours, respectively. A pronounced BP dip and nadir were observed around 20 hours, with a mean BP value of 32 mm Hg. 84% received fluid boluses within the first week of life; however, we could not observe any noteworthy change in BP following administration. Only 8% of patients received cardiovascular active drugs, which were too few to infer drug-specific effects. Overall, 48% developed IVH, 15% developed NEC and 25% died. CONCLUSIONS: Approximating clinically acceptable mean BP values using GA gives underestimations in these infants. The postnatal BP dip should be regarded as a physiological phenomenon and not automatic grounds for interventions which may momentarily stabilise BP but have no appreciable short-term or long-term effects. Further studies are warranted for improved understanding of clinically relevant trends and outcomes.

The effect of quercetin supplementation on clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) affects both the respiratory system and the body as a whole. Natural molecules, such as flavonoid quercetin, as potential treatment methods to help patients combat COVID-19. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to give a comprehensive overview of the impact of quercetin supplementation on inflammatory factors, hospital admission, and mortality of patients with COVID-19. The search has been conducted on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library using relevant keywords until August 25, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID-19 patients who received quercetin supplementation versus controls. We included five studies summarizing the evidence in 544 patients. Meta-analysis showed that quercetin administration significantly reduced LDH activity (standard mean difference (SMD): -0.42, 95% CI: -0.82, -0.02, I 2 = 48.86%), decreased the risk of hospital admission by 70% (RR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.14, 0.62, I 2 = 00.00%), ICU admission by 73% (RR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.09, 0.78, I 2 = 20.66%), and mortality by 82% (RR: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.98, I 2 = 00.00%). No significant changes in CRP, D-dimmer, and ferritin were found between groups. Quercetin was found to significantly reduce LDH levels and decrease the risk of hospital and ICU admission and mortality in patients with COVID-19 infection.

Association between human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) levels and adverse pregnancy outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), a glycoprotein produced in the placenta, is crucial for a healthy pregnancy. We investigated the relationship between hCG levels and adverse pregnancy outcomes. We conducted a systematic review including studies measuring hCG blood levels in the first or second trimester, reporting on any of the 12 predefined adverse pregnancy outcomes with logistic regression-adjusted association estimates. The primary outcomes were placenta-associated complications, such as miscarriage, preeclampsia, intrauterine growth restriction, and preterm delivery. We searched PubMed, Embase and CINAHL Complete. The hCG levels were analysed as multiple of the median (MoM). Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used. Risk of bias and the certainty of evidence were assessed using ROBINS-I and GRADE, respectively. Meta-analysis also showed that hCG levels, reported as MoM ≥2/2.31/2.5, might be associated with an increased risk of preeclampsia (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.44) and preterm delivery (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.47), but the evidence is very uncertain. High second trimester hCG levels may be associated with preeclampsia and preterm delivery but confidence in evidence is low.

Outpatient Treatment of Confirmed COVID-19: A Living, Rapid Evidence Review for the American College of Physicians (Version 2).

BACKGROUND: Clinicians and patients want to know the benefits and harms of outpatient treatment options for the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. PURPOSE: To assess the benefits and harms of 22 different COVID-19 treatments. DATA SOURCES: The Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE platform, the iSearch COVID-19 portfolio, and the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Research Database from 26 November 2021 to 2 March 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts against a priori-defined criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence (COE). A second reviewer verified the data abstraction and assessments. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two randomized controlled trials and 6 retrospective cohort studies were included. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir was associated with a reduction in hospitalization due to COVID-19 (for example, 0.7% vs. 1.2%; moderate COE) and all-cause mortality (for example, <0.1% vs. 0.2%; moderate COE). Molnupiravir led to a higher recovery rate (31.8% vs. 22.6%; moderate COE) and reduced time to recovery (9 vs. 15 median days; moderate COE) but had no effect on all-cause mortality (0.02% vs. 0.04%; moderate COE) and the incidence of serious adverse events (0.4% vs. 0.3%; moderate COE). Ivermectin had no effect on time to recovery (moderate COE) and resulted in no difference in adverse events compared with placebo (low COE). Sotrovimab resulted in no difference in all-cause mortality compared with no treatment (low COE). No eligible studies for all other treatments of interest were identified. LIMITATION: Evidence for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and sotrovimab is based on nonrandomized studies only. CONCLUSION: Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir probably improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42023406456).

Evaluation of the interim Cochrane rapid review methods guidance-A mixed-methods study on the understanding of and adherence to the guidance.

The Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group (RRMG) first released interim guidance in March 2020 to support authors in conducting rapid reviews (RRs). The objective of this mixed-methods study was to assess the adherence and investigate authors' understanding of the RRMG guidance. We identified all documents citing the Interim Cochrane RRMG guidance up to February 17, 2022 and performed an exploratory adherence analysis. We interviewed 20 RR authors to assess the recommendations' comprehensibility and reasons for any deviations. Further, we surveyed nine authors of COVID-19-related Cochrane reviews for their reasons for not conducting a RR. We analyzed 128 RRs (111 non-Cochrane, 17 Cochrane) that cited the RRMG guidance. Several recommendations were not followed by a large proportion of RR authors such as stepwise approach to study design inclusion or peer review of search strategies, whereas others were exceeded, for example, dual independent screening of abstracts/full texts. The most reported reasons for deviating from the guidance were time constraints, unclarities in the recommended approach, or inapplicability to the specific RR. Overall, the guidance was viewed as user-friendly; however, without pre-existing knowledge of systematic review (SR) conduct, the application was perceived as difficult. The main reasons for conducting a full SR over a RR were late availability of the guidance, preset mandate to conduct a SR, uncertainty regarding methodological distinctions between SR and RR, and inapplicability to the evidence base. Clarifications are warranted throughout the Interim Cochrane RRMG guidance to ensure that users with various experience levels can understand and apply its recommendations accordingly.

Beyond statistical significance: nuanced interpretations of statistically nonsignificant results were rare in Cochrane reviews - a metaepidemiological study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the language used by systematic review authors to emphasize that statistically nonsignificant results show meaningful differences. To determine whether the magnitude of these treatment effects was distinct from nonsignificant results that authors interpreted as not different. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We screened Cochrane reviews published between 2017 and 2022 for statistically nonsignificant effect estimates that authors presented as meaningful differences. We classified interpretations qualitatively and assessed them quantitatively by calculating the areas under the curve of the portions of confidence intervals exceeding the null or a minimal important difference, indicating one intervention's greater effect. RESULTS: In 2,337 reviews, we detected 139 cases where authors emphasized meaningful differences in nonsignificant results. Authors commonly used qualifying words to express uncertainty (66.9%). Sometimes (26.6%), they made absolute claims about one intervention's greater benefit or harm without acknowledging statistical uncertainty. The areas under the curve analyses indicated that some authors may overstate the importance of nonsignificant differences, whereas others may overlook meaningful differences in nonsignificant effect estimates. CONCLUSION: Nuanced interpretations of statistically nonsignificant results were rare in Cochrane reviews. Our study highlights the need for a more nuanced approach by systematic review authors when interpreting statistically nonsignificant effect estimates.

Transvaginal needle versus laparoscopic ovarian drilling in hormonal profile and pregnancy outcomes of polycystic ovary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a prevalent hormonal disorder distinguished by a persistent absence of ovulation. Ovarian drilling is a recognized therapeutic approach for PCOS patients who are unresponsive to medication and can be performed through invasive laparoscopic access or less-invasive transvaginal access. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of transvaginal ultrasound -guided ovarian needle drilling with conventional laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) in patients with PCOS. METHODS: PUBMED, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from articles published from inception to January 2023. We include RCTs of PCOS that compared transvaginal ovarian drilling and LOD and reported on ovulation and pregnancy rates as the main outcome variable. We evaluated study quality using the Cochrane Risk of bias 2 tool. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed and the certainty of the evidence was assessed according to the GRADE approach. We registered the protocol prospectively in PROSPERO (CRD42023397481). RESULTS: Six RCTs including 899 women with PCOS met the inclusion criteria. LOD was found to significantly reduce anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) (SMD: -0.22; 95% CI: -0.38, -0.05; I2 = 39.85%) and antral follicle count (AFC) (SMD: -1.22; 95% CI: -2.26, -0.19; I2 = 97.55%) compared to transvaginal ovarian drilling. Our findings also indicated that LOD significantly increased the ovulation rate by 25% compared to transvaginal ovarian drilling (RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.54; I2 = 64.58%). However, we found no significant difference between the two groups in terms of follicle stimulating hormone (SMD: 0.04; 95% CI: -0.26, 0.33; I2 = 61.53%), luteinizing hormone (SMD: -0.07; 95% CI: -0.90, 0.77; I2 = 94.92%), and pregnancy rate (RR: 1.37; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.98; I2 = 50.49%). CONCLUSION: LOD significantly lowers circulating AMH and AFC and significantly increases ovulation rate in PCOS patients compared to transvaginal ovarian drilling. As transvaginal ovarian drillingremains a less-invasive, more cost-effective, and simpler alternative, further studies are warranted to compare these two techniques in large cohorts, with a particular focus on ovarian reserve and pregnancy outcomes.

The association between dietary intakes of zinc, vitamin C and COVID-19 severity and related symptoms: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a devastating impact on health systems, food supplies, and population health. This is the first study to examine the association between zinc and vitamin C intakes and the risk of disease severity and symptoms among COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 250 recovered COVID-19 patients aged 18-65 years from June to September 2021. Data on demographics, anthropometrics, medical history, and disease severity and symptoms were collected. Dietary intake was evaluated using a web-based, 168-item food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). The severity of the disease was determined using the most recent version of the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines. Using multivariable binary logistic regression, the association between zinc and vitamin C intakes and the risk of disease severity and symptoms in COVID-19 patients was evaluated. RESULTS: The mean age of participants in this study was 44.1 ± 12.1, 52.4% of them were female, and 46% had a severe form of the disease. Participants with higher zinc intakes had lower levels of inflammatory cytokines, such as C-reactive protein (CRP) (13.6 vs. 25.8 mg/l) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) (15.9 vs. 29.3). In a fully adjusted model, a higher zinc intake was also associated with a lower risk of severe disease (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.21, 0.90, P-trend = 0.03). Similarly, participants with higher vitamin C intakes had lower CRP (10.3 vs. 31.5 mg/l) and ESR serum concentrations (15.6 Vs. 35.6) and lower odds of severe disease after controlling for potential covariates (OR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.14, 0.65, P-trend = <0.01). Furthermore, an inverse association was found between dietary zinc intake and COVID-19 symptoms, such as dyspnea, cough, weakness, nausea and vomiting, and sore throat. Higher vitamin C intake was associated with a lower risk of dyspnea, cough, fever, chills, weakness, myalgia, nausea and vomiting, and sore throat. CONCLUSION: In the current study, higher zinc and vitamin C intakes were associated with decreased odds of developing severe COVID-19 and its common symptoms.

Placenta-associated adverse pregnancy outcomes in women experiencing mild or severe hyperemesis gravidarum - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP) affects 50-80% of pregnant women and is correlated to the level of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG). Hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) is a severe condition, with an incidence of 0.2-1.5%, characterized by consistent nausea, vomiting, weight loss and dehydration continuing after the second trimester. AIM: The aim of this systematic review was to investigate a potential correlation between NVP or HG with adverse pregnancy outcomes and hCG levels. METHOD: A systematic search in PubMed, Embase and CINAHL Complete was conducted. Studies on pregnant women with nausea in the first or second trimester, reporting either pregnancy outcomes or levels of hCG were included. The primary outcomes were preterm delivery (PTD), preeclampsia, miscarriage, and fetal growth restriction. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I. The overall certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: The search resulted in 2023 potentially relevant studies; 23 were included. The evidence was uncertain for all outcomes, however women with HG had a tendency to have an increased risk for preeclampsia [odds ratio (OR) 1.18, 95% confidence of interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.35], PTD [OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.61], small for gestational age (SGA) [OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.35], and low birth weight (LBW) [OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.44]. Further, a higher fetal female/male ratio was observed [OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.60]. Meta-analyses were not performed for women with NVP; however, most of these studies indicated that women with NVP have a lower risk for PTD and LBW and a higher risk for SGA, and a higher fetal female/male ratio. CONCLUSION: There may be an increased risk in women with HG and a decreased risk in women with NVP for adverse placenta-associated pregnancy outcomes, however the evidence is very uncertain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42021281218.

Non-opioid analgesics for procedural pain in neonates.

BACKGROUND: Neonates are an extremely vulnerable patient population, with 6% to 9% admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) following birth. Neonates admitted to the NICU will undergo multiple painful procedures per day throughout their stay. There is increasing evidence that frequent and repetitive exposure to painful stimuli is associated with poorer outcomes later in life. To date, a wide variety of pain control mechanisms have been developed and implemented to address procedural pain in neonates. This review focused on non-opioid analgesics, specifically non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists, which alleviate pain through inhibiting cellular pathways to achieve analgesia.  The analgesics considered in this review show potential for pain relief in clinical practice; however, an evidence summation compiling the individual drugs they comprise and outlining the benefits and harms of their administration is lacking. We therefore sought to summarize the evidence on the level of pain experienced by neonates both during and following procedures; relevant drug-related adverse events, namely episodes of apnea, desaturation, bradycardia, and hypotension; and the effects of combinations of drugs.  As the field of neonatal procedural pain management is constantly evolving, this review aimed to ascertain the scope of non-opioid analgesics for neonatal procedural pain to provide an overview of the options available to better inform evidence-based clinical practice.  OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of non-opioid analgesics in neonates (term or preterm) exposed to procedural pain compared to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics, or different routes of administration. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, and two trial registries in June 2022. We screened the reference lists of included studies for studies not identified by the database searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs in neonates (term or preterm) undergoing painful procedures comparing NSAIDs and NMDA receptor antagonists to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics, or different routes of administration.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcomes were pain assessed during the procedure and up to 10 minutes after the procedure with a validated scale; episodes of bradycardia; episodes of apnea; and hypotension requiring medical therapy. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs involving a total of 269 neonates conducted in Nigeria and India.  NMDA receptor antagonists versus no treatment, placebo, oral sweet solution, or non-pharmacological intervention One RCT evaluated using oral ketamine (10 mg/kg body weight) versus sugar syrup (66.7% w/w at 1 mL/kg body weight) for neonatal circumcision.  The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ketamine on pain score during the procedure, assessed with the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS), compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) -0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.32 to -0.58; 1 RCT; 145 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes of interest were reported on. Head-to-head comparison of different analgesics One RCT evaluated using intravenous fentanyl versus intravenous ketamine during laser photocoagulation for retinopathy of prematurity. Neonates receiving ketamine followed an initial regimen (0.5 mg/kg bolus 1 minute before procedure) or a revised regimen (additional intermittent bolus doses of 0.5 mg/kg every 10 minutes up to a maximum of 2 mg/kg), while those receiving fentanyl followed either an initial regimen (2 µg/kg over 5 minutes, 15 minutes before the procedure, followed by 1 µg/kg/hour as a continuous infusion) or a revised regimen (titration of 0.5 µg/kg/hour every 15 minutes to a maximum of 3 µg/kg/hour). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ketamine compared with fentanyl on pain score assessed with the Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised (PIPP-R) scores during the procedure (MD 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.20; 1 RCT; 124 participants; very low-certainty evidence); on episodes of apnea occurring during the procedure (risk ratio (RR) 0.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.18; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.00; 1 study; 124 infants; very low-certainty evidence); and on hypotension requiring medical therapy occurring during the procedure (RR 5.53, 95% CI 0.27 to 112.30; RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.10; 1 study; 124 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The included study did not report pain score assessed up to 10 minutes after the procedure or episodes of bradycardia occurring during the procedure. We did not identify any studies comparing NSAIDs versus no treatment, placebo, oral sweet solution, or non-pharmacological intervention or different routes of administration of the same analgesics. We identified three studies awaiting classification.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The two small included studies comparing ketamine versus either placebo or fentanyl, with very low-certainty evidence, rendered us unable to draw meaningful conclusions. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ketamine on pain score during the procedure compared with placebo or fentanyl. We found no evidence on NSAIDs or studies comparing different routes of administration. Future research should prioritize large studies evaluating non-opioid analgesics in this population. As the studies included in this review suggest potential positive effects of ketamine administration, studies evaluating ketamine are of interest. Furthermore, as we identified no studies on NSAIDs, which are widely used in older infants, or comparing different routes of administration, such studies should be a priority going forward.

Cost-Effectiveness of First- and Second-Step Treatment Strategies for Major Depressive Disorder : A Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is the most prevalent, disabling form of depression, with a high economic effect. PURPOSE: To assess evidence on cost-effectiveness of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions as first- and second-step treatments in patients with MDD. DATA SOURCES: Multiple electronic databases limited to English language were searched (1 January 2015 to 29 November 2022). STUDY SELECTION: Two investigators independently screened the literature. Seven economic modeling studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Data abstraction by a single investigator was confirmed by a second; 2 investigators independently rated risk of bias. One investigator determined certainty of evidence, and another checked for plausibility. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seven modeling studies met the eligibility criteria. In a U.S. setting over a 5-year time horizon, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) was cost-effective compared with second-generation antidepressants (SGAs) as a first-step treatment from the societal and health care sector perspectives. However, the certainty of evidence is low, and the findings should be interpreted cautiously. For second-step treatment, only switch strategies between SGAs were assessed. The evidence is insufficient to draw any conclusions. LIMITATIONS: Methodologically heterogeneous studies, which compared only CBT and some SGAs, were included. No evidence on other psychotherapies or complementary and alternative treatments as first-step treatment or augmentation strategies as second-step treatment was available. CONCLUSION: Although CBT may be cost-effective compared with SGAs as a first-step treatment at a 5-year time horizon from the societal and health care sector perspectives, the certainty of evidence is low, and the findings need to be interpreted cautiously. For other comparisons, the evidence was entirely missing or insufficient to draw conclusions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians.

Values and Preferences of Patients With Depressive Disorders Regarding Pharmacologic and Nonpharmacologic Treatments : A Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: Developers of clinical practice guidelines need to take patient values and preferences into consideration when weighing benefits and harms of treatment options for depressive disorder. PURPOSE: To assess patient values and preferences regarding pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments of depressive disorder. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid) and PsycINFO (EBSCO) were searched for eligible studies published from 1 January 2014 to 30 November 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Pairs of reviewers independently screened 30% of search results. The remaining 70% of the abstracts were screened by single reviewers; excluded abstracts were checked by a second reviewer. Pairs of reviewers independently screened full texts. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence, and a second reviewer checked for completeness and accuracy. Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias. DATA SYNTHESIS: The review included 11 studies: 4 randomized controlled trials, 5 cross-sectional studies, and 2 qualitative studies. In 1 randomized controlled trial, participants reported at the start of therapy that they expected supportive-expressive psychotherapy and antidepressants to yield similar improvements. A cross-sectional study reported that non-Hispanic White participants and men generally preferred antidepressants over talk therapy, whereas Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black participants and women generally did not have a preference. Another cross-sectional study reported that the most important nonserious adverse events for patients treated with antidepressants were insomnia, anxiety, fatigue, weight gain, agitation, and sexual dysfunction. For other comparisons and outcomes, no conclusions could be drawn because of the insufficient certainty of evidence. LIMITATIONS: The main limitation of this review is the low or insufficient certainty of evidence for most outcomes. No evidence was available on second-step depression treatment or differences in values and preferences based on gender, race/ethnicity, age, and depression severity. CONCLUSION: Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may be some differences in preferences for talk therapy or pharmacologic treatment of depressive disorders based on gender or race/ethnicity. In addition, low-certainty evidence suggests that insomnia, anxiety, fatigue, weight gain, agitation, and sexual dysfunction may be the most important nonserious adverse events for patients treated with antidepressants. Evidence is lacking or insufficient to draw any further conclusions about patients' weighing or valuation of the benefits and harms of depression treatments. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42020212442).

Nonpharmacologic and Pharmacologic Treatments of Adult Patients With Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for a Clinical Guideline by the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Primary care patients and clinicians may prefer alternative options to second-generation antidepressants for major depressive disorder (MDD). PURPOSE: To compare the benefits and harms of nonpharmacologic treatments with second-generation antidepressants as first-step interventions for acute MDD, and to compare second-step treatment strategies for patients who did not achieve remission after an initial attempt with antidepressants. DATA SOURCES: English-language studies from several electronic databases from 1 January 1990 to 8 August 2022, trial registries, gray literature databases, and reference lists to identify unpublished research. STUDY SELECTION: 2 investigators independently selected randomized trials of at least 6 weeks' duration. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers abstracted data about study design and conduct, participants, interventions, and outcomes. They dually rated the risk of bias of studies and the certainty of evidence for outcomes of interest. DATA SYNTHESIS: 65 randomized trials met the inclusion criteria; eligible data from nonrandomized studies were not found. Meta-analyses and network meta-analyses indicated similar benefits of most nonpharmacologic treatments and antidepressants as first-step treatments. Antidepressants had higher risks for discontinuation because of adverse events than most other treatments. For second-step therapies, different switching and augmentation strategies provided similar symptomatic relief. The certainty of evidence for most comparisons is low; findings should be interpreted cautiously. LIMITATIONS: Many studies had methodological limitations or dosing inequalities; publication bias might have affected some comparisons. In some cases, conclusions could not be drawn because of insufficient evidence. CONCLUSION: Although benefits seem to be similar among first- and second-step MDD treatments, the certainty of evidence is low for most comparisons. Clinicians and patients should focus on options with the most reliable evidence and take adverse event profiles and patient preferences into consideration. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42020204703).

Outpatient Treatment of Confirmed COVID-19: A Living, Rapid Review for the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians and patients want to know the benefits and harms of outpatient treatment options for SARS-CoV-2 infection. PURPOSE: To assess the benefits and harms of 12 different COVID-19 treatments in the outpatient setting. DATA SOURCES: Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE Platform, searched on 4 April 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts against a priori-defined criteria. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared COVID-19 treatments in adult outpatients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence (COE). A second reviewer verified data abstraction and assessments. DATA SYNTHESIS: The 26 included studies collected data before the emergence of the Omicron variant. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduced hospitalizations (1% vs. 6% [1 RCT] and 1% vs. 4% [1 RCT], respectively; moderate COE). Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir probably reduced all-cause mortality (0% vs. 1% [1 RCT]; moderate COE), and regdanvimab probably improved recovery (87% vs. 72% [1 RCT]; moderate COE). Casirivimab-imdevimab reduced time to recovery by a median difference of 4 days (10 vs. 14 median days [1 RCT]; high COE). Molnupiravir may reduce all-cause mortality, sotrovimab may reduce hospitalization, and remdesivir may improve recovery (low COE). Lopinavir-ritonavir and azithromycin may have increased harms, and hydroxychloroquine may result in lower recovery rates (low COE). Other treatments had insufficient evidence or no statistical difference in efficacy and safety versus placebo. LIMITATION: Many outcomes had few events and small samples. CONCLUSION: Some antiviral medications and monoclonal antibodies may improve outcomes for outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. However, the generalizability of the findings to the currently dominant Omicron variant is limited. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022323440).

Risk of Contrast-Associated Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Undergoing Peripheral Angiography with Carbon Dioxide Compared to Iodine-Containing Contrast Agents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the comparative evidence on the risk of contrast-associated acute kidney injury (CA-AKI) with CO2 or iodinated contrast medium (ICM) for peripheral vascular interventions. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, Epistemonikos, PubMed-similar-articles, clinical trial registries, journal websites, and reference lists up to February 2022. We included studies comparing the risk of CA-AKI in patients who received CO2 or ICM for peripheral angiography with or without endovascular intervention. Two reviewers screened the references and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We extracted data on study population, interventions and outcomes. For the risk of CA-AKI as our primary outcome of interest, we calculated risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and performed random-effects meta-analyses. We identified three RCTs and five cohort studies that fully met our eligibility criteria. Based on a random-effects meta-analysis, the risk of CA-AKI was lower with CO2 compared to ICM (8.6% vs. 15.2%; RR, 0.59; 95% CI 0.33-1.04). Only limited results from a few studies were available on procedure and fluoroscopy time, radiation dose and CO2-related adverse events. The evidence suggests that the use of CO2 for peripheral vascular interventions reduces the risk of CA-AKI compared to ICM. However, due to the relevant residual risk of CA-AKI with the use of CO2, other AKI risk factors must be considered in patients undergoing peripheral vascular interventions.

Characteristics and recovery methods of studies falsely excluded during literature screening-a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Due to the growing need to provide evidence syntheses under time constraints, researchers have begun focusing on the exploration of rapid review methods, which often employ single-reviewer literature screening. However, single-reviewer screening misses, on average, 13% of relevant studies, compared to 3% with dual-reviewer screening. Little guidance exists regarding methods to recover studies falsely excluded during literature screening. Likewise, it is unclear whether specific study characteristics can predict an increased risk of false exclusion. This systematic review aimed to identify supplementary search methods that can be used to recover studies falsely excluded during literature screening. Moreover, it strove to identify study-level predictors that indicate an elevated risk of false exclusions of studies during literature screening. METHODS: We performed literature searches for eligible studies in MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Current Contents Connect, Embase, Epistemonikos.org, and Information Science & Technology Abstracts from 1999 to June 23, 2020. We searched for gray literature, checked reference lists, and conducted hand searches in two relevant journals and similar article searches current to January 28, 2021. Two investigators independently screened the literature; one investigator performed the data extraction, and a second investigator checked for correctness and completeness. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias of eligible studies. We synthesized the results narratively. RESULTS: Three method studies, two with a case-study design and one with a case-series design, met the inclusion criteria. One study reported that all falsely excluded publications (8%) could be recovered through reference list checking compared to other supplementary search methods. No included methods study analyzed the impact of recovered studies on conclusions or meta-analyses. Two studies reported that up to 8% of studies were falsely excluded due to uninformative titles and abstracts, and one study showed that 11% of non-English studies were falsely excluded. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the limited evidence based on two case studies and one case series, we can draw no firm conclusion about the most reliable and most valid method to recover studies falsely excluded during literature screening or about the characteristics that might predict a higher risk of false exclusion. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/v2pjr/.

Robot-Assisted vs. Open Appendicovesicostomy in Pediatric Urology: A Systematic Review and Single-Center Case Series.

Introduction: Appendicovesicostomy (APV) is the preferred choice of continent catheterizable channels in pediatric urology. The introduction of robot-assisted laparoscopic techniques has been correlated to superior cosmesis and convalescence and is now increasingly implemented for APV procedures. We aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature comparing open vs. robotic APV regarding possible differences in postoperative outcomes and to evaluate these findings with our own initial experiences with robotic APV compared to our previous open procedures. Methods: We evaluated the first five patients undergoing robotic APV at our institution and compared 1-year outcomes with a consecutive series of 12 patients undergoing open APV. In a systematic literature review, we screened studies from PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL comparing open and robotic APV in pediatric urology (current to December 2021) and performed meta-analyses on postoperative outcomes comparing the two groups and evaluated the grade of evidence. Results: We found significantly shortened postoperative length of stay in the robotic group (p = 0.001) and comparable 1-year complication rates in robotic vs. open APV patients. We systematically screened 3,204 studies and ultimately included three non-randomized studies comparing postoperative outcomes of robotic and open APV for quantitative analysis. The open and robotic approaches performed equally well regarding overall postoperative complications, surgical reintervention, and stomal stenosis. Two of the included studies reported comparable stomal continence rates and shortened postoperative length of stay in the robotic group, in agreement with the findings in our own series. Conclusion: Robotic APV is equally safe to the conventional open approach with additional advantages in postoperative hospitalization length.